Sitting of 4 June 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
BRECONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.
MARQUESS OF ABERGAVENNY'S ESTATE BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  INISTRY OF WORKS

    Electrical Components, Scotland
    Major Ramsayasked the Minister of Works whether he will consider taking action to increase the availability of essential maintenance and development requirements of the electricity industry in Scotland, in view of the fact that the shortage of these things is holding up our export trade and the fabrication of materials required for housing to an alarming extent.
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the shortage of materials for use in electrical work and accessories in Scotland; and whether he will, in collaboration with the Minister of Supply, arrange for materials to be available to the electrical contracting industry in Scotland, in order that full employment may be found for skilled electricians who otherwise may be paid off
    1786
    and for those returning from active service.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlin-son): I am aware of the shortage of electrical components, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is taking all possible steps to increase production. I am not aware that the shortage is more acute in Scotland than elsewhere but I am prepared to look into any particular case that hon. Members may have specially in mind.
    Major Ramsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this matter will be treated with all possible urgency?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.
    Major Lloyd: Would the Minister agree that it is a very serious thing that there are highly skilled trained electricians of many years' service who are having to be paid off because of the situation which has developed in Scotland as a result of that shortage?
    Mr. Tomlinson: For that reason we are doing all we can to increase production.

    Hurstmonceux Castle
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works who, in future, is to be responsible for the architectural upkeep of Hurstmonceux Castle as an historic monument.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Hurstmonceux Castle will be under the control of the Admiralty, who will consult my Department in connection with the maintenance of the historic portions of the building.
    Mr. Bossom: Is it not very important that this most historic building, one of the very best of its kind that we have in this country, should be under the control of the Ancient Monuments Department and not left to the Admiralty alone to deal with it? Will the right hon. Gentleman not reverse the consultations the other way?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into it. I do not know which of them is the most important, but I know one is.

    Temporary Houses, Lambeth
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works why only 268 of the proposed 877 emergency factory-made houses have so far been handed over in

    1787
    the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth; and what steps he will take to expedite completion of its full programme.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The number of sites handed over by the Lambeth Borough Council is 690. Except for 21 houses, the type of temporary house allocated to the council was Uni-Seco. The demand for this type of house has exceeded the rate of production and supplies have had to be rationed. To relieve the situation a number of Arcon houses are being sent to Lambeth.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not one factory-made house has been handed over to the borough council down Lambeth way for nearly two months, and will he not give some well merited priority to this borough?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into that. I was not aware of it.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say whether the foundations of the Uni-Seco are equally satisfactory for the Arcon house?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, the Arcon can be put on the Uni-Seco foundations.

    Victory Celebrations (Labour and Cost)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Works the total cost of the preparations for the celebrations on 8th June.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The works expenditure by my Department on preparations for the Victory Celebrations will be in the region of £100,000. This does not include expenditure on personnel marching in the procession, entertainments, or hospitality.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister tell us what the scaffolding on the Terrace is for? Has it anything to do with the men from Nuremburg?
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Works what quantity of timber will be used in connection with the preparation for the celebrations on 8th June; how many men have been, and will be, engaged on erecting stands, poles and other paraphernalia in connection therewith; and how many man hours have been, and will be, spent on this work.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The amount of new timber, excluding poles, used in preparation for the Victory Celebrations is 25 standards. The average amount of building labour employed during the work is 453 and the total of building labour man hours is 226,500. In addition, 22,000 man hours will be utilised in dismantling, and 145,500 man hours of engineering labour will be employed on engineering works.
    Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some sort of estimate of how many houses could have been built by the men in that time?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I cannot give an estimate of that, but what I can say is that the timber which is being used will be available for that purpose when it is taken down.
    Major Cecil Poole: Can the Minister say how many man hours were employed in getting out these statistics?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Marples: What proportion of this timber can be used after it has been sawn up for this scaffolding?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should want to know for what purpose.

    Glass
    Major Mott-Radelyffeasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to make available some supplies of glass for picture framers and other art dealers who depend for their livelihood upon adequate supplies of glass.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Although most of the capacity of the industry has had to be concentrated upon the production of glass for housing and other priority requirements, there is a limited quantity of glass available for other uses including picture framing. It is also possible to obtain imports from abroad at a rather higher price.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Domestic Coal
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that there was a considerable amount of slate and other non-combustible material in the household coal delivered to the people of East Kent during the winter; and if supplies of coal for householders

    1789
    in East Kent will be of a higher quality during the winter of 1946–47 than they were last winter.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I am aware that there has been some deterioration in the quality of coal owing to shortage of labour at the collieries for sorting and preparing the coal for market, and the need for using all the coal produced. There is no evidence to suggest, however, that the quality of domestic supplies in East Kent has been below the general standard. With regard to the second part of the Question, everything possible will continue to be done to maintain the quality of domestic coal at as high a level as conditions permit.

    Peat
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action his Department is taking to increase the use of peat as fuel in this country.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Our regional officers have instructions to give all the assistance they can, on such matters, for example, as the supply of plant, to commercial peat producers who seek their aid. In addition, the Ministry has itself begun the production of peat fuel on a small scale in Dumfriesshire. We are also considering proposals for large scale production on a highly mechanised basis, though my right hon. Friend is not yet satisfied that this is an economic proposition.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Will the large scale production be by the Ministry or by private enterprise?
    Mr. Gaitskell: By the Ministry.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the danger of shortage of coal next winter and his unwillingness to permit German prisoners of war to work in British coal pits, he will employ them cutting peat throughout the summer so that the people will have some additional fuel for their homes.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. German prisoners of war are already employed on peat cutting in this country, and we intend to increase the numbers engaged on this work.

    Gas and Electricity (Rents of Appliances)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider introducing legislation to provide that when an occupier has paid by means of rent to any gas or electricity company the cost of the meter or appliance rented, together with installation charges, the rental fee should cease forthwith.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am aware of the dissatisfaction on this matter. But a change in the methods of charging for gas and electricity meters and appliances raises many complicated issues and can be dealt with far more effectively when both industries have been brought under national ownership.

    Petrol
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the tonnage of petrol imported into this country in April, 1945, and April, 1946, respectively.
    Mr. Gaitskell: According to the Trade and Navigation Accounts, imports of motor spirit into the United Kingdom in April, 1946, were 352,000 tons. The corresponding figure for April, 1945, was 371,000 tons.
    Sir T. Moore: Can we infer from that reply that, in view of the fact that petrol is not now required in such great quantities for the Services, we can look forward to an early increase in the basic ration?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.
    Sir T. Moore: Why not?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Because every additional gallon of petrol we consume in the home market has to be paid for in dollars.
    Sir T. Moore: A most unsatisfactory answer.
    Mr. Wadsworthasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the cost of the administration of the petrol rationing system of control; and the number of employees engaged in this administration.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The number of staff employed on petrol rationing on 1st June, 1946, in England, Scotland and Wales was 1,786. The cost of this staff is approximately £460,000 per annum. In addition, the cost of petroleum ration-

    1791
    ing in Northern Ireland, amounting to approximately £45,000 per annum, is reimbursed by this Ministry.
    Mr. Wadsworth: In view of the large cost of administering the petrol rationing scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider abolishing petrol rationing in order to bring us into line with other countries in Europe? Does he not realise that such action would release a large number of employees who are wanted urgently in other industries?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is nothing my right hon. Friend would like to do more than abolish petrol rationing, but unfortunately, as I explained earlier, it would cost us a lot more dollars if he were to do so.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: How can the hon. Gentleman explain his.answer about dollars, in view of the fact that in Burma oil from which petrol can be refined can be obtained without the necessity of having to spend any dollars at all?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We have, over the sterling area as a whole, to import petrol from dollar sources.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that petrol stocks in this country today are greater than at any time in its history?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that is relevant to the Question.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proportion of the 351,000,000 gallons of petrol imported into this country, in the first two months of 1946, was purchased with dollar exchange.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The figure of 351,000,000 gallons of petrol, mentioned by the hon. Member, relates to the quantities of imported petrol which entered home consumption during the first two months of the year, and not to the imports into this country, which were 283,000,000 gallons during these months. of this quantity about 46 per cent. were purchased with dollar exchange.
    Mr. Spence: In view of that answer, how does the hon. Gentleman justify the reply which he gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), to Question No. 19.
    Mr. Gaitskell: It seems to me to justify that reply completely.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much less petrol is used per month now than was used in the latest corresponding month prewar for which he has statistics and how petrol imported per month now compares with petrol imported in the latest prewar corresponding month.
    Mr. Gaitskell: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister not do away with this nonsense of petrol rationing?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already expressed my views on that subject.
    Following is the answer:
    The quantities of motor spirit imported and of imported motor spirit entered for home consumption in the month of March, 1946 and 1939 respectively, as published in the Trade and Navigation Accounts, were as follow:

    Imports

    Gallons.

    March, 1946

    …

    …

    …

    182,000,000

    March, 1939

    …

    …

    …

    135,000,000

    March, 1938

    …

    …

    …

    121,000,000

    Imported Motor Spirit entered for Home Consumption

    Gallons.

    March 1946

    …

    …

    …

    85,000,000

    March, 1939

    …

    …

    …

    118,000,000

    March, 1938

    …

    …

    …

    109,000,000

    Both series of figures include military as well as civil requirements.

    Coal Supplies, Hull
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the amount of domestic coal supplied to Hull in the four weeks ended 25th May; what percentage this amount was of the full allocation to the City; and what percentage of their allocation was supplied, respectively, to the Co-operative Society, Risdale & Walkers, and the other merchants.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The amount of house coal supplied during the four weeks ended 25th May to the Hull district, which includes some areas outside the city, was 19,667 tons, this being 102.8 per cent. of the allocation. The receipts of the Hull

    1793
    Co-operative Society, Messrs. Ridsdale and Walker, Limited, and other merchants were, respectively, 102.2, no.3 and 102.5 Per cent- of their allocations.
    Commander Pursey: Will my hon. Friend say why the district house coal officer in Hull refused to give to the merchants there information about monthly supplies, which is their only check against maldistribution? Seeing that the security reasons previously given no longer exist, why should not this information be given to the trade?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would be happy to look into that matter, and communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Production and Prices
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what amount of coal was produced in April, 1945, and in April, 1946, respectively; and what was the price of household coal to the consumer during the same months.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Output of deep mined coal in April, 1946, was 3,252,400 tons a week, and the corresponding figure for April, 1945, was 3,413,700 tons a week. It should be noted, however that the whole of the Easter holidays fell in April in 1946, whereas only part was included in 1945.
    The retail price of household coal varies considerably, according to the grade of the coal and the area in which it is sold. In the Northern Region, where costs of distribution are low, the average retail price of representative grades of household coal was 55s. per ton in April, 1945, and 58s. 6d. per ton in April, 1946. Corresponding figures for the South-Eastern Region, where the costs of distribution are high, are 78s. 2d. and 8is. 8d. respectively, and for Scotland, which is in an intermediate position, 62s. 6d. and 66s.
    Sir T. Moore: Arising out of those most interesting and thought provoking figures, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government's policy of nationalisation is likely to lead to cheaper and more coal?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, Sir.
    Sir T. Moore: What an optimist.

    By.Product Plants
    Mr. Harold Nealasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has any statement to make concerning the future public ownership of coal by-product industries.
    Major Peter Robertsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any further statement to make with regard to nationalising carbonisation and other utilisation plants.
    Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any further statement on this matter at present.
    Major Roberts: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the statement made by the Minister recently at Bolsover, that carbonisation plants were not to be brought into the nationalisation net?
    Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend was not then in a position to make a full statement about carbonisation and by-products plants.
    Mr. Jennings: How much longer must these industries suffer this uncertainty?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Not for long.

    Polish Miners
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what arrangements he is making for employment in the mines of those Polish soldiers who wish to work in the mines, and who will be returning to this country under the scheme recently announced.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Steps are being taken to identify the Polish soldiers who have had underground coalmining experience, and who are sufficiently acquainted with the English language to work safely in British mines. Those who are willing will then be placed in British mines, subject to the necessary consultation and agreement of the trade union representatives.
    Mr. Marples: Have any steps been taken to obtain agreement?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The matter has been discussed with the National Union of Mineworkers.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Bricklayers
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Labour up to what group bricklayers have been offered release under Class B.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards):
    There are a number of different sub-classifications under the general heading " bricklayers."In the Army different groups have been reached in different cases and again in different arms of the Service. As a result of additional offers recently authorised the furthest group to be reached in any of these occupations in any arm at present is group 65, but in some occupations and in some arms that group has not been reached. As regards the Navy and Royal Air Force, I understand that, with the exception of those persons who cannot be spared, virtually every bricklayer with more than one year's service who is not due for early release in Class A has been offered release in Class B.
    Mr. Cocks: If I give the Minister instances of men in earlier groups who were formerly bricklayers and who have not been offered release, will he look into them?
    Mr. Edwards: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. C. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman press the Army to let the men out, since it is the Army which is holding them up?
    Mr. Edwards: Some 26,000 have been asked for—5,000 recently—and of that number 19,609 have been released under Class B.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently a bricklayer foreman was refused release because he could not be an instructor?
    Mr. Edwards: I should like details of the case.

    Students
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Labour if he will extend the arrangements for the extension of Class B scheme for release of students, Groups 1 to 55, to students of architecture who are not studying at the universities.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: My right hon. Friend is at present in consultation with
    1796
    his right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter.

    Horticultural Workers
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Labour why nursery workers are not included in the specified categories of agricultural workers who are being offered Class B release from the Forces.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Nursery workers are included in the specified categories if they are engaged in food production.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: If I show the Minister cases where this policy does not seem to have applied in practice will he look into them for me?
    Mr. Edwards:. Most sympathetically.

    Release Programme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the programme of releases from His Majesty's Forces up to 31st December, 1946.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to go beyond the programme already announced for releases from the Forces up to 30th September.
    Mr. Swingler: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to make a statement on releases at the end of the year?
    Mr. Edwards: I understand, soon after the Recess.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister-of Labour how many applicants are waiting for admission to vocational training centres; and how many applications have been refused to date on grounds of un-suitability or ineligibility.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: 21,884 persons are now awaiting admission to training centres. 11,960 have been rejected on grounds of unsuitability or ineligibility.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that the proposal to bring men of the Polish Army to this country and provide them with resettlement training will not further delay the training of those British ex-Servicemen now waiting for admission to vocational training centres.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. I can certainly give that assurance.
    Mr. Beswick: May I ask the Minister whether these Poles will be under the same restrictions when taking employment as are other aliens or will they be privileged?
    Mr. Edwards: I should require notice of that question. The matter is now being worked out by a committee.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Would the Minister go a little further and give us an assurance that as far as actual jobs are concerned our own ex-Servicemen will have an absolute priority?
    Mr. Edwards: I think I can give that assurance.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in connection with the training of Poles for industry, he proposes to establish separate bases where they can have a chance to learn the language as well?
    Mr. Edwards: That matter is under consideration.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the check kept by his officers does ensure that the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, are being operated.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: My right hon. Friend has every reason to think that employers generally are carrying out their obligations under this Act with good will, and he has not so far thought it necessary to institute regular inspections.
    Mr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend see that such inspections are carried out if I send him evidence of the avoidance of this Act?
    Mr. Edwards: If we can have details of any such cases we shall certainly look into them, and we have ample power to deal with them.
    Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are over 750 persons on the Disabled Register, registered as unemployed in the Oldham area; and whether he is prepared to consider the establishment of a training centre in this area for disabled men.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: At the moment there are 699 registered disabled persons
    1798
    in the Oldham area who are unemployed. Arrangements have already been made to open a Centre in Oldham to provide training for the cotton spinning industry and other Centres are available in the Manchester area within reasonable travelling distance. The Disabled Persons Employment Corporation also have plans for a sheltered workshop in the town.

    Building Training
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the establishment of a training centre for building, operatives in the West Cumberland development area.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Labour the number of trainees in the building industry for whom accommodation will be available by 1st August, 1946; and if he will give an assurance that there will be sufficient equipment and instructors to make full use of all available facilities.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I anticipate that by 1st August approximately 16,500 places will be available for the trainees in the building industry. Certain items of equipment are in short supply, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, whose Department is responsible for supplying the training centres, assures me that everything possible is being done to provide the necessary supplies and equipment. As regards instructors, I do not anticipate much difficulty.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that it is useless to try to train technical men unless you have the proper equipment with which to train them? The Government are starting their prefabricated programme, and unless they have proper equipment they cannot train men in these details.
    Mr. Edwards: I quite agree, Sir.

    Cotton Spinning Operatives
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Labour the number of operatives employed in the spinning industry in April, 1945 and 1946, respectively.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is estimated that the number of insured persons together with women in part-time employment, two of whom are counted as one unit, in employment in the cotton spinning industry was 113,600 at mid-1945 and

    1799
    123,100 at March, 1946. These are the nearest dates for which information is available. The figures include administrative and clerical workers as well as operatives, for whom separate statistics are not available. Particulars are not available as to the numbers employed in the spinning sections of other textile industries
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister satisfied with this very small rise, which is only some 7 or 8 per cent., having regard to the fact that most of our coupon difficulties in clothing are due to the spining bottleneck; and what steps is he taking?
    Mr. Edwards: I should have thought that the steps which are being taken were well known to the House in view of the recent report.
    Captain MacLeod: Owing to the very unsatisfactory state of the woollen spinning industry, surely the Minister ought to know the figures of that industry if he is looking seriously into it?
    Mr. Edwards: I was asked the figures for spinning only.

    Further Education and Training
    Lieut-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of applications for grants which have been made since 5th March, 1946, up to the latest available date by Service and ex-Service personnel under the Further Education and Training Scheme; and the number of these applications which have been accepted and the number rejected.
    Mr. Edwards: From 1st March to 31st May, 1946, 16,184 applications were received from Service and ex-Servicemen and women for assistance under the Further Education and Training Scheme. The numbers of awards and rejections in respect of these applications are not readily available and could only be obtained by a disproportionate expenditure of time which would not be justified. The numbers of awards and rejections actually made during this period which relate to these and earlier applications were 10,346 and 2,129 respectively.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme is making good progress since there are complaints of lagging?
    Mr. Edwards: On the whole we are satisfied that equity is being given to the applicants.

    Outer Hebrides
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour the number of registered male unemployed in the Storno-way employment exchange area at the most recent representative date; and the total for the Outer Hebrides as a whole.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: At 8th April, the latest date for which figures are at present available, the number of unemployed insured males, aged 14 and under 65 years, suitable for ordinary employment, on the registers of Stornoway Employment Exchange was 1,945. I regret that separate statistics are not available as to the numbers of unemployed persons in other areas of the Outer Hebrides.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the alarming and rapidly rising number of unemployed will the Minister say whether the Government have any policy other than sending the rest of the Polish army up to Scotland?

    Demobilised Men (Unemployment Pay)
    Mr. Julius Silvermanasked the Minister of Labour whether unemployment benefit is paid to men released from the Forces under Class B and who have had no employment provided by his Department on the expiration of their demobilisation leave.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. In cases of this nature which are exceptional, unemployment benefit is payable subject to the usual conditions.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman see that specific instructions are issued from his Department to local employment exchanges, because at present there seems to be some misunderstanding?
    Mr. Edwards: There seems to me no reason for misunderstanding. It is generally known that these men are entitled to benefit.

    UNIVERSITIES (ENTRANTS)
    Mr. Charles Smithasked the Minister of Labour what he estimates will be the number of men and women, respectively, who will begin to read for a first

    1801
    degree at the beginning of the next university year in the autumn of 1946; what the comparable figures were for autumn 1938; and how many of those referred to in the first part of the Question will be ex-Service personnel.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not in a position to make such an estimate as regards the autumn of 1946. As regards the autumn of 1938, I am informed that the figures were roughly 9,000 men and 3,000 women. The number of ex-Service personnel entering Universities in the autumn of 1946 will undoubtedly be large, but cannot be definitely known until September.
    Mr. Smith: Will the horn Gentleman give an indication of when he will be in a position to give a reply to the first part of the Question?
    Mr. Edwards: As the applications are now being received by the Ministry it is impossible to estimate the number that will be forthcoming, but it will be very large indeed.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the proportion of ex-Servicemen will reach the 90 per cent. suggested in the recent circular?
    Mr. Edwards: We are afraid that in many cases it will far exceed that figure.

    MARRIED WOMEN'S NATIONALITY (DOMINION CONSULTATIONS)
    Major Symondsasked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make on the recent conversations with the Dominions Prime Ministers on the question of the nationality of married women.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As a result of discussions at the meeting of Prime Ministers, arrangements were made for informal talks between officials of the Governments of the Dominions represented at the meeting and United Kingdom officials on nationality questions generally with special reference to the particular problem of the nationality of married women. These officials will now report to their respective Governments and the next step will be an exchange of views between Governments for the purpose, amongst others, of overcoming the difficulties which have existed in the past regarding the national status of married women.
    Major Symonds: Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to see that these discussions are not unduly prolonged and that this country will follow the excellent lead already given by Canada and Australia in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly see that the discussions are not unduly prolonged, but I would not like to anticipate any decision at the moment.
    Sir T. Moore: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the discussions to which he refers have retrospective application to women concerned in the last war, of whom I have forwarded him a number of examples?
    The Prime Minister: That is obviously a matter to be considered if at any time legislation should be introduced.

    MINISTER OF FOOD (CABINET MEMBERSHIP)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the importance of the food problem, he proposes to invite the Minister of Food to be a member of the Cabinet.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Minister of Food is invited to attend the Cabinet when matters affecting his Department are under consideration.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the reason for that unsatisfactory answer the fact that the problem is not considered sufficiently important, or if it is not, will the Prime Minister say what it is?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member mistakes the functions of the Cabinet. My hon. Friend the Minister of Food will be present at the Cabinet on all occasions when matters touching on or affecting his Department are concerned. It is impossible, without extending the numbers of the Cabinet far beyond what is desirable, that all departmental Ministers should be Cabinet Ministers, and it is no reflection whatever on the importance of any particular subject whether or not a Minister is included in the Cabinet. Obviously food questions are very much under discussion at the moment.
    Mr. Lipson: Would the Prime Minister consider making the Minister of Food a Member of the Cabinet so long as the present emergency exists?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir I do not think that would be desirable. It would be an "In and out " method. It would be difficult with regard to the "In," and even more difficult with regard to coming " out."
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Has the Prime Minister considered the desirability of combining the Ministry of Food with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the fact that these matters are very urgent and important was an obvious reason why one should not try to combine them and put extra duties on one man.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Should one ask the Minister of Food for particulars of allocations and shipments of grain to India?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think it would be convenient if all the food questions were put to him because, of course, he is in very close touch with the Secretary of State for India and the other Departments concerned. Food matters should primarily go to him.

  GERMANY

    Peasant Holdings
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to increase the holdings of peasants in the British zone of occupied Germany at the expense of large estates.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): In pursuance of our policy of fostering the revival of the democratic spirit in Germany, we are examining this question in consultation with representative anti-Nazi elements of the German population through a subcommittee of the German Zonal Advisory Council on which the German political parties and trades unions are represented. It is not, however, our intention that any steps should be taken which would impair the efficiency of food production, even temporarily, at the present time.
    Mr. Price: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that extensive and varied reforms are now being carried out in the Russian zone of Germany?
    Mr. Hynd: The problem in the Russian zone is quite a different one from ours.
    Colonel Clarke: Would not an increase in peasant holdings mean an increase in subsistence cultivation with a consequent decrease in the amount of food available for the towns?
    Mr. Hynd: I do not know what is meant by the first part—an increase in holdings. Is that in the number of holdings or the size of the holdings? If it is a question of the size—
    Colonel Clarke: An increase in the number of holdings as against big estates.
    Mr. Hynd: That would mean an increased demand for agricultural implements, haulage animals and so on, and probably reduce the amount of bulk goods produced to the advantage of green vegetables.

    Currency and Black Market Offences
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements exist for investigating charges and taking disciplinary action against British members of the Control Commission in Germany and Austria' suspected of currency offences or black market transactions.
    Mr. J. Hynd: If a civilian member of the staff should be suspected of such an offence, the case is investigated by Public Safety officers attached to the Control Commission concerned. Minor offences are dealt with by the Establishment Officers by normal disciplinary methods. More serious offences are tried in Military Government courts. Dismissal from the Control Service normally follows conviction. Cases involving Service members of the Staff are investigated and tried under normal Service procedure.
    Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling among Army and Service members that the procedure so far as it affects civilian members is very casual and that about the worst that.can happen to them is to be posted back to Norfolk House?
    Mr. Hynd: Not at all. I am not aware of that feeling. The worst that can happen is not that they should be posted back to Norfolk House but that they should be dismissed the Service. If their offence

    1805
    warrants it, they should be subject to the punishment to which they would be subject in this country.

    Wheat Stocks
    Mr. Byersasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what date the available wheat stocks in Germany will be exhausted; and by what date the first consignment of the promised 200,000 tons of wheat is due to arrive.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I can reply only for the British zone of Germany. Stocks in that zone had fallen to a dangerously low level but administrative measures, taken in accordance with the recent Washington Agreements, have prevented their complete exhaustion. It is hoped that shipments under the programme for May to September, which aims at a total import of 675,000 tons will now be arriving with sufficient regularity to maintain at least the existing low ration scales.

    Agricultural Control Staff
    Mr. Byersasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the total number of British officers employed in the agricultural section of the Allied Control Com mission for the British zone in Germany; and whether he is satisfied that this number is adequate for the tasks that they have to perform.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The number of British officers employed in the Food and Agriculture Branch of the British element of the Commission is 305. These numbers are not adequate to carry out the executive work of a large food control organisation and the functions of the British officers are necessarily limited to the supervision of the German organisation in which a staff of 20,000 was engaged at the end of the war.
    Mr. Byers: Will the Minister take steps to increase the size of that staff in order that they can adequately carry out the tremendous burdens placed on them?
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid that to be 100 per cent. assured we would have to increase the staff by enough to make up the 20,000 to displace the whole German personnel. What we are trying to do is to provide the minimum staff necessary to apply the essential supervision over these staffs. Beyond that I am afraid it will be difficult for us to go without accepting very large commitments in this and other divisions.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in Germany that the present number is totally inadequate, and could we have a few more to ease the burden?
    Mr. Hynd: I am aware that there is a feeling in most of the divisions in Germany that the staff is inadequate to deal effectively with the executive work as well as the supervisory work, but that is a situation which we must accept. We could not repopulate Germany with sufficient men from this country to undertake the whole of the executive work.
    Mr. Vane: Is it not the policy to have small staffs which will give the Germans orders and not to try to do their work for them?
    Mr. Hynd: That is roughly the policy I am trying to pursue in opposition to the policy which seems to be suggested.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Universities (Expansion)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although some universities now have funds at their disposal to expand in accordance with national requirements, they are unable to translate these funds into the materials and buildings which they require; and whether, in consultation with the University Grants Committee, he can assist the universities in these essential matters.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Such difficulties are inevitable in view of the shortage of building materials, but the University Grants Committee have made recommendations to the Ministry of Works on this subject.
    Mr. Janner: Can the Chancellor say whether he has any idea as to the adequacy of accommodation for students who want to enter the universities?
    Mr. Dalton: We are doing our best and. as I have already said in answer to the Question, I furnish the financial basis for the provision of accommodation. The difficulty is with physical supplies of materials and availability of labour, which are also required for housing and so on, but there is no lack of good will and no lack of a concerted effort to overcome the difficulty.
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. C. SMITH:
    58.—To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the specific recommendation of the Committee on Scientific Manpower, that consideration should be given to the foundation of a new university, has been remitted to the University Grants Committee with the other recommendation of the Committee on Scientific Manpower.
    Mr. C. Smith: I must apologise for an error in the Question. The word " recommendation " should appear in the plural.
    Mr. Dalton: The answer to what I thought was the Question on the Paper was, " Yes, Sir, with a view to advice being tendered to me."

    Local Authority Staffs (Costs)
    Major Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether contributions can, and will, be made towards the costs of local authorities in engaging staff to study, master and carry out the duties incidental to the continuing issue of regulations, orders and circulars by Government Departments, which are becoming increasingly burdensome to present staffs, who have cither to work overtime or neglect the proper duties of their office.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Major Lloyd: Will the Chancellor give very close attention to this important matter and cause inquiries to be made, because I can assure him there is overwhelming evidence of great exhaustion amongst many individuals employed by local authorities through overwork?
    Mr. Dalton: That may not be limited to staffs of local authorities after six years of war. I see no grounds for giving the subsidy for which this Question asks to this particular line of Government activity. The Question relates to money and not to exhaustion.
    Major Lloyd: Surely it is wrong to give these extra duties to local authorities and not give some extra assistance?
    Mr. Dalton: The grants made to local authorities are already very substantial.

    Doctors (Income Tax Allowances)
    Mr. Leverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow doc-
    1808
    tors in public or hospital employment to charge money expended on current medical literature as an expense against taxable earnings, in view of the fact that doctors in private practice may do so.
    Mr. Dalton: This would require a change in the law. I am looking into the question, but cannot, at present, make any promise.
    Mr. Lever: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the danger of creating a precedent by attempting to bring the revenue into line with commonsense is not a solid reason why this illogical discrimination should continue between private doctors and doctors in public employment?
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend a little stresses the simplicity of this matter. It is a little more complicated than his question suggests and he will make some progress if he will read the answer I have given. Whether I am to give further remissions, remains to be seen.

    Government Borrowing (Interest)
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of interest on Government borrowing for periods of less than five years, between five and 15 years and for more than 15 years, respectively.
    Mr. Dalton: Apart from floating debt, the only present Government borrowing is at 2½ per cent. for 21 years.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to maintain his stand last week about local authority borrowing, that the figures he gave do not contain a large element of Government subsidy? What he says today seems to contradict that.
    Mr. Dalton: My answer last week was both carefully considered and abundantly true The improvement in the national credit which His Majesty's Government have brought about is not at all the same thing as a subsidy. On the contrary, the subsidy to local authorities in respect of housing will, as I indicated in my reply last week, be subject to reconsideration in view of this great and beneficial improvement in the national credit. I am astonished that the Noble Lord should once more fail to give full support to the great Savings Movement.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: How is the Chancellor of the Exchequer able to give local authorities loans at 1½ per cent. for five years when he proposes to borrow at 2½per cent? How can he do that without Treasury subsidy?
    Mr. Dalton: The Noble Lord has not even understood the answer. I will read it again:
    " Apart from floating debt— "
    and I interpolate that we are raising it at one half of one per cent.—
    " —the only present Government borrowing is at 2 per cent. for 2½ years."
    A local authority likewise can borrow at 2½ per cent. for 21 years.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Surtax Branch, Llandudno
    Captain John Crowderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been reached as to the permanent location of the surtax branch of the Inland Revenue Department.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Captain Crowder: Does the Chancellor intend to keep this Department indefinitely out of London, and if that is his intention, would he bear in mind the hardship on some of the girls employed in the provinces who have their homes in London and have to live in lodgings all the year round except at holidays?
    Mr. Dalton: I have recently seen some of the members of the staff from Llandudno and have talked with them, and I am acquainted with what they have told me orally as well as with what I have read. It is not at all satisfactory, and I would like to move the staff from Llandudno to some more suitable place as soon as possible. A beginning has been made with the Departmental Claims Branch, and we shall go on with the others stage by stage as soon as possible.

    Civil Service Examinations (Candidates' Expenses)
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary to the Treasury why ex-Servicemen living in Lancashire have to travel to Bournemouth, Hampshire, for a Civil Service examination; whether he is aware that this entails a long journey with costly railway fares, plus the difficulty of finding
    1810
    accommodation for at least two nights and the financial payments which these incur; and whether there is any cash contribution given to such ex-Servicemen to meet these costs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. It is certainly most unusual for a candidate for a Civil Service examination to be asked to travel from Lancashire to Bournemouth. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will have inquiries made. Candidates actually serving in the Forces when they take the examination receive free travel warrants, but others are expected to pay their own travelling expenses; this arrangement, however, is being reconsidered.
    Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me if there is a locality nearer to, say, Warrington than Bournemouth for this purpose?
    Mr. Whiteley: I explained to my hon. Friend that it was exceptional to take a man from Lancashire to Bournemouth. There has apparently been some mistake into which, if he will give me full particulars, I will inquire.

    JAPAN (BRITISH ASSETS)
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the moneys of British subjects in Japan will be released by the trading with the enemy authority.
    Mr. Dalton: I hope facilities will be available shortly.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Can the Chancellor say whether that will also apply to British subjects who were living in Japanese-controlled Siam?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; we are in touch with the authorities concerned at the moment. I hope we shall be able to do that.

    SIAM (REMITTANCES)
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether facilities yet exist for remitting money between the United Kingdom and Siam.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; but I hope to arrange for banking channels to be reopened shortly.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: May I ask the Chancellor whether he is aware that until these facilities are provided the task of moving the vitally needed surplus rice in Siam is made immeasurably more difficult?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; we are anxious to move it as quickly as we can.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP DELAYS)
    Mr. Challenasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men of military age, who are released from war factories as redundant, sometimes have to wait as long as six months before they are called up; that they are unable to obtain suitable civilian employment as they are constantly expecting to be directed into the Forces; and if he will take steps to remedy this position which is causing hardship.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Unemployed men due for call-up are given priority of posting and everything possible is done to prevent delay. I have no information to suggest that the arrangements are not working smoothly, but shall be glad to examine any cases of delay of which the hon. Member lets me have particulars.

  SCOTLAND

    Farmer's Notice to Quit, Culross
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Mr. Thomas Ramsay, a tenant farmer with 22 years' experience of West Grange Farm, Culross, Fife, has been served with notice to quit and the farm has been acquired by an Edinburgh lawyer: that no complaint against Mr. Ramsay has been made by the Agricultural Executive Committee; that the products of Mr. Ramsay's farm have at all times been found of good quality and marketing condition; why he has given his consent to the notice to quit under Defence Regulation 62 (4a); and if he will review his decision and enable Mr. Ramsay to continue his livelihood.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Application was made by the new owner of West Grange Farm for consent in terms of Regulation 64 (4a) of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, to a notice which he had given to
    1812
    the tenant to quit the holding at Martinmas, 1946. As I have informed the hon. Member in correspondence, the question to be decided when such an application is made is whether the change of tenancy will be productive of more food and therefore in the national interest. The Regulation cannot be used merely to ensure security of tenure to a tenant otherwise liable to removal.
    In the present instance it was clear from the reports submitted to me by the Agricultural Executive Committee and the Department of Agriculture's technical officer that the proposed change of tenancy was likely to result in a substantial increase in food production. There was therefore no ground on which I would be justified in withholding consent to the notice to quit.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister not agree that it is an intolerable situation where a man spends his life in building up a farm and then, when the land is sold, the new buyer of the land can turn him off and leave him with no occupation?
    Mr. Westwood: In correspondence with the hon. Member I have already expressed my sympathy for the tenant, but the Regulation does not give me the power to grant security of tenure to the tenant. My decision has to be based upon what will be best in the way of food production. It is entirely on that basis that I had to uphold the new owner of the land.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the farmer does not want sympathy—he wants his farm?
    Mr. Westwood: It is true, but I want more food in the desperate conditions that we are faced with at the present time. It was that which led to my decision.
    Mr. Scollan: I would like to ask the Minister, when he gives a reply of that character, why he does not supply information to the effect that the change of occupancy in the farm will result in giving more food? I do not think it is fair to answer like that.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he is sympathetic to the tenant, the hon. Gentleman is sympathetic to the landlord?
    Mr. Westwood: I think that is grossly unfair of the noble Lord. My sympathies

    1813
    are with those who require food under existing conditions, and on that alone was I in a position to give the decision at which I arrived.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that the: right hon. Gentleman's answer is tantamount to suggesting inefficiency on the part of the man who has farmed the land for years? If that is so, has he submitted the evidence upon which he acted to the tenant who was forced to leave his place?
    Mr. Westwood: I have already pointed out that I received reports from the Agricultural Executive Committee, and also from my technical officer, and all these reports were to the effect that if the owner had the right to enter upon the land we would get more food.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very unproductive nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on an early occasion.

    Western Isles (Unemployment)
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will announce the Government's intentions as to keeping the Western Isles fully populated and providing a higher standard of living and general amenities; and whether, in view of the high level of unemployment there and the dissatisfaction caused by all Government Departments' delays, he will immediately resume public work schemes and general improvements interrupted by the war.
    Mr. Timmonsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the heavy unemployment in the Western Isles, and the need for action by all Government Departments, he will, as a matter of urgency, call a special conference of all Ministers concerned, with a view to taking immediate steps to alleviate this unemployment.
    Mr. Westwood: The Government's plans for maintaining a high and stable level of employment throughout the country as a whole were set out in the White Paper on Employment policy. Measures have been instituted, and others are being concerted by the Departments concerned, for dealing with the employment position in the Western Isles and the special problems arising there. Representatives of the Departments sitting in Edinburgh, are conducting an urgent review of the em-
    1814
    ployment position and prospects in the Isles, particularly Lewis and Harris, and all the Ministers concerned are also in close and regular touch. In these circumstances no special conference would appear necessary.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in this small area is well over 2,000 and that the problem has become one of great seriousness to the country as a whole? Will he not consider taking the initiative in this matter?
    Mr. Westwood: The hon. Member can rest assured that I am taking the initiative with a view to dealing with this urgent problem.
    Captain MacLeod: Owing to the importance of the tweed trade in the Western Isles and the unsatisfactory state of the woollen and spinning industry, would the Minister give all facilities and priority to the setting up of spinning mills in the Highlands of Scotland, thus helping the unemployment question in the Western Isles by supplying them with yarn?
    Mr. Westwood: There is a sub-committee of the interdepartmental committee to which I have already referred—[Laughter]—it is quite true—because of the urgency of the Harris tweed industry, and I am awaiting their report.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will my right hon. Friend especially bear in mind that through the Ministry of Transport he could immediately initiate all the road, bridge and harbour schemes which would be necessary to give temporary employment and pave the way to new industries which are essential in that area?
    Mr. Westwood: These problems are being drawn to the attention of the Minister of Transport and I understand that a scheme is being worked out which will assist the islands.

    Education Grants
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the per capita grant at present given to schools under the control of education committees in Scotland and to schools under managements other than education committees, respectively.
    Mr. Westwood: For the year ended 15th May, 1946, the per capita grant payable

    1815
    were £5 4s. 3d. per pupil and £258 per teacher. Until the statistics and estimates now being furnished by the education authorities have been received and examined, I shall not be in a position to determine how much of the total increase in grant, amounting to £1,300,000, will be available to raise the pupil and teacher grants, but the grant regulations for the year ending 15th May, 1947, will be issued as soon as possible. In the case of the few schools not under the management of education authorities, the grants, none of which is on a per capita basis, are now provided under the Education (Scotland) Miscellaneous Grants Provisional Regulation, 1946, which were issued on 30IJ1 May, 1946.
    Mr. Gilzean: Would my right hon. Friend tell me if the independent schools are given bigger grants on the average, than the schools under the education committees?
    Mr. Westwood: I could not answer that without notice, but I will look into the point raised by my hon. Friend and see that he gets an answer.

    Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Membership)
    Major Niall Macphersonasked the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to appoint selection committees, similar to those set up in England by the Lord Chancellor, to examine applications for appointment as lay members of pensions appeals tribunals; and what will be their composition.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): The function of appointing the members of pensions appeal tribunals, which in England is vested in the Lord Chancellor, is in Scotland vested in the Lord President of the Court of Session. No function in connection with the appointment of the members of such tribunals is vested in the Lord Advocate. I am informed, however, that the Lord President has, in consultation with representative bodies, formed panels of suitable persons.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Personal Case
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he has now completed his investigations into the case of 14401073
    1816
    Sergeant T. M. Yule, whose application for compassionate repatriation has been under consideration for about four months; and what action has been taken.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): The results of investigations carried out by the War Office through welfare channels have been conveyed to the command concerned. I understand that the Commander-in-Chief has decided that Sergeant Yule should be reverted to the Home Establishment on compassionate grounds and the necessary arrangements are being made.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask if he could say why it takes so long? The man was urgently needed at home.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, the matter was in the hands of S.S.A.F.A. and they have very great difficulty in tracing the wife of this man. I understand there were domestic difficulties.

    Marriage (Austrian Women)
    Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War if he has now any further statement to make on the removal of the ban on marriages between British soldiers and Austrian subjects.
    Mr. Lawson: His Majesty's Government are now considering the question of marriages between British Servicemen and Austrians.
    Major Symonds: While this consideration is going on, are we to take it that there is one law for officers and men still in Austria, and another for officers who are able in some way to bring their prospective brides to this country?
    Mr. Lawson: There are a number of Questions on the particular incident to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I can assure him that the same rule applies to both officers and men.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this same answer has been returned to this same Question for a period now dating back to October last year, and that no date has been promised as to when a decision is likely to be given? Can he give one now?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. This matter has not been before the Government before, and I have replied that the Government are now considering this matter.

    Airborne Troops, Palestine
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War under what circumstances the pay of airborne troops in the 6th Air Landing Brigade in Palestine has been reduced by is. per day; and whether he will reconsider this reduction, in view of the services rendered by these troops during operations in Europe.
    Mr. Lawson: This brigade has recently reverted to the status and role of a normal Infantry brigade. Men serving in this brigade are therefore no longer eligible for additional airborne pay of is. a day, which was granted only while the brigade formed part of an airborne division.

    Scottish Officers (Posting)
    Major N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that Scottish officers belonging to Scottish infantry regiments will be posted, if they express a strong preference to serve with a Scottish unit, to some Scottish unit.
    Mr. Lawson: I regret that it would be impossible for me to give such an assurance. In view of the present shortage, it is essential that officers should be posted to wherever the demand is greatest. Nevertheless, officers of Scottish Infantry regiments are posted to serve with battalions of their own or affiliated regiments whenever this is possible.
    Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will do his utmost to support the regimental system and the spirit of esprit de corps?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I gave that assurance during my Estimates speech, and elaborated that point. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are occasions when it is not possible to put men from a particular area into the regiment they desire to be put into.
    Major Macpherson: Is the Minister doing his utmost to separate these officers, so that the maximum number of Scottish officers serve with Scottish regiments, and any English officers with them serve with English regiments?
    An Hon. Member: That is a bit Irish.
    Mr. Lawson: I can assure the hon. Member that in this question I am very
    1818
    careful, and I shall continue to watch that the principle I have laid down is carried out as far as possible.

    Aliens (Place of Release)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for War, when he expects to be able to reply to the letters sent to him by the honourable Member for Heywood and Radcliffe on 8th May and 17th May, asking him to reconsider as a matter of urgency the case of 13808230 Private J. Redondo, a Spanish citizen who volunteered for service in the British Forces in 1940, and who, although he has a wife and child in this country, has been told that he is being sent to Italy this month for demobilisation.
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will no doubt have received the letter which was sent to him on 31st May informing him that it will now be possible for this man to be released in this country.
    Mr. Greenwood: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will impress upon the officers responsible for the unfortunate decision originally taken in this case the importance of basing their future decisions on grounds of humanity and commonsense and the conservation of public finance?
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the suggestion of my hon. Friend, I will make further investigations about this matter.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the decision in this case an individual one or does it depend on policy? In the later case may we know whether all soldiers serving in the British Forces, wherever they were enlisted, are entitled to be demobilised in this country?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, I made an announcement upon that matter, I believe last week. As it was such an important answer I am sorry that it had to be a written one, but the House can take it that men who enlisted on British Service engagements can now, if they wish, be demobilised in this country.
    Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: What steps are being taken to make that decision widely known to the men concerned?
    Mr. Lawson: I would say that the best possible steps have been taken today. I know of no better broadcasting station) than the House of Commons.
    Mr. De la Here: Get it in the Press.

    Overseas Tour (Reduction)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    MR. JAMES CALLAGHAN—To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he is now in a position to make a statement on the reduction of the overseas period to three years; and how soon he hopes to implement his undertaking.
    Mr. Lawson: I should like, with your permission, Mr. Sepaker, and the permission of the House, to make a statement in reply to Question 118 which deals with the length of the overseas tour.
    It has always been my object to reduce the length of the overseas tour to three years and I am glad to be able to announce that this target will be reached for India and the Far East by a progressive reduction during the period July to September 1946. During the same period the tour in other overseas theatres will be reduced to three years six months the only exceptions being B.A.O.R., Austria and Northern Italy. The B.A.O.R. tour will be reduced to three years nine months and Austria and Northern Italy will remain at three years nine months. These two theatres will however benefit from greatly improved home leave facilities which will bring them into line with B.A.O.R. Details of these changes and of the new leave scheme are contained in a statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Churchill: As the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement in answer to Question 118, will he let us know what is the answer to Question 120?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. I am subject to Mr. Speaker in these matters.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the position is to be in regard to outlying detachments of troops in the West Indies, Aden and East Africa?
    Mr. Lawson: I cannot say offhand, but I think that some of them come within India and the Far East.
    Mr. Erroll: Not the West Indies?
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the figure for India based on a fixed number of British troops in India, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what that figure will be at.the end of the year?
    Mr. Lawson: I said that by the end of September the figure will be three years.
    Mr. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. The figure for which I asked was the number of British troops in India.
    Mr. Lawson: I cannot say.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that as much attention will be paid to arranging for wives to join their husbands who are serving with B.A.O.R. as is being paid to getting home leave for people in B.A.O.R.?
    Following is the statement:
    PYTHON.
    It will be remembered that on 14th March, 1946, I announced that a reduction would be effected in the Python tour in the Far East to 3 years 2 months, and in all other theatres except B.A.O.R. to 3 years 9 months. B.A.O.R. was to remain at 4 years. These reductions were to take place during the months April to June inclusive. It is now possible to announce that during the period July to September inclusive, the tour in the Far East will be further reduced to 3 years; the tour in all other theatres except B.A.O.R., Austria and Northern Italy will be reduced to 3 years 6 months; and the tour in B.A.O.R. will be reduced to 3 years 9 months. Austria and Northern Italy remain at 3 years 9 months but, as appears below, are being brought into line with B.A.O.R. as regards leave to this country.
    One consequence of this is that men who have completed a Python tour, and who are now eligible for posting only in the United Kingdom or B.A.O.R. will be eligible for posting as well to Austria and Northern Italy. Regular officers and other ranks will not become eligible for worldwide posting until they have completed at least 18 months in these theatres.
    LEAVE:
    The leave provisions set out below represent a half-way house between the wartime leave and the. leave which will be granted when normal peacetime conditions return. They aim at bringing the leave granted to men in B.A.O.R., Austria and Northern Italy into line with that available to men in this country. Details are as follows:
    (a) United Kingdom:
    Thirty days a year taken in three periods each of 10 days.
    (b) B.A.O.R., France, Austria, Northern Italy (North of the Appenines):
    Thirty-eight days a year taken in two periods, eligible after four months' continuous service overseas or four months from date of return from last privilege leave or L.I.A.P. subject to a man having not less than six weeks' useful service outstanding on return from leave.
    (c) Southern Italy, Malta. Gibraltar, M.E.F. (including Greece), East Africa:
    Thirty days once during the overseas tour: eligible after 12 months' service overseas, subject to a man having not less than four months' useful service outstanding on return from leave.
    No change will be made as regards other theatres.
    Leave as above may be taken in countries other than the United Kingdom and free travel will be admissible within the cost of the return fare to the United Kingdom from the Overseas Command concerned.
    Troops in France, Austria and Northern Italy will in future only be eligible for leave in lieu of Python (L.I.L.O.P.) on the same terms as now apply in B.A.O.R. viz. 42 days as against 61 days for troops in other theatres.
    Embarkation leave will be seven days for B.A.O.R., and C.M.F., and 14 days for other overseas theatres except where a man is posted overseas having just completed an overseas tour. In this case he will get, as at present, six weeks' leave in this country.
    Disembarkation leave will be on a sliding scale according to the total leave taken in the United Kingdom, in the course of the overseas tour, as follows:

    Leave taken in United Kingdom

    Scale of Disembarkation Leave.

    Under 30 days

    …

    …

    28 days

    30–59 days

    …

    …

    21 days

    Over 59 days

    …

    …

    14 days

    This is subject, however, to the proviso that no individual who has been overseas for less than a year will be granted more than 14 days' disembarkation leave.
    Nothing in this paragraph affects the rule stated above that a man posted over-
    1822
    seas having just completed an overseas tour will get six weeks' leave in this
    country.
    Rules for local leave in overseas commands remain as before. Leave on short pass in this country, which hitherto has been limited to 48 hours every three months, may in future be granted, at the discretion of Commanding Officers, as frequently as the men can be spared, but it will not be accumulated or added to privilege leave.
    These new leave provisions will come into force on 1st July, 1946. The relevant instruction, which will give full details, will be issued shortly.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (GERMANS)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War how many German prisoners of war are now held in this country; how many of them are employed in agriculture, the preparation of building sites and other useful work; how many have attended educational courses at Wilton and elsewhere; and what steps are being taken to speed the repatriation of those who are known to be anti-Nazi and therefore fit to help in the political and economic organisation of democracy in Germany.
  Mr. Lawson: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the morale of many of these German prisoners is very low because at the present time they lack any hope or assurance regarding their future? Will he also bear in mind that if they are to make a long stay here, their conditions should be carefully looked into?
  Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
  Following are the figures:
  On 15th May, 338,000 German prisoners of war were held in this country and were employed as follows:

  Numbers.

  Employment.

  Remarks.

  163,000

  Agriculture

  …

  Numbers employed include minimum proportion of Camp Staffs.

  22,000

  Preparation of building sites

  …

  94,000

  Other useful work

  …

  46,000

  Unemployed

  …

  11,000 sick and in detention.

  35,000 recently arrived and held in transit.

  13,000

  Unemployable

  …

  Mainly Officers and Protected Personnel.

  338,000

  Total.

  Nine hundred German prisoners of war have attended educational courses at Wilton Park. The steps necessary to secure the early repatriation of anti-Nazi prisoners of war who lived in or who volunteer to live in the British zone are under active consideration by the Departments concerned.
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for War how many Germans, recruited from concentration camps for forced service in the 999 Division, are still detained as prisoners of war.
  Mr. Lawson: I regret that this information is not readily available, and could not be obtained without a considerable amount of labour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.— [The Prime Minister.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—
[Mr. Whiteley]
3.35 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): By the time I have finished my review of the foreign situation I may or may not have wearied the House, because at the present moment it is not merely one area of the world that is in difficulties and where problems have to be settled; it is the whole world. Therefore, I am driven to touch, in my review, on many problems affecting many areas. If I stick to my brief very closely this afternoon, I must ask to be forgiven. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I realise that anything I say not only affects this House and this country, but other countries as well.
Since I last had an opportunity of addressing the House on 21st February on the general question of foreign policy, many events have taken place in the endeavour to bring the world back to a peaceful state. The road of peace is a very hard one, especially when it is complicated by varying political conceptions in different countries, and the settlement of differences is often handicapped by the desire to secure the adoption of a particular ideology. But I am not pessimistic on that account. I am still wedded to Litvinov's famous phrase, used in Geneva before this last war, that "Peace is indivisible."It is for that reason that the basic aim of His Majesty's Government in their foreign policy will be to make the United Nations organisation work effectively; all international questions which arise must now be dealt with in relation to this new world fabric which we are bent on weaving and ultimately making effective, and which will some day —I do not know how soon—draw its power direct from the will of the people. In dealing with these problems, I can never get out of my head that there is
1826
something much more important than statesmen, who after all only hold office for what is a moment of time in the ages of history, and that is the masses of the people, who may be either at peace or at war in the future as the result of the action of statesmen at a given moment.
It is true to say that all the peoples of the world are seeking peace and prosperity, and if we interpret their feelings aright, I am sure they are ready to dwell together in peace, if allowed to do so. In this respect, they have everything to gain from extending the scope of, and trusting in, the United Nations organisation. If all of us are willing to have our actions judged in the light of day, we shall have the advantage of a common-sense view brought to bear on each problem by the greatest of all juries, the ordinary public. I am not unduly pessimistic but one has to look facts squarely in the face, however unpleasant they are. It is no use wrapping up one's thoughts in obscure diplomatic language. Foreign policy is not a matter now which is limited to a small section of the community. Total war has made everybody want to have their say as to their destiny.
I would suggest to the House and to the world, to all public men, constantly to remind themselves of this: If we do not want to have total war, we must have total peace. One of the fundamental things in striving to achieve this total peace and the effective working of the United Nations, is that we must not only be prepared to submit our claims but to make clear our motives and to try to understand the motives of others. When I say I am not unduly pessimistic, I have in mind the fact that the world problems which we have to solve now are far more complicated than those which faced the peacemakers of 1919. This last war disrupted Europe to an infinitely greater extent than the war of 1914–18. In the settlement of the last war Russia was not a party. Personally, I have always felt that was a tragedy. In this war she has made a tremendous contribution and has emerged from the defeat of 1917. It is an important step forward that she is to take part again, because it is only if Russia enters freely into the European settlement that there can be any guarantee of permanent peace on the Continent of Europe.

1827
On the other hand, the United States fought in the last war, took part in the peacemaking, and then withdrew into isolation. Now, everybody in the Western hemisphere, equally with other parts of the world, is conscious that the whole planet is involved. We have, however— and this is why our task is harder than in 1918—to get agreement between the West, which has a common culture and similar traditions, and the great Slav areas whose history and development have been on very different lines from ours. The great problem, and we found it all through the negotiations up to now, is to find what one might describe as a common approach. This involves patience and toleration but ultimately. I still believe, we shall achieve understanding. The only thing that will block understanding is if any of us develop exclusive power politics, and do not use our perfectly legitimate interests in a way that will, as I said at the beginning, ultimately merge into a world security scheme. The security of all countries must not be sacrificed by each country concentrating only on its own security.
If I may again refer to the different political concepts, there is, I think, rather unfortunately, running through all the speeches and writings of our Soviet friends the theory that they alone represent the workers, they alone are democratic. Their concept of certain other Governments is that they are either Fascist or crypto-Fascist, or something of that kind. This leads to the idea that the security of Russia can only be maintained when every country in the world has adopted the Soviet system. This, I think, is one of their greatest handicaps and a great obstacle to peace. I am sure I can speak, at any rate for the workers in Great Britain and the British Commonwealth, when I say we do not believe that the Soviet system would represent the interests of the workers nearly so effectively as the system which this Socialist democratic Parliament is now evolving in this country. I do not for a moment deny the right of Russia to pursue her own way of achieving an industrial revolution, but for us in this country, who started our industrial revolution over 150 years ago, to adopt the Russian method would really be retrogressive for us and would not represent progress. I have, I must confess, the impression that the majority of the
1828
working classes of Western Europe at least feel like us. Therefore, if we are to get real agreement on both sides, we must undertake to develop our political institutions in our own way without attempting to impose one system upon the other, and leave the people absolutely free to use their reason and judgment in their own way and, if I may emphasise, in their own time. Thus, we may evolve our different political organisations necessary to express our desires, but agreeing on one thing all the time, unanimously, that we will all combine to prevent a revival of Nazism or Fascism, such as cursed the world in the last few years.
This is an attempt to describe the background against which we have been meeting in the recent conferences. Conscious of this, I had a talk in Moscow last December with Generalissimo Stalin and I indicated to him that I would be willing to recommend to the Government of the United Kingdom that the Treaty of Friendship should be extended to 50 years. I had at the back of my mind the creation of some permanent link between our two countries which would avoid misunderstanding. I was ready to go to the extent of regular consultation, exchange of views, and helping in the development of the peace of Europe as well as facilitating the trade, commerce, and exchange between our respective countries. I regret that the proposal was not taken more seriously at the time, but I am still confident it will come yet. For my part, while I am Foreign Secretary, notwithstanding the rebuffs, I shall still pursue it.
There are many matters connected with the Soviet attitude towards the British Commonwealth and Empire which, at least, show a sense of realism. I think, for instance, that the Soviet Government, and, indeed, the United States as well, do really recognise the tremendous importance to the peace of the world of the maintenance of our position in the Middle East, provided that, ultimately, there is developed a regional organisatibn which fits into the United Nations security system which it is the intention of the Government to pursue.
Neither do I believe that there is any basis for real misunderstanding or fundamental disagreement over the Dardanelles. We have been willing, equally with our predecessors, to consider the revision of the Montreux Convention. What we are

1829
anxious to avoid, and I emphasise this, is to do anything, or agree to anything, which will undermine the real independence of Turkey, or convert her into a mere satellite State. But, with the recognition of these principles, I am convinced that these two factors are not irreconcilable. Let me go further and say that we will always welcome the mercantile fleet of the Soviet Union on all the seas of the world. We sail to the Baltic, but we have not got a base and have not got a port there. We will sail to Odessa again, to the Black Sea and Constanza, quite freely, but we do not ask for a base or military requirements to enable us to do so. Our aim, as a Government, is the free movement of shipping and the world's trade. Therefore, whatever responsibilities we undertake in the defence scheme of the world in any particular area, we give a solemn undertaking that they will be on a basis of freedom to all members of the Peace Club on equal terms. I believe that, if such an attitude is accepted all round, this great desire for bases can be considerably minimised.
This brings me to a very acute point that was raised in Paris relating to the Danube. M. Molotov observed in his recent statement that it cannot be regarded as correct that certain non-Danube States should assume the right to dictate their will to the Danube States, and impose a regime on the Danube which would take no heed of the interest of the Danube States. We have not sought to dictate. What we asked was that we should discuss and settle this problem, and I rather resent M. Molotov's attitude, If I may say so publicly, that, when we put up a proposal with which he does not agree, he seems to imply that we are dictating. We dictate to nobody, but we do ask that there shall be examination of our point of view when we put it forward on rational and reasonable grounds. That is not an unreasonable thing to suggest. It is what we apply ourselves in our own conferences and everywhere else, and it is not an unfriendly act to put forward an idea with which somebody else does not agree.
In order to explain our own standpoint in this matter, I will, if the House will permit me, recapitulate very briefly the more recent history of the Danube problem, which very largely applies to the Oder, the Elbe and other rivers so vital
1830
to the life of Europe. We discussed at Lancaster House the general question of the Danube regime, and we were anxious at that time to secure the opening up of all the rivers of Germany. Now, we were anxious to open them up not merely for a mercenary interest. There was so much starvation in Europe, and all of us could see the famine lying ahead of us. We had fertilisers in one place, grain in another, food in another, 'and, if we could, we had to get the great transport system of Europe going in order to minimise the sufferings of Europe. When we are accused of putting this forward for Imperialist or capitalist, or some other interest, I do beg my Soviet friends to get that out of their minds. Nobody in this House would violently accuse me of putting forward anything in the capitalist interest, after my long record of struggle in that field. What I was anxious to do was to get everything moving, and, after all, transport is the very great artery of civilisation.
Therefore, we discussed at Lancaster House the general question of the Danube regime, and Mr. Byrnes, from the United States, put forward a proposal for a provisional International Commission, but the Soviet delegation would, not accept it. They would have nothing during the occupation period. They desired to leave it to the individual Commanders to control navigation on the stretches of the river within their zones, regardless of the fact that, without a commission, there could be no coordination of the movement of traffic over the whole river, and also, at the end of the occupation period, when the Allied Commanders withdrew their forces, there would be a complete gap for a time without any control at all until a permanent Commission was set up. The practical effect of this deadlock has been to paralyse through traffic on what should be one of the main transport arteries between Central and South-Eastern Europe.
Let me give the House one consideration. There is an urgent need for the quick transport of grain from the regions of the Lower Danube, where the harvest is gathered first, to countries upstream, where it is still ripening. There is a difference of six weeks between the ripening of wheat in Rumania and Bulgaria, on the one hand, and Czechoslovakia and Austria, on the other. Normally, this traffic used to move exclusively through

1831
the Danube, but now there is no regular through traffic. I must confess that I do not feel happy that through some policy of some kind, which we do not understand, whole areas of Europe should go hungry because we will not agree to do the sensible thing and move grain and food freely through these great arteries. Let us fight on some other basis, not on the bellies of the people should this political conflict take place. I cannot accept that view as being a sound political philosophy. All our desire was to get this free flow as rapidly as we could in order to prevent this horror of starvation going on in so many areas.
We came back to the Danube question in our talks in Paris, when we were discussing the Peace Treaties for Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria. I took the same position as I had taken in London: the necessity for restoring freedom of trade and navigation on the Danube and those other rivers, and protecting the commercial rights of the States concerned— the principle, if you like, of the open door —requiring the re-establishment of the arrangements in force before the war with the proper participation of the Soviet Union. In an attempt to meet M. Molotov's contention, Mr. Byrnes suggested that we need only include in the Treaties a provision that navigation on the Danube should be free and open, on terms of complete equality, to the nationals, merchant vessels and goods of all States. In the interest of reaching agreement, I said that I would be willing to accept a clause on those lines, provided it was also agreed that a Danubian Conference could be called within a fixed period after the conclusion of the Treaties; and this, I suggest, was a very, very modest suggestion. But we could make no progress on those lines, and we had to defer it.I think I have shown that there has been no question of dictating our will to the Danube States or of neglecting their interests, but merely of our wishing to restore our legitimate prewar rights and to make sure that our late enemies should not be free to hinder the revival of the machinery of international cooperation. I cannot see that our interests on the Danube in any way conflicted with those of the Danube States who, surely, all have an equal interest in the restoration of commerce and navigation in this
1832
great European waterway. But I am driven to ask what the Soviet interest in this matter really is and what motive they have in refusing to commit themselves to any arrangements such as suggested. Does their anxiety to consult the other Balkan States mean that Danube affairs are to be the sole concern of Danubian States and Russia alone? I cannot believe now that they would wish to maintain this monopolistic view, though one must admit that there have been signs of a very exclusive policy in this area. Rumanian Danube shipping, for example, is at present almost entirely con-controlled by a joint Soviet-Rumanian navigation company, known as Sovrom Transport, set up in July, 1945, and another powerful combine of the same kind in Hungary.
If Soviet Russia's only concern is to make sure that no injury is done to these countries' interests, she need have no fear that our participation in the Danube Commission would have this effect. Nor could any harm come of a clause in the Peace Treaties by which Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria would undertake to abide by the decisions of a Conference. They themselves would have a share in reaching these decisions on the basis of equality. What I cannot and will not contemplate is 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 in the navigation on these rivers the freedom for which we all fought.
Let me now turn from the Danube to the Italian-Yugoslav frontier. As a result of the discussions which took place on this question in London last September, the Foreign Ministers instructed their deputies to report on the frontier line, which was, in the main, to be the ethnic line, leaving a minimum under alien rule, on the understanding that a local investigation would be carried out on the spot. The principle which was unanimously accepted in London was this ethnic criterion, and I want to stress that. In accordance with this decision, a special Commission appointed by the deputies visited this frontier area in the spring, and they submitted a report which was considered by the Foreign Ministers in Paris. The report contained an agreed statement of the ethnic, geographical and economic data relating to the frontier territory.

1833
The lines proposed by the British, the American and the French Commissioners were not very different—and I would emphasise this—and, in our desire to arrive at an agreement on this subject, both Mr. Byrnes and I stated that we were ready to accept the line proposed by the French which would give Yugoslavia the far greater part of the disputed area whilst leaving an approximately equal number of Italians and Yugoslavs under alien rule. It was thus consistent with the decision of the Foreign Ministers in London in September. The Russian Commissioner recommended that the whole disputed area should be awarded to Yugoslavia, including certain areas which since 1866 formed part of Italy and, before that, of the Republic of Venice.
The effect of the Russian Commissioner's recommendation would be to leave no Slav-speaking people within Italy, at the expense of leaving over 500,000 Italians in Yugoslavia. This solution was defended by the representative of Soviet Russia and, in my view, was wholly irreconcilable with the decision reached in London in September that the frontiers should, in the main, be drawn on ethnic considerations, and should be so drawn as to leave a minimum under alien rule. I want, however, to make this very clear. The only attempt at compromise over this problem was made by the United States and Great Britain. We withdrew from our line, which was more in favour of the Italians, and the Americans withdrew from their line, which was still more favourable to the Italians, with the result that we left Pola and the Albona coalfields to Yugoslavia in order to try to get a settlement. But there was no move at all on the part of Soviet Russia to meet the compromises proposed by Britain and the United States.
There is another factor in this frontier problem which is very important, and that is the port of Trieste, and not only the port, but the city. The city of Trieste is overwhelmingly Italian, roughly, I think, 10 to 1, and I could not bring myself to hand Trieste over to Yugoslavia under those conditions. What worried us more than that was the question of the port of Trieste, and here again we were extremely disappointed at the opposition we met. In London last September, whatever might have happened to the town
1834
ultimately, we all agreed unanimously that the port itself must be an international port with an international regime, no matter under whose sovereignty the town itself was put. Trieste has to serve Austria, Yugoslavia, Northern Italy and the whole of Central Europe. If we do not want to create another Prussia it is very important that the trade should be drawn South and not north from Central Europe. We felt in London that Trieste must be an international port and not an international pawn in the game of politics. Therefore, we were surprised at Paris to find that even on the question of the sport, Soviet Russia appeared to have gone back on that agreement and would not even agree to discuss technical arrangements for the setting up of a free international port until the whole of the frontier question had been settled. It is one of the disappointments we had in peace-making, but we hope for better luck the next time we meet in Paris. But I cannot give way, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and agree that that vital port, with all that it means to Central Europe, should surrender its sovereignty in the manner now proposed.
May I now turn to Austria? The United States proposed that Austria should be put on the agenda at Paris. I know the feeling in this House and in the country about Austria. We have witnessed their tragedy, and it has been a tragedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Twice." Yes, 20 years or more of it. I remember with very great pleasure, tragic as it may seem, that I helped to spend my union's money to find the means to defend the Karl Marx houses. It was one of the greatest tragedies between the wars; I know the feeling. Therefore, I supported the placing of Austria on the agenda. There are substantial reasons why the whole problem of Austria should be settled. One is that the three Powers agreed in Moscow in 1943 that Austria should again secure her independence and become an independent country.
Secondly, if Austria, along with Italy, has a peace treaty, there is no need at all for lines of communication or troops of any Allied Power in the whole of the Danubian basin and in the North of Italy as well. All the troops in Austria, Northern Italy, Bulgaria and Rumania, could be taken out, and the whole of those

1835
Danubian States could again begin to lead a normal life. It was for that reason that I regarded it as imperative that Austria should be settled, so that we could, as it were, with one clean sweep, terminate our liabilities in this area. It would have narrowed the area of the problems which we are left to settle. However, the Soviet Union argued that they were not ready to discuss Austria. I could not understand this, and I do not understand now. Since then, the United States have submitted a draft treaty, and in the Foreign Office we have a detailed one. I certainly believe that nothing would give greater confidence of peace at our next meeting in Paris, than if the Soviet Union came along ready and willing to settle the Austrian problem, together with the Italian problem, and that of the whole of the Danube basin, including the Danube to which I have already referred. I see in that, the best contribution to confidence and understanding in the whole of that area.
I was questioned the other day in the House on the ethnic problem of Austria's frontier with Italy, and I propose to deal with this. At the Moscow Conference in October, 1943, it was decided—at least, so I understood it as a member of the Coalition Government at that time—that it was the pre-Anschluss Austria that we were guaranteeing to restore. Therefore, when the proposal was submitted at the London Conference that she should be so recreated, I agreed, but I made a reservation that there might be minor rectifications in the frontiers in her favour. Knowing the country very well—I know the railways run in and out of certain places, which I thought rather silly—I thought the constant interruption of frontiers was not conducive to good trade and exchange, and I thought rectifications might be made which would be of benefit to her and her neighbours. I still think so. If I may say a word to Italy, I hope that in the settlement of these very difficult problems affecting certain parts of the South Tyrol, these two peoples will not become estranged. We get here a mixture of economic and ethnic considerations. Great electrical plants have been built, and watersheds are involved. The strategic considerations, which I now consider of less importance than ever, come into the picture, but I am hoping that these two countries who
1836
have been so antagonistic for so many years will use sense on this occasion, and that in these borderline Provinces like that of South Tyrol they will arrive at a sensible arrangement and assist in the peacemaking.
I turn from that subject to say a few words about Bulgaria. This affects the withdrawal of troops. In September, it was agreed that after the Peace Treaty all Allied Forces should be withdrawn from Bulgaria. A distinction was thus expressly drawn between Bulgaria, from which the evacuation of Soviet Forces would be complete, and Rumania and Hungary in which, even after the Peace Treaty, the Soviet Union would retain the right to maintain certain forces in order to safeguard her lines of communication with the Soviet zone of occupation in Austria. At that time we did not know how long the occupation of Austria would continue, but, I repeat, if my previous argument were adopted, the problem would not arise. In Paris it seemed to me that M. Molotov was abandoning the London decision, arguing that the lines of communication with the Soviet Forces in Europe had to be maintained by means of the Danube, that this river is in part of its course the frontier of Bulgaria, and that the Soviet Union accordingly required the right to maintain lines of communication for troops in Bulgaria as well as in Hungary and Rumania. In my view this argument is very, very ill-founded. My view is that when a peace treaty is signed with another country which has been a belligerent, every step that can possibly be taken ought to be taken to withdraw troops from the territory, and so remove the menace to other neighbouring countries who will always be under suspicions as to what you intend to do.
Before I leave the territory of the Danubian basin I would like to put this point very strongly. There have been a great many arguments about the " curtain."I must confess that our representatives have had every obstacle placed in their way. Deputations from this House, and from my own party, send me reports and advise me that we ought to establish trade relations. They appear to be unconscious of the fact that this is what we have been trying to do all the time. We have endeavoured to do it in the case of Rumania, we have endeavoured to do it in the case of Hungary; we have tried with all these countries, only to be met with

1837
obstacles everywhere. Perhaps we have been most successful with Czechoslovakia up to now. As regards Poland, the Chancellor and I tried to help them by offering to remit most of the debts incurred on behalf of Poland during the war. We have given liberally of our surpluses. We have made our contribution to U.N.R.R.A.—and our contribution is the second biggest in the world—without which all these countries would have found it very hard to survive. We have done all this, yet we find ourselves denounced from the very mouths we have fed. That does not seem to me to be right.
I would ask those who visit these countries to remember the help from U.N.R.R.A., that both the United States and ourselves have given. We, for our part, will not allow our representatives to do anything to hinder proper relations between the Soviet Union and these countries. However, we do ask for reciprocity. In the way of trade, in exchange and fair dealing we ask that we should be treated as decent citizens, and be allowed to restore our relations, which have always existed. In the case of Poland, I suggest that the acid test will be: Will she carry out the solemn pledge which the President of the Provisionl Government gave me at Potsdam, to have early and free elections?
I now turn to another subject which has been dealt with in the speeches that have been made, namely, reparations from Italy. As I understand the Soviet view, it is that because the Allied Powers have not been invaded, they do not understand the Soviet wish to be compensated for some of the devastation done by Italian armies. That really is an unjust insinuation. We have genuine sympathy with those who have suffered invasion, for the people of Russia, and for the people of Greece, to name only two. We also know how much the people of Malta suffered, and how much Italy's entry into the war at the time of our greatest emergency, when we were alone, cost us in men and materials. His Majesty's Government have incurred heavy expenditure in restoring that gallant little island of Malta at the present moment. Therefore, I refute the charge that we do not understand what invasion means. Indeed,, the cost of restoring this old city of London alone represents a colossal figure.
1838
It is suggested that a reduction in the occupation cost of Britain and America in Italy would enable Italy to meet the Soviet reparation demands. I suggest this assertion implies a total lack of knowledge of Italy's economic and financial situation. Italy has a debt to America, Canada and ourselves amounting to £165 million for the goods we have supplied to her by way of relief. U.N.R.R.A. has supplied assistance to the extent of a further £100 million. Therefore, there is a total relief debt of nearly £300 million, or about 1,000 million dollars. Moreover, Italy is experiencing a heavy deficit in her balance of payments; this has been estimated at £250 million for this year and £100 million for next year. Even before the war the value of Italy's exports was only 65 per cent. of her imports: the balance was covered iby emigrants' remittances, storage, freight and borrowing abroad.
The question arises whether our occupation is adding to Italy's adverse exchange position It is argued that out of our occupation costs this reparation can be paid. The answer is that Italy does not have to find a single dollar or pound of foreign exchange on account of the presence of American and British troops. We have exacted only lire costs and have, in fact, to find hard currencies ourselves to finance the supplies sent to Italy. If Italy is called upon to make reparation deliveries in the form either of existing industrial plant and equipment or of goods from current production, her ability to export and earn foreign exchange will be correspondingly reduced, and the assistance she will require from abroad will be correspondingly increased. This is not a matter of difficult economics; it is just a matter of hard facts. His Majesty's Government cannot be a party to letting the British taxpayer in for a procedure which would, in practice, amount to their money and labour going to a third Government as reparations on Italy's account. Our own policy towards Italy is, first to enable her to repay what has been supplied as relief; secondly, to help her restore her economy on a peacetime basis, and thereafter to remove any surplus war machinery and equipment which is not needed for peacetime economy. I do not believe that common sense and justice could permit any other course.

1839
There is another controversy raised in the speeches we have heard and the documents that have been issued, namely, the proposal for a Treaty Commission which would be responsible for supervising the execution of the provisions of the peace treaty with Italy. Soviet Russia objected to any supervisory machinery, either there or in the Balkans, and agreement to the proposals could not be obtained. I think this was a pity, because, without some machinery, I do not see how the provisions of the Treaty could be administered. Italian sovereignty would not be infringed, and Italy, as much as the Allies, would be in a difficulty without this machinery whenever any question arose about the enforcement of the Treaty provisions. In any case, our experience in other wars in dealing with this problem has shown the imperative necessity to have some judicial body to avoid long and protracted disputes.
I will now say a few words about the Colonies. In London last February the United States put forward a proposal that these Colonies should become international trusteeships under the United Nations. I must confess I was a little dubious about how this scheme would work out as there had been no scheme devised as to exactly how the United Nations organisation could undertake the day-to-day administration. However, I agreed to the idea in principle, and suggested that the deputies should work out the details ready for the subsequent Conference. At this stage the Soviet Union claimed the individual trusteeship of Tripolitania, at Paris. After a lot of discussion this scheme for the individual trusteeship by Soviet Russia was withdrawn; but in doing so the Soviet Government demanded that in consideration for the withdrawal we should accede to their proposal for Trieste. I am bound to say that I cannot accept such a proposition, because to hand over 500,000 Italians to Yugoslavia in return for a withdrawal of what I thought was an unfounded claim by Soviet Russia which would have had the effect of handing a larger number of Arabs over to a country they may detest, seems to me to introduce a method of dealing and bargaining in international affairs that is absolutely unjust and unsound.
1840
The Soviet Union, thereupon, proposed to support the French proposal that the whole of Libya should be returned to the Italians and that the trusteeship should be given to Italy. The United States said they would go along with this proposal if it could produce general agreement. I was prepared to accept it provided that Cyrenaica was placed under the trusteeship of the United Kingdom, for I have made plain on many occasions that His Majesty's Government intend to abide by the pledges given to the Senussis in Cyrenaica not to restore them to Italian rule. This pledge was given by my predecessor in this House:
" His Majesty's Government are determined that at the end of the war that the Senussis in Cyrenaica will in no circumstances again fall under Italian domination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th January, 1942; Vol. 377, c. 77.]
The whole history of the thing is a pretty bad history. I must say there is no gain in it for anybody; Cyrenaica would be a financial liability to whoever got it. But there was a pledge, and that pledge was given in 1942, and they did come to help at that moment when we were fighting Italy; and we must honour that pledge. I, therefore, proposed that the matter be again referred to the deputies in order that the French proposals, the British proposals and the American proposals might be examined.
Now may I turn to Eritrea and Somaliland? I think that M. Molotov has been more than unjust in stating that we are trying to expand the British Empire at the expense of Italy and Ethiopia, and to consolidate what he calls the monopolistic position of Great Britain in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. In the latter part of the last century the Horn of Africa was divided between Great Britain, France and Italy At about the time we occupied our part, the Ethiopians occupied an inland area which is the grazing ground for nearly half the nomads of British Somaliland for six months of the year. Similarly, the nomads of Italian Somaliland must cross the existing frontiers in search of grass. In all innocence, therefore, we proposed that British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, and the adjacent part of Ethiopia, if Ethiopia agreed, should be lumped together as a trust territory, so that the nomads should lead their frugal existence with the least possible hindrance and there might be a real chance of a decent

1841
economic life, as understood in that territory.
But what attracted M. Molotov's criticism was, I am sure, that I suggested that Great Britain should be made the administrating authority. Was this unreasonable? In the first place, we were surrendering a Protectorate comparable in size to the area we hoped that Ethiopia would contribute. Secondly, it was a British force, mainly East African and South African, which freed this area; and it was a British, Indian and South African force which bore the main brunt of restoring the independence of Ethiopia and of putting the Emperor back on his throne after several years' sanctuary in this country. We do not seek gratitude on that account, but I think it right to express surprise that our proposals should have met with such unjustified criticism. After all, when we were defeating Italy in East Africa, Britain was open to invasion, and we were fighting alone. I hope the deputies at the Paris Conference will now consider a greater Somaliland more objectively.
All I want to do in this case is to give those poor nomads a chance to live. I do not want anything else. We are paying nearly £1,000,000 a year out of our Budget to help to support them. We do not ask to save anything. But to have these constant bothers on the frontiers when one can organise the thing decently —well, after all, it is to nobody's interest to stop the poor people and cattle there getting a decent living. That is all there is to it. It is like the Englishman's desire to go into Scotland—to get a decent living. We must consider it objectively. If the Conference do not like our proposal, we will not be dogmatic about it; we are prepared to see Italian Somaliland put under the United Nations' trusteeship. I should also like to see some arrangement whereby the greater part of Eritrea is awarded to Ethiopia. Eritrea is entirely an artificial entity. It cannot, as I see it, stand toy itself, but only under some system of trusteeship. But, whether I am right or wrong in these deductions, all I ask is that either the United Nations Organisation or the deputies or some commission should study this problem and report to us, in order that we can get a proper and correct settlement. How this can be interpreted as a desire to extend the British Empire I really cannot understand.
1842
The next problem that has puzzled me is that of the Dodecanese. We have cleared up the whole island problem in the Adriatic and agreed to transfer certain islands to Yugoslavia and demilitarise them. Yet when we come to the Dodecanese, while we are constantly told that the four delegations are agreed that they shall be given to Greece, the Soviet delegation will not give effect to this until every other territorial problem has been settled. I do not understand why the Dodecanese, about which there is apparently no dispute, should have to await settlement until we have solved every other problem.
Now may I come to Germany? I must be wearying the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a good story"]"It is evidence that the whole world is in trouble. That is the explanation of the length of my speech. I have already mentioned the attempt to interest the Soviet Union in a fifty year treaty of friendship with us, but I must confess we were more than agreeably surprised when we received from the United States a draft treaty for 25 years, to ensure that Germany remains disarmed at the end of the period of occupation. It was, however, marked " Very Secret " and it was enjoined upon me that I should not allow it to leak. Accordingly, it was discussed only in a very limited Governmental circle. I was unaware that the United States was going to bring this out at the Paris Conference, or I should have got myself authorised to give it more support in the initial stage. Immediately it was released, however, I communicated with the Cabinet, and, later, was able to announce to the Conference that we warmly welcomed it.
Having regard to what happened at the end of the last war, I must say that these proposals of the United Stales Government, through Mr. Byrnes, left with me the impression that here at last we had something which would give us peace in Europe, and allow for normal development over a sufficient period to eradicate the warlike spirit of Nazism in Germany. It was, therefore, a matter of profound regret to witness the way it was received by the Soviet representative. Inferences and charges about the present disarmament arrangements were made to counter Mr. Byrnes' proposals. At once we agreed that if there was any doubt as to what each of us was doing in the

1843
way of economic and military disarmament in Germany, a Four-Power Commission should immediately investigate all the zones, not merely one, and see exactly what was happening. This is still under discussion—however, we must not become weary in well-doing.
I believe that if the Soviet Union again study the draft Treaty and realise what a protection for " peace indivisible "This means, they will come round and not miss this great opportunity. In fact, I state to the Soviet Government: "If you value peace above all else, do not miss it; it may never come again." For France, it is vital. She has been invaded and smashed three times in 70 years. For Britain who has been drained of her resources in two great wars, it is indispensable. "For the Soviet Union who have been invaded so many times, I should have thought that a Four-Power Pact, carried out with vigour and honesty between us, would have created a situation far more secure than the harnessing of a few satellite weak states as buffers between them and a possible future aggressor. I will not admit failure yet. We will try again. If I can make one great appeal to the United States, it is this: " Do not be daunted by a first refusal, due in my view to an unjustified suspicion. The rest of us in Europe, at least, not only welcome your proposal, but look upon it as giving the greatest possible hope for the removal of misunderstanding and the creation of confidence."The proposal implies on the part of the United States the acceptance of obligations and the utilisation of what, I think, is one of her finest qualities, her great idealism, which seems to spring from a great vision of peace, resulting in action of a kind which will, if carried into effect, bring immense relief to millions of toilers throughout Europe.
The French urged that Germany should be put on the agenda at the Paris meeting, and at that stage we were willing for a general preliminary discussion. I indicated to the House in my speech on 21st February that we were studying the Ruhr. We are fully conscious that the Ruhr is an arsenal of war. It is from there that the great German military staff drew their assistance and support. We are no less insistent than the French that this arsenal shall not be used again for war. As the Ruhr has a great potential for war,
1844
so it has a great potential for peace and the raising of the standard of life right throughout Europe. To that end the Cabinet have studied carefully papers advancing preliminary views as to how the Ruhr might possibly be organised. While they have not yet come to a final conclusion, I did ask for authority that these preliminary proposals might be examined objectively with the French, the Dutch, the Luxemburgers and the Belgians in the first instance. This was in accordance with the decision we arrived at, that we should pursue the subject through diplomatic channels in the first instance.
My idea was that if those of us who have been so vitally affected in the West in the last two great wars could come to some preliminary agreed conception, we might find a common basis upon which to consult the other Powers concerned. There are clearly two points of view. The French believe that only by the separation of the Ruhr politically can security from German aggression be achieved. I have felt in my study of the problem that the creation of a separate province under international control, to be fitted ultimately into a federal Germany, if one were established, might be a better safeguard. This is a debatable point, but I would like to stress that I am fully conscious of all the dangers inherent in a strong centralised Germany. These different viewpoints are, at present, under expert and urgent consideration.
Therefore, in no dogmatic sense, and in no secret way, we have approached this problem. It is not a case in which you can arrive at dogmatic conclusions and impose them upon others. We must evolve the right solution for the security of Europe. When the time comes and further advance is made, I shall be very happy to put the whole proposal before the House, but I do not think at this preliminary stage I can say more. In this connection, the French have pressed the point whether the Saar should at this stage be separated from Germany. At the same time, the United States have urged that a special body of deputies should be set up to study the German problem in two phases, one, giving effect to the Potsdam decisions, and, two, in ultimate design of the new Germany. I could not at the meeting in Paris agree to the separation of any part of Germany without going into the whole question of Germany's frontiers as a whole, and

1845
knowing what the new Germany was to be. I proposed a resolution in the following terms:
"That we appoint special deputies to examine the whole problems of Germany, to study the implementation of the decisions of Berlin, to study proposals to lead up to the preparation of a Peace Treaty and the fixing of frontiers, taking into account the views expressed by this Conference on Germany and its future, and to present an interim report at the meeting of 15th June."
I desire to make it clear that in any final settlement His Majesty's Government, subject to the adjustments of reparations and other obligations which are involved, favour the transfer of the Saar to the French, but I would prefer that the German problem should be considered as a whole before that final step is taken. There was an attempt by our Soviet friends to make a special point of the Ruhr, but my attitude has been all through that we must not only know what is happening in the Ruhr, but what is happening in Saxony, in Thuringia and everywhere else, including the French and American zones.
That brings me to the point of the present situation which is causing so much difficulty. The Potsdam Agreement envisaged Germany being treated as a whole, which meant that the surplus food supplies of the East would feed the West, and the goods of the West would go to the East, and so on; and sufficient earnings would be produced, so that Germany would not be a charge on any of the Allies. That was the basis. We, His Majesty's Government, cannot accept the position which involves a budgetary expenditure of £80 million a year to subsidise Germany. We cannot accept the position that the Soviet zone is an exclusive place, while our zone alone is wide open for inspection, and we are subject to accusations for which there is not the slightest justification. As soon as that point of principle is settled, as I hope it will be, and there is a real, honest endeavour to tackle the whole problem, I believe that we can make progress on the German situation.
In addition, we have had great trouble and great difficulties over the level of German industry. I had my view, when I was a member of the Coalition Government, and I see no reason to change it now. The facts are the same. I came to the conclusion that Germany should be allowed to produce 11 million tons of steel
1846
for rehabilitation. This was the yardstick for determining the level of her industry. I believe that was the unanimous decision among us, after months and months of weary study. We were first offered a capacity of 5.8 million tons of steel. That amount produced in Germany would mean £100 million expenditure on our Budget, subsidising Germany, because the steel production determines the level of practically all the other industries in the country. Therefore, I had to fight very hard, and, finally, the capacity was settled at 7½ million tons. I accepted this with great misgivings, but had in mind the reservation that, if it did not turn out right, we could reopen. Of course, we shall not reach 7½ million tons for some time, but I still think that it may have to be revised. If, on the other hand, as I have figured it, 11 million tons of steel capacity seems dangerous on security grounds, the solution would appear to be to place the Ruhr, where the bulk of steel capacity exists, under international control. This would take the sting or danger out of the Ruhr, and allow it to become not a German industry but a European industry, which would develop the life of the community of all the peoples of Europe. I would limit the Ruhr production, so far as I could, to partially manufactured commodities, allowing the finishing end to be spread all over Europe. After all, it is the finishing end of this industry which is most quickly convertible into war potential.
May I turn—I am very sorry to be so long—to another very vexed problem which has agitated the public, and that was the proposal to call a conference of the 21 nations, in the event of our not being able to agree in Paris. The United States and ourselves came to the conclusion—and this is not " ganging-up "— that we could not go on in a state of war for ever. Have we the moral right to say to the rest of the 21 nations, who were actively engaged in the fighting, and who, it has been agreed, should be brought in to discuss the treaties, " You must go on in a state of war for ever because we four gentlemen cannot agree "? Really, that is an intolerable situation. The purpose of the Four Power meetings was, as I understand it, to facilitate the making of peace and not to obstruct it. If the four cannot agree, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable and democratic proposal to let daylight into

1847
the problems by the rest of the 21 nations involved expressing their views, and, out of their views, possibly finding a solution. His Majesty's Government, able as we are, do not claim to have a monopoly of judgment. There are other countries, if not other parties, which may be of inestimable value in finding a solution to these problems. M. Molotov's attitude was that the proposal would end in two conferences. I tried to fathom this out, and, in the end, I came to the conclusion that what he meant was two opinions. Therefore, you cannot move at all if there is a diversity of opinion.
It is very difficult for us to accept rule by one party or one opinion. It is an intolerable situation, and we shall never get peace, if that goes on. Our position is that if we cannot get agreement of the four in the Council of Foreign Ministers, we should take our work before the conference of 21—both the drafts we have agreed, and the questions on which we have failed to agree—and if we still cannot get agreement on calling the conference of 21, it is obvious that the world cannot be left in this undecided state. We cannot be forced to aquiesce in a indefinite stalemate. We must regularise our relations with the ex-enemy countries. It cannot go on very much longer. There have been, in the course of these difficulties, other ideas promulgated, but I will not pronounce an opinion upon them now. I propose to make another effort at agreement before deciding on any final or alternative form.
If I may lead this tour of the horizon from the troubles of Europe, to those of the Middle East and Far East, I had better stop on my way because I know that hon. Members are interested in Palestine. The report of the Palestine Committee has been carefully studied by the United States and the British Governments. It has been circulated to the Jews and the Arabs. We await their observations, Which I hope, in spite of public statements and demonstrations, will be constructive and assist in finding a permanent solution of this problem.
I have been asked, as this Debate was coming on, to deal with Indonesia. The return to Batavia at the beginning of May of the Lieut.-Governor-General, Dr. Van Mook, marks a new stage in the long drawn out negotiations between the Dutch
1848
and the Indonesians. I say to the Dutch and Indonesians that I hope this will prove the final stage. I do not propose to give the House details of these negotiations because they are primarily the concern of the two parties affected, but the House will, however, be aware from the reports of the Debates in the Netherlands States General last month that the Dutch approved the policy of the late Netherlands Government as regards the grant of autonomy to the Netherlands East Indies. I am anxious that all British Forces should be withdrawn from the Netherlands East Indies as soon as possible. While the military task of evacuating Allied prisoners of war and internees and Japanese Forces from the interior of Java is proceeding slowly and steadily, it has not yet been completed, but I hope that it will not be delayed too long. This Indonesian problem has given us a good deal of anxiety.
I do not propose today—I will leave it to other speakers—to deal with the question of Japan. But after dwelling on the vast problem of Europe and the Paris Conference, I did not intend today to broaden the Debate any further, except to make one reference to our work in the Far East in dealing with the great problem of food supplies and its effect on economic policy in that area. It will be remembered that I reported to the House that we found it necessary to set up a Special Commission for South-East Asia in Singapore. Lord Killearn was put in charge of this and has had to set on foot the vigorous campaign for improving the production and distribution of food as a defence against the famine which threatens South-East Asia, as well as India and China, and which affects the whole political situation in that territory. In order to provide efficient machinery to help him a special Cabinet Committee was set up, under Lord Nathan, to concert action here at home. Since Lord Nathan's arrival he has had two conferences, one food and one on nutrition at Singapore. The whole problem is being studied afresh.
As a result of those conferences we have been given a clear picture of the extent of hunger and under-nourishment in South-East Asia, and many important measures have been taken for increasing production and improving the distribution of foodstuffs within the framework of the Combined Food Board's allocations. The

1849
primary object of these measures has been to increase the acreage sown with rice and other crops We have aimed at introducing more stable economic conditions, with a greater flow of supplies as an incentive to the cultivator. Inducement goods have been provided in the shape of tools and equipment and consumer goods, such as textiles, etc. An agreement has been concluded with the Siamese Government for the purchase of 1,200,000 tons of rice during the next twelve months, and we have taken steps to rehabilitate the Siamese internal transport and railway system. The Government of Burma have been able to makeavailable several hundred thousands tons of old rice. The Netherlands East Indies have agreed to sell some 500,000 tons of unmilled rice, but apart from the immediate question of food, Lord Killearn has taken over from Admiral Mountbatten many of the coordinating economic functions which the Supreme Commander exercised. I felt it was important that these should not be allowed to lapse, even after the resumption of civil government. There is one essential thing in the Far East in my view, and that is the coordination of our effort over the whole of that territory, to contribute as far as we can to improve the standard of life there.
Finally, if I may go back again, I find from Press reports that we are alleged to have indulged in a bloc. I gather the interpretation is that we are engaged in some conspiracy for acquiring bases in various islands of the Pacific and Atlantic areas. The way it is put out to the world would impute a very sinister ring to what is a. very straightforward affair. In the course of the war which has just closed, the United States Government established bases, on a number of islands administered by Governments of the British Commonwealth, for the sole purpose of prosecuting the war against the common enemy, and with the willing consent of the Governments concerned. They spent a lot of money on those bases, and naturally they want to know our views about their future status and maintenance. Quite apart from any question of their future military value, many of those places are important from the point of view of civil aviation. We have been discussing all this with the United States and the Dominions. I hope we shall be able to make arrangements which will be to the general interest, and I trust that what I have said
1850
will prevent any further ill-grounded suggestions that we are engaged in some sort of conspiracy in this matter.
As I am on the subject of bases, I should like to call attention to the announcement made this morning that the British and United States war time air bases in the Azores were handed over to the Portuguese Government on Sunday, 2nd June. As the House will be aware, these facilities in the Azores were granted to us and the United States in 1943 and 1944 respectively, on the understanding that British and American forces would be withdrawn at the end of the war. The use of these facilities contributed materially to the success of the Allied war effort, and I should like to take this opportunity to place on record the very great assistance rendered to the Allied cause by the Portuguese Government in granting these facilities, which proved of very great value not only in connection with the war against the U-boats, but also in assisting the passage of aircraft and supplies from the Western hemisphere to the European and Far Eastern areas. In this way the 600-year-old Anglo-Portuguese Alliance once again proved its value.
In conclusion, I repeat that I am not unduly pessimistic. I do not think that it will be impossible for us at our next meeting to arrive at agreed conclusions. There is no real and insurmountable division. If all parties will try, Europe can revive and security for all can be provided. But they must try; we can and we must, if everybody is willing, bridge the gap now existing between the East and the West, since otherwise the peace will be no more durable than that after 1919. The disadvantages of such a state of affairs both to the West and to the East would only be too apparent. For only so can relations of real- confidence be established, and real confidence involves mutual respect and trust. It has been said in the past that East and West will never meet. The science of man has settled that. Not only must we meet, we must understand and learn to co-operate. It is my belief that mutual respect and confidence is now in the process of formation. The task is admittedly difficult. I cannot promise success at the next conference, but I will do my best, in the interests of the common people of the world, to deserve it.
5.9 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure the House will be grateful to

1851
the right hon. Gentleman for his massive review of events in the foreign sphere, and for the serious and important contribution which he has made to our Debates. His speech takes its place in the trilogy of utterances of the Foreign Ministers of the three major Allies, and I think we welcome what he says and shall take due note of it and examine it in detail. I am sure the House will sympathise with me in having to follow immediately after so complicated and lengthy a pronouncement. I cannot be expected to traverse it in every detail, nor need I detain the House unduly long. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that peacemaking is a privilege. We might also say that it is a penance, a long drawn out and tedious affair, full of the anxieties through which the right hon. Gentleman has passed and through which he will undoubtedly still have to pass. I am sure that it is right to strike the note that patience is necessary. I should like to re-echo what was said by Mr. Byrnes, in his broadcast statement, that we are not likely to see any " flashing diplomatic triumphs." Nevertheless, through the path of patience and hard work, much may be done, and this Debate will be valuable if we contribute of our best to it.
The right hon. Gentleman made comparison with 1918. I have been inclined to look even further back, to an even greater peacemaking, after the Napoleonic wars. It took place amid difficulties similar to those which are facing the right hon. Gentleman today. In the period immediately following it, our Foreign Secretary, Canning, wrote to one of his ambassadors:
" What is the influence we have had in the counsels of the Allies, and which Prince Metternch exhorts us to be careful not to throw away? We protested at Laibach, we remonstrated at Verona. Our protests were treated as waste paper and our remonstrances mingled with the air."
The right hon. Gentleman must sometimes feel that his protests are treated as waste paper and that his remonstrances mingle with the air. Despite those humiliating sensations I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that some of our most distinguished Foreign Secretaries, his predecessors, have had to go through similar experiences to those through which he is passing today, and that they have, in the end, as was the case with that particular Conference, secured peace terms which re-
1852
sulted in as long a period without war as our modern history has shown. We can only trust, if the right hon. Gentleman's diplomacy does not confine itself to protests and remonstrances, but consists in the active building of friendships, that we may perhaps be successful on this occasion.
Despite discouragement, the right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, press ahead with a rather more positive policy than he has been able to announce in his speech this afternoon. He has of necessity been obliged to establish the British position upon a great many subjects and in a great many directions. We agree with him that our ultimate objective should be the restoration of the rule of law and of international machinery; but we also add to that the need for a more positive policy in preserving the interests and the way of living which we share with the common inheritors of the traditions of our Western civilisation, interests with which the future of this country is intimately concerned. Certain of my remarks will be directed to making more positive suggestions than the right hon. Gentleman, in his responsible position, feels able to make today, towards cementing closely the bonds of friendship with our Western neighbours In that way, any speeches that we may contribute from this side of the House will dovetail in with those of the right hon. Gentleman.
Before I come to that aspect of my remarks, I would say a few words about some aspects of the international problems mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, we have no quarrel with his description of the legitimate aspirations of the Russian people, and, in particular, of their search for warm seas, which is a historic necessity and a historic need of the Russian people. W3 do not quarrel with the suggestion of the revision of the Montreux Convention. We very much support what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need for maintaining the independence of Turkey. In addition to what the right hon. Gentleman said, I also hope that it may be the case that the pressure—for one can call it nothing else—coming upon Turkey from her Eastern boundary, from Azerbaijan, will be modified, so that the tension under which the Turkish Government are living at the moment and the economic stress which is resulting in the country, may be somewhat mitigated.

1853
We similarly support the right hon. Gentleman's plea for the freeing of the waterways of Europe and, in particular, of the Danube. We would desire to see, as soon as possible, Austria free and the Austrian Treaty ratified. We would go further and desire to see more progress made with the Italian Treaty, to which the right hon. Gentleman had not the opportunity to devote a great deal of time. It is three years since Italy signed the armistice. For a year and a-half the Italian Forces assisted ours in driving the enemy from the soil of Italy. Now the Italian elections are over, and it is to be hoped that Italy may take her place in the society of democratic nations. In this connection I support the right hon. Gentleman's plea for coming to a conclusion in these questions of peace treaties, and for not letting these matters dangle too long, despite the fact that in the immediate future the right hon. Gentleman is, quite rightly, proposing to give another opportunity to the Big Four to settle the matter, if they can.
In the matter of the Italian Colonies, I feel that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who is unable to be here today, would wish to support the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about our pledges to the Senussi. In general, leaving aside the details with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal, we do not see very much with which to quarrel in his statement about the Italian colonies.
Before I come to the point about closer friendship with our Western neighbours, I want to refer to remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made about the Middle East and the Far East. We welcome the statement he has made on plans for increasing the supply of food. I welcome the activities of Lord Killearn. We wish to hear from the Government—I want to be quite emphatic here—their attitude on Far Eastern problems. We have raised this question in more than one foreign affairs Debate, and so far we have elicited no statement from the Government as to the situation in the Far East or to their attitude to the problems there. The right hon. Gentleman said that questions might be asked. I would ask him what the position is in Japan. Is there any proposition for the appointment of a British political officer in Japan, to take his place and to play his part? I trust that may be so. At present we feel that we are not fully
1854
and properly represented in that country. Further, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the internal position:n Japan? Can he enlarge upon it by giving us some description of the position in China and Manchuria. I understand that, as a result of General Marshall's mediation, the situation in Honan and Shantung has definitely improved and that the position in Manchuria is quieter. If that be the case, we should like confirmation of it from Government sources.
I would like to ask whether our trade position is being watched in China, so that our trade may expand in those regions. Are our consuls re-established in their positions in China? Have they re-established their contacts? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is our intention to send any sort of mission to the Far East for the purpose of developing our trade there? Leaving the Far East, I would ask similar questions about South America. Is it proposed, and has any step been taken by diplomatic initiative, to improve the opportunities and chances for our trade in South America? Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to tell us about the situation in South America? That is a brief survey of the ground which the right hon. Gentleman covered in his massive review.
Now I come to the main part of what I want to say, and I begin to deal with the central problem of all, that is, the problem of Germany. I remember M. Litvinov making the statement that peace is indivisible. We are ready to accept that as the philosophy which should animate not only ourselves, but our Russian friends as well, in dealing with this central of all the problems in foreign policy at the present time. However, I trust that the Soviet Government will not make a paraphrase of that motto of Lord Curzon which we used to find on our passports some years ago, after the last war. The paraphrase which differs from the original would run, " Let us have what we now hold."That would indeed be a most unfortunate alternative motto. Let us, therefore, adhere to the maxim laid down by M. Litvinov that peace is indivisible. It would be tragic if the peace settlement were merely a registration of those frontier lines upon which the victorious armies finally stabilised their positions. I do not wish to support Mr. Lippmann's opinions, in view of his recent extraordinary statements about the supposed

1855
activities of the British in the British zone of Germany, and their use—which perhaps he may not have foreseen—by Russian propaganda. But I would like to borrow from one of Mr. Lippmann's recent articles a phrase in which, in his inimitable style, he invites his own State Department to invest in the central issue of Germany " a fraction of the brain power, the nervous energy and the moral passion that they have devoted to secondary issues."That invitation could equally well be given to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends at the present time.
There is no doubt that the central problem at the present time is the question of Germany. The right hon. Gentleman, very rightly, in our view, welcomed Mr. Byrnes' proposal for a 25 years' disarmament treaty. I had intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of his extraordinary caution over this proposal. As far as I know, from my sources, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, are almost entirely the public Press, these ideas were put forward as early as 20th September, 1945. But the right hon. Gentleman has explained that the question was put to him in private, and that he was aware of it, and that he was not, therefore, put into a position to be able to come out more positively in favour of that proposal during the course of the recent meeting. The right hon. Gentleman has made his explanation, and he has now more than made up for any lack of time by his generous tribute to the proposal and to the great idealism of the American people which animated such a proposal. He has, in homely language, used the expression, "Don't miss it."That, I think, is a sentiment which we should all support. This proposal is one of very great importance, and we on this side would like to support the initiative, and encourage the British Government from now on to support it to the full. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should develop into a Four-Power Pact.
But what we are not quite so happy about was the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to go any further today, at any rate in giving us more detailed views about the future of Germany. We agree at once that his proposal that the Powers of the West should get together to make some preliminary investigation is a sensible one. Without the Powers of the West
1856
getting together to discuss these matters, it would be impossible to reach any sensible solution. We also support strongly the right hon. Gentleman's view that there should not be set up a strong centralised Germany. I have read some particularly excellent articles by M. Francois Poncet, giving the French point of view, which indicate that it was the militarists and the junkers who went for a centralised Germany, whereas it was the democrats and others who went for the federal type of Germany. I hope and believe that the French will be in general sympathy with this idea, providing its details are worked out to their satisfaction. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might go further in making proposals for some sort of federalised Germany, and I trust the fact that he has not been able to go further today means that he may be able to consider this and go further on another occasion. Surely, it would be a very sensible solution of the German problem that there should be areas, such as Schleswig-Holstein and the Hanseatic area, Greater Hanover and the vital area, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of the Rhineland and the Ruhr and perhaps Westphalia, which should be units within this federation and which should aim eventually to link up with units from the other side of what at present is the line of division. These units should then join together in some sort of over-all customs union, and, as a vital feature of the plan—to which the right hon. Gentleman did refer—the industrial area, including the arsenal of the Ruhr, should be internationalised. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman could not go further with that actual conception, but he did give us an indication that it was at least in his mind. I agree with him, as I am sure many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will do, that the Saar should eventually go to France.
But where we are perhaps more disappointed is that the right hon. Gentleman has not given, to me, at any rate, an impression—which I am sure is present in his mind, because he must be seized of the terrible problems which are facing us in Germany at the present time—that he has an alternative plan in his mind to take the place of the Potsdam Agreement. The Potsdam Agreement was based on the fundamentally sensible conception that German unity in the economic sphere shall be regarded as a

1857
necessity, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave, namely, that Saxony and Thuringia need steel from the Ruhr, and the workers of the Ruhr need food from East of the present line. If that be accepted, we realise that that must be the ultimate aim. As lately as 10th May, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that quadrilateral control would be the Government's objective for the time being; but the fact is that this system and that plan are not working out as they were intended to work out, and that something like an economic morass is likely to occur in Germany, a position as sombre as the imagination can paint, unless we are ready with plans in the event of the ideal of a plan of a united economy not working out. It seems to me that if the overall aim cannot be obtained, the Government should immediately set about making the areas of a future German federation, which lie within our control, viable in the economic sphere. The position in the British zone is very serious, as anybody knows who has visited the zone recently. It is said that many of the 500,000 irrepatriables are in the British zone. In this connection, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, who is to reply, what the Government propose to do with regard to the Sub-Committee of the United Nations which has reported upon displaced persons, and whether it is their intention that the International Refugees Organisation shall eventually be attached to the United Nations.
When one looks at the British zone and at the question of reparations, one begins to sec the strength that there is in the British zone itself. For example, no less than 262 of the plants scheduled for reparations to go to the various countries, including Russia, are within the British zone; there are only 174 in the American zone, and from 20 to 30 in the French zone. This indicates in itself the industrial potential that there is within the British zone, and that we are, in fact, interested as to over 50 per cent. in the problem of reparations. If that be the case, I should like to ask whether it is the Government's intention to follow up the recent American démarche in the suspension of these reparations and in holding them up at the present time.
If it is their intention to follow the American policy, and if they are con-
1858
templating positive moves to restore the economic position in the British zone—I suggest such a step should be a part of a wider agreed scheme of economic reform to take the place of the Potsdam Agreement itself. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman were to tackle this, as I am sure he intends to do, with bigger determination, he would have the support and sympathy of many on all sides of the House. I cannot help thinking—and I do not want to be mealy mouthed in this matter—that the whole of our British prestige is involved in the manner in which we administer our zone in Germany, and a bigger drive ought to be undertaken than is contemplated at present. We have not been satisfied with the answers given in this House in Question and answer and in small Debates on this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself deplored the immense amount of money we have had to spend in the area. It would not be so bad spending those vast sums of money if we were satisfied that a bigger drive was being undertaken and that this area was and will be a credit to British administration and to the British name.
I should like to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks on the importance of associating France with any re-creation of Germany or with any question dealing with the central problem of Europe. The French attitude, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is usually severely practical. The French will be more interested in taking a share in the potential means of recovery, and not simply in accepting from the right hon. Gentleman a promise of security. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will approach this problem of closer friendship with France from the angle of German reconstruction. In the first place our relations with France have gone on for something like 150 years without ever being really formalised. But now in my view the needs of Europe, of Britain and of France demand that the right hon. Gentleman should double the rôles of Cobden and Lansdowne; by that I mean that the right hon. Gentleman should come to an understanding with France and should take into consideration the whole of the economic aspect as well as the political aspect. There has been a great deal of loose talk about closer understanding with France. I am not referring now to the right hon. Gentleman, but that

1859
loose talk has been in the country and in the Press. If we are to have closer understanding with France we must realise that unless we associate France with the problem of Germany, we shall not have any satisfactory understanding. In the second place, we shall have to realise there must be some aspect of economic aid. The recent financial agreement, which bears all the stamp of the Treasury in its most astute and keen mood with its cash and carry aspect, has not been, to put it mildly, very well received in France, and the right hon. Gentleman will, I think, have to consider sterling credits if he is to restore the position in that direction. Similarly, what is often forgotten in closer understanding with France is that it will be necessary to consider the Arab world and African policy. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue a closer relationship with France now that the elections are over and the French are moving in a direction which means a return to normal conditions.
I trust that closer relationship with France will form a part of a wider understanding amongst the countries of Europe. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington spoke on 21st February he asked the right hon. Gentleman what progress he was making in this direction. The last message the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington gave to me was " Put that question again to the right hon. Gentleman." We have heard very little of progress in this direction. I should like to feel that the right hon. Gentleman in his task of making positive friendship was drawing much closer to some of those countries in Western Europe with whom we have shared so much and do share so much of our common civilisation. I should like to look to some sort of—and this is a name familiar to the right hon. Gentleman—" cooperative society " among the nations of Western Europe. I use that phrase not only to excite the sympathy and interest of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, but to attempt to show that the objective of such a move would not endanger or damage any other single power in the world. There should be nothing less dangerous than the conception of drawing closer to our Western neighbours. Such a society or such a federation would be based on the culture traditions of
1860
Western Christendom and cemented by political and economic ties specifically provided for in Article 52 of the Charter of the United Nations. Our major Allies themselves have developed intimate relations, the one with their sister Americans and the other with their immediate neighbours in the West. I cannot but feel that in one case such a course, if adopted with far more determination and far more drive than the Government have already given or shown, would be very much to the interests of Great Britain at the present time and very much to the interest of the other countries concerned.
I promised not to detain the House too long, so I will conclude by saying that our aim on this side of the House is to encourage British diplomacy to take the initiative rather more than is indicated in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and not to beat the air or be too cautious. In our relationships with the United States, with Western Europe, with the Far East, or with South America they should go ahead and widen the existing friendships. While our main object should be to restore international law and morality, the right hon. Gentleman should meanwhile set about the tasks nearer at hand in a more positive way than that which he has been able to give us any indication of today. M. Saurat, writing a letter as recently as 22nd May, said:
"If there must be two camps in Europe they must collaborate."
I think that was the message of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, M. Saurat went on to say:
"In order to make both camps in Europe collaborate they must exist."
In our view, the Government are not taking positive enough steps to make the camp to which we belong exist, and to do more than exist—to live to the full an economic, political, cultural and spiritual life, the traditions of which go back so far in the history of our Western civilisation.
5.39 p.m.
Wing-Commander Shackleton: In rising to address the House for the first time, I would ask for the indulgence which the House always gives so generously to a Member making his maiden speech. I feel all the more hesitant about intervening in this Debate after hearing the Foreign Secretary's account of the appalling responsibilities which face him and which face the

1861
statesmen of the world today. It is quite clear that as he surveys the present international situation, he must regard each problem as an essential part of a general pattern. The House does not need me to stress this point, but I do mention it because of the two problems to which I wish to refer today. I mention them because they play a part in that overall pattern—that pattern of foreign policy which has to be smoothed out in order to enable us to achieve the necessary balance and prospect of peace.
The first subject to which I wish to refer is Austria, and I do so with some delicacy and hesitancy in view of what the Foreign Secretary had to say. But there are many Members, especially on this side of the House, who feel most anxious and most saddened by the refusal of the recent Conference to allow the prospect of the return of the South Tyrol to Austria. I well realise that the difficulties in satisfying Italian demands, or I should say in maintaining the life of Italy, are very great, but, nevertheless, I think we have a special responsibility towards Austria, because it was through our weakness in 1938 that Austria was overrun by Germany. I was in Berlin in those. painful days of February and March, 1938, and it was clear then unless a decisive word was spoken by this country Austria would be lost.—and Austria was lost. I therefore feel that we have a special responsibility for that unhappy country.
If it were possible today to achieve a true federation of the world it would not be necessary to talk about returning bits of territory to one country from another, but that situation does not exist, and in those circumstances the old saying that if Austria had not existed it would have been necessary to create her, is still good today. I feel that it is in our interests, as well as in the interests of justice and right principles, that we should do our utmost to strengthen the position of Austria. The Foreign Secretary spoke movingly of the feeling that he and those of us on this side of the House have for our social democratic brothers in Austria. The Social Democrats in Austria are united with all parties in their request, their demand, for the return of the South Tyrol as being essential for the consolidation of Austria. I do not want to say more on that, except to mention that in so far as there is a pattern in our foreign
1862
affairs, I believe that Austria is as important to our Middle East position as Italy, or any of the other countries which we are striving to support and encourage in these difficult days.
I would like to refer to a matter which has not been discussed in this Debate. It is one which I and others believe to be of the greatest importance to international relations. It is the much discussed subject of the international control of atomic energy. There is, at least, some reason to believe that our earlier policy with regard to control of atomic power was one of the causes of Russian suspicion, that suspicion which the Foreign Secretary today said he is willing to attempt to allay. I do not propose to go into the rights or wrongs of the decision which was taken last year, because I believe that this country did attempt to give a lead to the world on the subject, and that when the; Prime Minister took the initiative in instigating the action which led to the declaration of November, 1943, that represented a genuine effort on the part of this country.
The main point of that declaration, which stressed the need for international control of atomic energy, seems to have been forgotten here. We have lagged behind America, because in the last few months a very remarkable report has been produced by the American Lilienthal Committee. Their report seems to have escaped notice in this country, certainly official comment. There is good reason to believe that this report may be adopted by the American Government, and be put forward by their delegate to the U.N.O. Commission on atomic energy. It amounts to the first real proposal for international Socialism, and I know Members opposite will forgive me for calling it international Socialism, since one of them has just suggested a " Cooperative Party " for European nations. I am sure they will agree with the proposals in that report, that control should be effected, not by a mere system of inspection, but by international ownership of the main atomic production plants, as well as of the necessary raw materials.
I believe these proposals are a remarkable advance towards that international cooperation for which we are striving. I think we all recognise that international rivalry, in economic as well as military affairs, is one of the main causes of fear

1863
and suspicion. Historically, this has always been true, and it is just as true today. In fact, fear of the use of atomic weapons has heightened that rivalry, has made it more intense, so that the need for obtaining control over certain raw materials, which was part of the vicious circle which led to both world wars, applies just as much, if not more so, to those substances, uranium and thorium. Rich sources of those materials are to be found in relatively few parts of the world, and I believe that by allowing this vital problem to be solved on a national competitive basis there may result tensions of such a nature that the world may be threatened without any overt action or any deliberate action of power politics on the part of any country in the world. The Lilienthal report, which I have not time to discuss in detail today, suggests that international control of atomic energy would not be possible as a result of a mere system of inspection. The report urges that if an international agency can be set up, which will be engaged in its development and operation, it will be able, far better than a national system, or system of pure control, to discharge the proper functions of safeguarding the world's future by safeguarding its fears of the use of the atomic bomb.
It has therefore been proposed, in this report, that an international agency should be set up with express jurisdiction to conduct all intrinsically dangerous operations in the field of atomic energy. That means all activities relating to raw materials, the construction and operation of production plants, the conducting of research and the making of explosives. It is possible to allow a large measure of atomic energy research, and the use of atomic energy for power, to be handled and developed by national agencies, provided that certain dangerous operations are controlled and owned by this international authority. I believe that in this plan lies the most fruitful prospect for the future. In it I can see one of the few opportunities for positive action towards peace that lie in front of us today. If we adopt these proposals, if we can give them encouragement, there is a positive line of international development. I believe that the setting up of a sort of super-national authority would represent a definite step towards that world federation which many of us believe to be in-
1864
evitable, and the only possible future for the nations of the world.
I should therefore like to ask that the Government should make some statement on their attitude towards this report. I believe it is vital that the whole world should know where we stand in the matter, and I also think that such a gesture would be of the greatest significance in the present world situation. I am so convinced of this that I earnestly pray that we will strive as hard as we possibly can, by publicising our attitude and by working for it, to create some sort of organisation such as is proposed by the Lilienthal Report, because that will represent the first tangible sign of an effective United Nations organisation, and it will then take a concrete form in which the Powers who today seem to be in such a sorry state of disagreement can find a real measure of common ground.
I conclude by quoting from the introduction written by the distinguished board of consultants who produced the report:
" We have concluded our deliberations on this most difficult problem, not in a spirit of hopelessness and despair, but with a measure of confidence. … It is worth contrasting the sense of hope and confidence which all of us share today with the feeling which we had at the outset. The vast difficulties of the problem were oppressive, and we early concluded that we could only make recommendations and stress the limitations of the proposals, but, as we steeped ourselves in the facts and caught the feel of the nature of the problem we became more hopeful. That hopefulness grew not out of any preconceived " solution " but out of a patient and time-consuming analysis and understanding of the facts that throw light on the numerous alternatives that we explored."
So, five men of widely different backgrounds and experiences who were far apart at the outset found themselves, at the end of a month's absorption in this problem, in general agreement. That Committee say that they believe that others may have a similar experience if a similar process is followed and a similar determination shown. I believe that this is a message of hope to the world, and that the experience of the men who produced that report may be of value not only because it provides a practical solution to the most serious problem that confronts us in international affairs today, but also because that approach may ultimately enable others to tackle the problems that face us throughout the world and enable them to be solved in the same way that

1865
this problem of atomic energy can be solved, provided we make up our minds to base our decisions and our actions on the United Nations Organisation
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Molson: It is my happy privilege to be able to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) upon his maiden speech. He has chosen a subject which will certainly occupy the discussions of this House on many occasions in the future, and I am sure that the House will look forward to his contributions upon that subject whenever it is discussed. I think hon. Members will probably all agree that the Lilienthal Report to which he has referred is a most valuable contribution towards the task of preventing the new discoveries connected with atomic energy from proving to be the destruction of the world. I am sure the whole House will join with me in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the way he has made his maiden speech.
I was happy to hear the speech of the Foreign Secretary and to follow the lines of his argument. At these international conferences he has certainly stepped far above the position of being a mere party representative, and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) this afternoon indicated how far the Minister, in his attitude at the Paris Conference, had represented the views of both sides of the House. I was happy in particular to hear what he had to say about Italy. We have not yet seen what the revised Armistice terms are but I hope they will be found to relieve Italy of most of the onerous obligations put upon her when fighting came to an end. The Foreign Secretary said some time ago, in reply to a supplementary question, that he felt that Italy had worked her passage home, and the Under-Secretary, in the course of a brief speech upon the Adjournment the other night, indicated that the attitude of His Majesty's Government to Italy is one of great good will.
What the Foreign Secretary said today clearly indicated, I think, that he will continue in the meetings of the Big Three to defend Italy from the demands both for the cession of Trieste and for the payment of reparations. When one considers how much greater were the losses inflicted
1866
by Italy upon the British Empire than upon Russia, and when one recalls that we are not making any claims for reparations but, on the contrary, are doing all we can out of our own resources to restore Italy to prosperity, it would indeed be monstrous if that contribution were made still more onerous in order that reparations coud be received by another country which has suffered so much less severely at the hands of Italy than we ourselves.
It was about Germany that I wanted especially to speak this afternoon. I had once thought that statesmen would net again make the same blunders that they made at the end of the Four Years War. I knew that blunders would be made, but I thought that they would probably be the opposite blunders. However, the Potsdam Agreement far exceeded in folly the economic clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. It was unfortunate that Lord Keynes, being too busily occupied with other matters, and being also in the service of the Government, was not able to write a sequel to "The Economic Consequences of the Peace " and entitle it, "The Economic Consequences of Potsdam," but already the economic consequences of Potsdam are plain for anyone to see.
I think that even if the Potsdam Agreement had been carried out in full the idea of the de-industrialising of Germany was folly from the beginning. I believe that if there is to be a prosperous and happy Europe, it is essential that Germany should remain a great industrial country. Peace is not to be found by reducing a great country to a state of economic misery. I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon; I agree with him that it is important that there should not be re-created a politically strong and united Germany because that would at once again become a menace to the peace of the world, and I welcome therefore what he said about the idea of a number of federated German States. If that is done, there can really be no justification for the deliberate de-industrialisation of Germany.
That is made even more obvious when we remember that most of the countries surrounding Germany are expelling their German minorities. I make no complaint about that. The German minorities in nearly every country proved to be a source of danger and unrest, and I believe

1867
that the policy of exchange of populations is one which can, with advantage, be applied. At the end of the Four Years War it was applied between Turkey and Greece, and the relations between those two countries have been uniformly friendly ever since. If these German minorities are to be expelled from their countries, it is essential to give Germany the industrial capacity to reabsorb them. When, finally, we remember that 12 to 15 per cent. of the prewar income of Germany came from those Eastern lands which have been annexed by Poland, clearly it would be impossible for Germany to remain in any kind of normal existence unless it were able to retain its industry. But foolish as the Potsdam agreements, in my submission, were, they were at any rate not so foolish as to imagine that that policy could be carried out unless Germany did remain a united whole. That is exactly what has not happened. As the Foreign Secretary described to us in detail today, the different zones in Germany have been divided and we have every reason to believe that the great food-raising areas which are in Russian control are exporting food to Russia while the British zone is suffering from something approaching famine.
I recognise that the Government find themselves in an extremely difficult position. What means of pressure can we bring to bear to re-establish the unity of Germany in a general industrial sense? What indeed can we do to get Russia to join in the general pool for the distribution of food? I put a Question to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other day and learnt that U.N.R.R.A. is sending large quantities of food for the relief of the Ukraine. We know that Russia has sold large quantities of grain to France. I read in the paper that a large quantity of grain had been sent from Russia to Czechoslovakia, and I read at.the same time—I want to give the whole picture as I see it—that Russia was now shipping a certain amount of grain for the assistance of the American zone. Again, in answer to another question, we find that in the case of linseed oil, the Ministry of Food is unable to obtain the linseed oil which is required not only for ourselves but also for the other countries within the Empire for which we provide food and necessities.
1868
because Russia is buying in competition and is paying higher prices to the Argentine for linseed oil. Russia is able to do so because Russia has not come into the general United Nations Agreement. What are we to say about a state of affairs of this kind?
This country is responsible for the most highly industrialised part of Germany. The recovery of Europe is dependent on a great increase in output of coal from the Ruhr. Instead of the output of coal increasing, it is at the present time de creasing, and largely because of the short age of food. This shortage of food is partly due to the world-wide shortage of supplies. It is accentuated by the arbitrary breaking up of the industrial system of Germany. I believe that the policy which Russia is following at the present time is one of complete indifference to what happens in Western Europe. The increasing distress—
Mr. Gallacher: Is that why the grain was sent to France?
Mr. Molson: —would be to the advantage of Russia. First, because Russia has always regarded Europe as being the base from which a number of invasions have been mounted, and, second, because they realise that it is upon the break up of civilisation, and the acute hardship of unemployment and shortage of food that there rests the best chances for the extension of Communism.
Mr. Gallacher: Boloney.
Mr. Molson: I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say that he has in mind the urgency of settling the Western frontiers of Germany, To that end, I gather, he is already in negotiation with the French Government. The best hope for the future of Western Europe depends upon a close political and economic understanding between ourselves and France. There have been differences between us— there remain differences of method— but in the great broad issues there must be agreement between us. We have both suffered twice within one generation from the militarism of Germany, and no settlement of Europe can be satisfactory which holds out any danger of a revival of that menace. But in order to remove the political menace of a militaristic Germany, it is not necessary to wreck a great economic system or to

1869
destroy a people. If European civilisation is to survive, it can only be by bringing together Western Europe, and by treating at any rate the American, French and British zones of Germany as a single unit. I hope that the Foreign Secretary when he goes back to the Conference which is to be resumed on 15th June, will, first of all, do all that is possible to obtain agreement with his Russian colleague, but if agreement is not to be obtained, I hope he will remember that the safety and prosperity and good name of this country depend upon doing something to save our zone in Germany from collapse, and to rebuild the economic and political stability of Western Europe as a whole.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. John Paton: I begin by offering my hearty congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on the powerful and impressive speech he made this afternoon in his survey of the whole field of our international relations. I say that for a particular reason, because, before I have finished what I am going to say, I shall probably be criticising him very heavily in one particular respect. The Foreign Secretary, with that commonsense which illuminates his speeches, says so many things with which I am in hearty agreement, that I find it particularly difficult to voice the points on which I am in disagreement with him, but tonight I shall do so. I cannot hope, in the time that any back bencher may claim in a Debate like this, to traverse the whole field that he covered. I want to make only one general observation, therefore, and then I shall pass to a specific subject in which I am specially interested.
The general observation is on the lines of that which was made by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I would say to him that I am in hearty agreement with his main conclusion regarding the Potsdam declarations. I regard the Potsdam declarations as being sheer economic lunacy, and I was gratified, when listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), to detect what I think was his agreement with that proposition. He did not say in so many words that the Potsdam declarations had completely broken down and must now be swept aside, but he proceeded in his' argument to assume that that was in fact the position, because he began to erect a con-
1870
siderable structure of arguments as possible alternatives to Potsdam. I think the reason why Potsdam broke down was because of an extremely important fact, that the verbal agreements of Potsdam merely served to conceal fundamental differences in the points of view of the different Powers who were signatories to that agreement as to the ultimate objectives of the policies to which they were giving their assent.
I agree to some extent with the point of view of the hon. Member for The High Peak that there is a very great cleavage in ultimate conception as to the future of Central Europe, and particularly the future of its economic structure as between Russia and ourselves. I do not think that Russia as a great Socialist federation, largely self-supporting, with almost illimitable resources within her own country, completely independent of the limitations of a capitalist economy, need necessarily, or does in fact, view the German reconstruction in the same sense and from the same angle and as the same vital necessity as we do in Great Britain. That is a natural and inevitable consequence of the difference of the economic structures between our two countries. Therefore, I believe that Potsdam hid this fundamental disagreement in ultimate objective with regard to the fate of Central Europe and the kind of Central Europe that was desired, so that the thing was fated from its first moment to break down. It never had real meaning; the sooner, therefore, we make a new beginning on the basis of reality, recognising those fundamental differences, the sooner we may arrive at better conclusions.
I turn to the main thing that urged me to make a contribution to this Debate. With several other hon. Members of this House I have been privileged for the greater part of the last fortnight to view the scene in Vienna, and to travel through the British zones in Styria and Carinthia. In that area of Central Europe we have seen exactly the same problems as we are viewing on the larger scale in Germany because, in essence, the problems that are haunting Austria, with one or two important differences, are the same as those that are haunting and tormenting Germany. Therefore in the last fortnight, in which we have made a rather superficial examination of the results of war, we have seen, in effect, the same kind of problem as that which exists all over Central

1871
Europe. As every one knows, in Austria we have repeated the follies that we have seen instituted in Germany, the division of the country into four zones, the institution in the city of Vienna of four zones, and with even a fifth zone covering the heart of the city and called the international zone; the creation in this relatively small country of Austria of a number of artificial barriers, not only to free intercourse between the Austrian people but between the flow of the resources from one part of Austria to the other, complicating and aggravating every single economic problem which that country is now facing.
It is also in military occupation and I want to say, in case I may be misunderstood in my further comments, that from what I saw of the British Military Government and the British Army in the British zones in Austria, it is probably the least. oppressive military occupation that has ever been known in history. I think it is true to say from my own observation that it is also, in many ways, the most constructive military occupation that has ever been known in history. Nevertheless, it is a military occupation; it is compelled by that fact to act only within the prescribed ambit laid down for it and so it is bound, with the best intentions and the utmost good will—as I believe there is on our side towards the Austrians—to be a very gravely restrictive influence upon the developing life in Austria in the situation in which it is at present.
I was very glad to hear the Foreign Secretary speak in the warm terms he did about Austria because I, too, knew Austria before the war. I had my own contacts among the Austrian Social Democrats over many years of comradeship, and when I went to Austria this time, and particularly to Vienna, I had a sick heart when I looked at the destruction in that once beautiful city which I liked so well, and with which I had so many contacts. What we have to realise is that in the problem which exists there, we have this complication of a ruined country, facing perfectly enormous economic problems in the rebuilding of its national prosperity, being hampered and shackled at every point by the insane form of organisation which has been established as the contribution of the four great Powers to the rehabilitation of Europe. What the Foreign Secretary said was true, that for the good of Austria, for the good of all
1872
these countries, we have at the very earliest moment to get some kind of constructive peace settlement that will free these countries, and allow them to begin their difficult march upwards toward prosperity and rehabilitation.
So much for the general situation. I turn now to a particular problem. Here we have that country with its material ruin, with its population suffering from slow starvation, as every member of the delegation knew; a population in which the fruits of malnutrition are observable in the rate of tuberculosis which is twice the normal, in the general mortality rate which is twice the normal; a population enfeebled now by 12 months of low feeding and now getting very near the starvation point.
It is a population suffering not only from these physical disabilities, but also from grave psychological sickness. It is a nation that has seen itself twice within a generation brought to utter ruin; a nation which has been sunk in despair and many sections of it—not of course the extreme Nazis, but sections with which I am particularly familiar—looked to the advance of a conquering army as being the removal of a tyranny, and as the first ray of hope many of them had known since 1933. There was that population with the sick mind full of despair, in the midst of this ruin, and on that sick mind came the impact that the only agreement on a major frontier question come to, by the four Allied Powers was the agreement to consummate what Mussolini and Hitler built up by severing the South Tyrol once more from its own homeland. I think that was a perfectly" deplorable decision.
One of the things the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon was that it is no use wrapping up one's thoughts in diplomatic language, and when I looked at this monstrous act—because I can call it nothing less—which has been agreed to by the four Foreign Secretaries as a preliminary to the final settlement by the Peace Conference, I say, quite definitely, that it is a most deplorable thing for a Socialist Foreign Secretary, in a great Labour Government like this in Great Britain, to have put his hand to a treaty of that kind. I know the Foreign Secretary understands blunt talk. I am talking bluntly to him on this matter because I have the greatest admiration for his general grip on foreign policy and for

1873
the rightness of his general point of view on current objectives. But, in this matter of the South Tyrol I believe he has been misled into courses and into paths that can never be justified on any standard of Socialist conduct.
He has been trafficking with forbidden things. How has he tried to justify it? In his speech this afternoon, I heard no attempted justification at all. We got some phrases, some general statement, about the development of hydro-electric power as a result of the Italian annexation. Let us go rather to what he said a few weeks ago as to his reasons for assenting to this, as I have called it, monstrous decision. First of all he said in response to one of the questions that was put to him that this
"Is not purely a political question. In all these considerations if there is to be peace in Europe economics have to be taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1946; Vol. 723, c. 308.]
So that apparently the first reason for this assent to a blunder that was made at the end of the last war, the detachment of South Tyrol from Austria, the first major reason, apparently, is an economic reason. Does anyone who has ever paid even casual attention to the economics of the South Tyrol, and particularly to the economics of the South Tyrol in relation to the general economic system of Austria, even begin to pretend that South Tyrol is not an integral and complementary part of the general Austrian economic system? I invite the Foreign Secretary to examine the statistical evidence provided by the Italian Government itself. If that evidence is examined, nothing is more clearly demonstrated than that the whole flow, the economic flow, from the South Tyrol is not south into Italy, but east into Austria, West into Switzerland, and North into the German territories. The flow into Italy is of quite minor importance and is in fact completely negligible in the Italian economy itself.
Mr. Anthony Nutting Mr. Anthony Nutting (Melton) indicated dissent.
Mr. Paton: The hon. Member dissents. It would be quite within the power of the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) if he were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to get up and give his evidence for those who dissent from that proposition. I am merely appealing to the Italian official statistics on trade. I
1874
am appealing to the facts of geography, the facts of economic development which has run railway lines from Austria through the Southern Tyrol. It is true, of course, that in one important aspect which was mentioned by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon there was very considerable development of hydro-electric power during the period of the Italian annexation.
Mr. Nutting: Hear, hear.
Mr. Paton: But why? Before the hon. Member says " Hear, hear," let us ask why. The reason why there was this development of hydro-electric power was the fact that Italy was trying to establish in this South Tyrolean region Italian native industries with Italian populations, in order to try to complete what she had never been able to do in 20 years of persecution, the Italianisation of the Tyrol. Therefore, there was this big development of hydro-electric power. Some 67 per cent. of that hydro-electric power is used in the South Tyrol. Only a small proportion of it flows south down into Italy proper. The actual extent of the hydroelectric power the Italian industries use, drawn from the South Tyrol, is only 9 per cent. of Italy's total power.
Mr. Nutting: Seventeen per cent.
Mr. Paton: As I say, I invite the hon. Member to study the official statistics. It is no use his shaking his head or dissenting. The facts are there for anyone to examine. I am giving the facts because the matter happened to be mentioned by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. It seems to me that there is no doubt whatever to any reasonable observer, and any reasonable student, that the economic link-up of the South Tyrol is an economic link-up with its parent State of Austria, and not with Italy at all.
The second reason that was given by the Foreign Secretary on 22nd May was that
"The peoples of Europe are so inter-mixed that this principle of self-determination on strict frontiers is a very difficult thing to apply."
I should have thought that there are few frontier regions in Europe where the principle of self-determination was more easy of application than in this territory of the South Tyrol. Even today, after 20 years of Italian persecution in which every effort was made to destroy the

1875
language and culture of the German speaking Tyroleans, the great majority of the population, except in the neighbourhood immediately around Bolzano, are still German-speaking Tyrolese. Therefore there is no reason why the principle of self-determination should not apply. The Foreign Secretary made a further point, I am quoting again from HANSARD of 22nd May:
"Italy has worked her passage and I have to take that into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 308–9.]
Is it sensible, as a reward, to ask those workmen in the industrial areas of Northern Italy, who rose in the resistance movements at the end of the war, and helped us to clear Northern Italy, to become the heirs of the tyranny established by Mussolini and Hitler, and in their turn be the agents through whom this completely non-Italian people are to be kept for a further period of time in serfdom and slavery? Let us try to bring these arguments into relation with some other facts. Something has been said in this House this afternoon about Trieste, and about the problems of the Julian March. There, as everyone knows, we face a particularly difficult frontier problem in regard to which the British, American and French wish to determine it on ethnical principles, which is being met by a Yugoslavian and Russian, point of view that ethical principles are of less importance than economic and strategic security.
Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that the complete abandonment of ethnical principle, of economic considerations, in the determination of the fate of the South Tyrol, has been lost on Marshal Tito and M. Molotov? How is it possible for any statesman of any country to argue that in one part of Europe these matters are of lesser importance, and then to try to found a case upon them in another part of Europe, where they are raised in a particularly sharp form? It ii for these reasons that I would ask the Foreign Secretary, whom I am glad to see has come back, to be willing even now to look at this problem afresh. Nothing has yet been done which is beyond repair. So far it is only an agreement by the four Foreign Secretaries, which has ultimately to be discussed and determined finally at the Peace Conference. It is still possible to reopen this issue.
1876
I would beg the Foreign Secretary to look at this matter again, to remember that he, in common with most of the other speakers in our Labour movement, protested with all the strength he had against the original decision, in the Treaty of St. Germain, to detach the South Tyrol from Austria, that we campaigned in this country year after year against the tyranny and persecutions by which Mussolini was trying to destroy the culture of that people. In fact, that was one of the things that sharpened our antagonism and hatred for everything Mussolini stood for. I ask the Foreign Secretary to remember these things, the history of our movement in relation to this problem, to look at it again, and try to apply, in this particular part of the world, those principles of equity and justice, which alone will give an effective foundation for a stable European peace.
6.35 p.m.
Major Digby: I am sorry that in my remarks I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) because I am in the greatest agreement with nearly all he said about the question of the South Tyrol. The fact that this has been one of the few decisions yet arrived at by the Powers must be one of the causes for the anxiety which all hon. Members here today must feel at the present trend in international events. It is not as though in history we have not had previous experience of great Powers, who have got together successfully to prosecute a war, subsequently falling out and finding difficulty in coming to agreement. Often that has happened at a later stage, after peace treaties have been concluded. On this occasion our anxiety must be the greater because the great Powers themselves are much greater Powers than has been the case in the world before, and if the last war proved anything, it proved that the small Powers suffer much greater military disadvantages than was the case formerly.
I wish this evening to turn to another part of the globe than Austria, a part of the globe where all the three great Powers have considerable interests—indeed where the five great Powers all have interests—namely, the Far East. I was sorry that the Foreign Secretary, whom I am glad to see in his place, could not find time, and I quite understand that, to deal with Far Eastern questions this afternoon. He had a great many other

1877
matters to deal with, but I hope that the Under-Secretary, or whoever winds up the Debate, will have something more to tell us about the Far East and its various questions. We are apt to be diverted from the importance of Far Eastern questions because of the difficulties which are occurring nearer home, but we should not forget that the war in the Far East, so far as China is concerned, went on for much longer than the war went on in Europe, though that seemed quite long enough, and that there are, therefore, many reasons why Far Eastern problems are pressing ones.
In time of war we were all too apt to think, when we spoke of the Far feast, of the wide spaces of the Pacific Ocean, and of the few sparsely inhabited islands which are to be found in the middle of that ocean. Now that we are coming to think of the problems of peace we should direct our attention much more to the land masses in that area where, according to the latest figures I have been able to find, something over 670 million human beings live, often in great density, upon the land which they occupy. The problems of that area are of great moment. If prosperity can come to that area, there is no doubt that the whole world will benefit. If that area is not able to recover quickly, the world will be that much poorer. In China alone there is a population estimated at some 450 million human beings, who are undoubtedly both able and industrious. When full development can be brought to that country we shall see some remarkable changes in the trade position of the world.
First, let me say a word about our relations with China, a country with whom we are bound by many ties of sympathy. There is no doubt that we find the Chinese a compatible people, that we appreciate their sense of humour and their undoubted ability. It seems to me most important that we should try to strengthen our ties with them, I think there is a feeling—I hope it is incorrect— that we have not done so much about reestablishing our relations with China as have the United States of America. The United States to some extent have stolen the limelight by sending there that great war figure, General Marshall, who I am sure is playing a very important part in China. Nevertheless, it would be a very-great pity if this country was to fall into
1878
the position of playing a kind of second string in China.
Apart from the traditional sympathy between that country and ourselves, there arc other reasons for not allowing that to happen, reasons which would not be lost on the President of the Board of Trade if he was here. No doubt he would recall that before the war China imported more goods from the British Empire, excluding the Dominions, than from any other country, including the United States. The building up of our trade with China is a matter of importance to us. We have read in the newspapers that the United States are already engaged in concluding a new commercial treaty with China. We have heard nothing about such a treaty between China and this country. I hope we do not let matters go by default and that we see to it that our relations with China are not allowed to slip into the background merely on account of difficulties in other parts of the world.
I now wish to say a word or two about Manchuria and Korea. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that it is of the utmost importance that the Chinese Central Government should regain control over Manchuria. The vast majority of the population of Manchuria are Chinese. The minorities, the Manchus and Koreans, are relatively few in number. It would be unfortunate if after this war China could not count on those Northern Provinces which are less densely populated than the South but none the less extremely valuable. With regard to the future of Korea, hon. Members will remember that often in the past it has been a bone of contention between China, on the one hand, and Japan, on the other. That was a position which was altered finally, as a result of the war between China and Japan in 1894–5. We have had one or two very brief statements on the matter and now we are told that Korea is to have her independence. I put a question to the Foreign Secretary with regard to this not many months ago and I was very disappointed that I did not get more information about the future of that country. Shortly afterwards I read in the newspapers an announcement that the Russian forces occupying Northern Korea had been doubled.
I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us a little more about that. For how long is Korea to be occupied? Is it intended to set up an independent government and, if

1879
so, when? After all, the Koreans are a different people from the Chinese and Japanese. It seems only right that, with the cooperation of the Powers, they should be given a proper independent status, although maybe it will take some years to bring about. I feel we are entitled to hear a little more about this country. It has a population of something like 12,000,000 and is a very important country owing to its geographical position.
I now turn to the subject of Japan. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) say that he hoped we should get a little more information about Japan. Relying almost entirely on the newspapers, I can find very little information indeed. I am not sure how far we are committed to everything which is done by G.H.Q. Not long ago we read in the newspapers that shortly after a general election in Japan a man who had been elected leader of the largest political party was found to be undesirable. That had "the effect of holding up the formation of the Government for a considerable time. Those of us who have been to Japan know that always there were forces in Japan who believed in democracy. We should do everything we can to make matters easier for them and not more difficult. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary just how tar we accept responsibility for what is being decided in Japan. What say have we in this matter?
Earlier today the Foreign Secretary mentioned the question about the curtain in Europe. In Japan they used to have a " curtain " Government. Today there is a curtain hanging over Japan, and that curtain is one of fog. We simply do not know what is going on there or what plans are being worked out for the future. The Japanese Islands are small. Only a very small proportion of them— I have heard the number quoted as 17 per cent.—can be cultivated, and the population of some 66,000,000 is increasing extremely rapidly.
What is to be the economic future of Japan? What do the Allies envisage? I hope that we shall press on and arrive fairly soon at some conclusion about the future of Japan. There are many of us who feel that unless we take full account of these forces we shall be in for difficulties
1880
there again. It may well be that had it not been for the Tokugawa exclusion edict many hundreds of years ago, the Japanese would have had an expansion long before now. The fact remains that they did adapt themselves extremely quickly to Western ways. They still have this pressure of population and they must find a living for the people.
How are they to do that? The sooner we produce a peace treaty for Japan, the better it will be for the world in general, and for the Far East in particular. Finally, I appeal to the Foreign Secretary to make sure that in the months that lie ahead, with the difficult problems confronting us in Europe, he does not hesitate to have a real Far Eastern policy. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Far East is a point where the interests of all the great Powers meet. It would be a pity if policy in the Far East was allowed to slide. It is essential that we should have a definite, clear-cut, Far Eastern policy in cooperation with the United States of America, and with Russia as far as we possibly can, a policy in full accord with the members of the United Nations.
6.50 p.m.
Captain Francis Noel-Baker: I want very briefly to draw the attention of the House to one specific subject, to which the Foreign Secretary did not refer in his speech, but to which I would like him, or the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, to make some reference before concluding this Debate. It is, I think, one of those questions which, at the moment, is poisoning the relations between the Allies. Ten months ago, when my right hon. Friend first took in his hands the conduct of the foreign policy of this country, I think that nowhere in the world was that fact, and the fact that a Labour Government was in power in this country, greeted with greater enthusiasm, confidence and relief, than by the Spanish people.
They remembered the stand which he and his colleagues had taken during and after the Spanish Civil War, and his stout defence of the cause of the Spanish Republic when it was fighting for its life against the invasion by the armies of Moorish levies, Italian Blackshirts and German Nazis, and against the most terrible enemy of all—the treacherous betrayal which hon. Gentlemen opposite

1881
at the time called the policy of nonintervention. Nowhere in the world, at that time, were there more ardent spokesmen in the cause of the Spanish Republic than the right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Front Bench on this side of the House, and the pledges which they gave were renewed by my hon. Friends on this side on countless election platforms and in countless election declarations before this Government came to power.
At that time, the people of Great Britain, and of Spain, and, indeed, our friends and enemies all over the world, were left in no doubt that the coming into power of a Labour Government was going to mean the end of the last bastion of Fascism in Europe and the collapse of the brutal tyranny of General Franco in Spain. Since that time, the right hon. Gentleman has said many hard things about General Franco, and he has told us that he detests the Spanish regime, and everything that he has said has been well in keeping with his own traditions and those of hon. Members on this side of the House. But there has been no sign of action; nothing but statements about the economic complications and political difficulties involved in getting rid of General Franco. Of course, there are complications and difficulties in removing a Fascist dictatorship and restoring their liberties to people deprived of them by that dictatorship. It is no simple operation. But that is precisely what this country has been doing for the last six years all over Europe, and is one of the reasons why we fought the war. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, because there are practical difficulties and economic complications, the Spanish Republic must remain in exile and General Franco remain in power in Spain for ever? I do not believe that that is what my right hon. Friend wants.
No doubt, he has been considering practical ways and means of effecting the change, and no doubt he, like the Spanish exiles with whom I have talked in the South of France, and the great mass of the people inside Spain, wants to see a change that is going to avoid another civil war but which will ensure that General Franco's regime is not replaced by another dictatorship of a different kind. In New York, last Friday, the Security Council Sub-Committee completed its Report on Spain. For some weeks, it has been sifting evidence furnished by the Govern-
1882
ments of the United Nations and the Republican Government of Spain in exile against the Franco regime. Now, it urges that the Security Council should recommend to the United Nations that they should endorse the Tripartite Declaration of last March condemning the Franco regime and break off diplomatic relations with Franco. It adds the conditions which, in the Sub-Committee's view, must be fulfilled before Spain herself can become a member of the United Nations: the withdrawal of the present dictatorship, a political amnesty and the return of the exiles, and the holding of elections in conditions of democratic freedom. Hon. Members on this side of the House are not likely to quarrel with any of these findings, but the problem which faces the British Government today is not to discover the nature of the Spanish dictatorship—the Foreign Secretary has often expressed himself pungently upon that in the House—nor yet to decide what kind of Government we should like to see take Franco's place—we, on this side, have very definite views on that. It is in the method, not the aim, that our chief difficulty lies. On that plane, the report of the Security Council Sub-Committee contributes nothing but a recommendation that Allied diplomats should leave: Madrid.
The Spanish exiles with whom I talked last week in the South of France, and., in particular, the delegates who came from Madrid to attend the Conference and who were going back there, described to me in detail their problem of maintaining underground resistance to Franco 10 years after the Spanish Civil War had ended. They have to contend, not only against a security network which has at its disposal all the resources of the Spanish State, and, incidentally, now, the technical assistance and experience of many Germans in that country, but also against the growing conviction, both among their friends and enemies alike, that lip service to Spanish democracy is about all the help that they can expect from the Allies. Lip service and diplomatic gestures are not enough, and the liberation of Spain cannot come from within alone. Despite all the difficulties, there are still some secret underground groups in the cities and guerrillas in the mountains, and their ineffectiveness is one of the arguments used by those who oppose international action against

1883
Franco. But, to take a fair example, what would the strength of the French Maqais have been if the occupation had lasted for 10 years and the Allies had refused contact and support and if there had been no prospect of an invasion from abroad to help them?
Mr. Boothby: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by international action against Spain?
Captain Noel-Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I will try to explain what practical steps the Government should take. The Spanish Republicans, by themselves, cannot overthrow the Fascist dictatorship by force of arms, and it is equally true that they do not want another civil war, even if they were in a position to fight one. But the fact that the Spanish Republic cannot, unaided, achieve its own restoration surely cannot justfy a further period of what is called " non-intervention."
A great deal has been said on the disunity of the Spanish Republicans in exile. One might fairly comment that, if unity in exile had been the sole criterion for liberation, many of our European Allies would be occupied today. Though there are different political groups and there are differences among them, there is not one which docs not recognise the Republican Government, and most of them are represented by Ministers in that Government and I would say that, after 10 years of occupation and exile, that in itself is no mean achievement.
Today, the major problem facing the British Government and the Governments of the United Nations is how to end Spanish Fascism without bloodshed and without substituting another dictatorship of a different kind. The Franco regime continues to exist because all the power of a modern police state is in the hands of a minority completely identified with the dictator. If there is any other element which supports him, it is those citizens whom he has led to believe that the only alternative to Franco's regime is red revolution and a second civil war. The transition from dictatorship to democracy in Spain is likely to be a very complex problem, and the Republicans to whom I spoke do not try to minimise it in any way, but it is a problem to which the
1884
British Government and the other Allied Governments should now turn their attention. As a means of getting rid of General Franco, the Security Council Sub-Committee has recommended the withdrawal of diplomats from Madrid. The French Government tried diplomatic action of a different kind by closing the frontier, and I am bound to admit, as my friends from Madrid admitted, that that act, by itself, has been more than a failure. There has also been discussion of what economic action could be taken to bring to an end the Fascist dictatorship in Spain, and my friends from Madrid assured me that, if it could be complete and coordinated, it would succeed. They also assured me that though it might entail sacrifices for the Spanish working people, they would be prepared to accept those sacrifices if the effect was conclusive, and they added that if not only imports into Spain, but exports as well, ceased, the effect on their food consumption would be such that the Spanish workers would be prepared gladly to accept it if they knew that there was going to be a definite result from that action.
The removal of the Spanish dictator is only half the problem; the second half is who is going to take his place and how it is going to be done. Obviously, there must be a transitional period. I was assured in my conversations with Spanish Republicans in France that a monarchical solution would be accepted only by a few potential traitors to the regime who might be prepared to betray Franco in support of the monarchy, and, possibly—and this caused me some surprise—by the Spanish Communist Party. But I feel convinced that a monarchy in Spain is not the kind of solution which could be accepted by my hon. Friends on these benches, by the Labour Party in this country or by progressive opinion in the world as a whole.
It is on this point that some observers of the Spanish situation have tended to put the cart before the horse. Because there is no ready made, obvious, immediate successor to Franco, they conclude that the situation must be allowed to drift. The longer it does so, the more likely, in the end, will become the bloodshed and the extremist reaction which both the Spanish people and my right hon. Friend are anxious to avoid. If Great Britain, for example, were now to pass from a period of promises to that of action, and

1885
it contact, not necessarily official diplomatic contact, were to be established with the Republican Spaniards in exile and inside Spain, and if technical assistance —of the kind in which we have become very experienced during the war—could be provided to the various underground groups, and a propaganda offensive started—if, in short, this Government made it clear beyond all possible doubt that Great Britain not only detested General Franco, but was actively preparing for his downfall, the problem of transition would be enormously simplified.
Once concrete and practical proof has been given of the intentions of this country, the unity among the Republicans would be enormously reinforced and the confidence of those who cling to General Franco simply because he is strong would be shaken, and, in the resulting new atmosphere of practical determination, real negotiations for an interim arrangement could begin in earnest. But, from the outset, it must be made clear that this country and our Allies will require any interim arrangement in Spain to include the amnesty, the return of the exiles, the provisions of free assembly and free speech and, finally, the free elections which the Security Council Sub-committee recommends. I ask, therefore, that, before this Debate concludes, some word should be said by my hon. Friend who is going to wind up about the Spanish situation and that, more than words, he should give some kind of pledge that we are now going to pass from the period of promises to the period of practical action. I ask this while fully appreciating the enormous complications that exist, but I do so because I believe that the liberation of Spain is not only an essential part of the peace we are now trying to build, because I believe it is not only an act of justice long over due, to one of our gallant Allies in the fight against Fascism, but because, also, it was one of the most solemn pledges which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends on this side of the House gave to the people of this country last July.
7.5 p.m.
Major Mott-Radclyffe: It the House will bear with me for a few minutes, I will endeavour to switch the attention of hon. Members to the other end of the Mediterranean from that of which the hon. and gallant Member for
1886
Brentford and Chiswick (Captain F. Noel-Baker) has just spoken, and which I have visited during the last few weeks. Yesterday, the Italians were in the throes of their first proper elections for 25 years. Whatever Government results from the polls, I beg His Majesty's Government to lose no opportunity of telling the Italian Government whether or not, in their view, Italy has worked her passage. If she has not worked her passage, then we must say quite clearly what further conditions she is required to fulfil. If it is considered that she has worked her passage, then we should do well to dwell less upon the grave injuries which she has done to us in recent years than upon the part which she can and should fulfil in postwar Europe and in the Mediterranean.
In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary referred to the revised armistice terms which have been presented to Italy. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), in regretting that he was obliged to present these revised armistice terms in place of a peace treaty. The revised armistice terms presumably include the winding up of the Allied Commission. I hope I shall not disagree with any hon. Member on either side when I suggest that Italy owes much to the administrative efficiency of the Allied Commission ' and to the integrity of its British and American personnel. I believe that their administration, being single-minded, stood out in contrast to the sort of administration which Italy has had to bear throughout the period of Fascist rule.
One of the most moving documents I have ever read was a petition signed by about 120 villagers from an area in the Pontine Marshes in the summer of 1944, which requested that a certain British sergeant who had been sent to that area, in charge, I think, of an anti-malarial squad, should be allowed to stay in the district as the then Allied Military Government representative. This petition paid a tribute to the firmness, fairness, tact and sympathy with which this British n.c.o. invariably treated all who came in contact with him. That is a fine testimonial to the qualities of the British soldier engaged both in operational and non operational duties in Italy. The Italians wish, and quite understandably, to be masters in their own house, but

1887
the Allied Commission has certainly set them a good example in administration.
In the industrial North, the Italian factories are almost the only industrial plant in Europe which has been practically untouched either by the operations of war or by subsequent removal for reparations purposes. Italy's potential industrial output is therefore unimpaired, but raw materials are lacking. I was very glad to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a recent Debate on the Adjournment, that we were making some use of Italian industry for the manufacture of raw materials, notably wool and cotton, sent from this country. I was even more glad to hear that it was the intention of the Government to review this position from time to time to see whether further use could be made of this vast potential manufacturing output of Italian industry, to the mutual advantage of ourselves and Italy.
This afternoon the Foreign Secretary referred to the proposal—I know it was only a tentative proposal—that the trusteeship of Tripolitania should be entrusted to the Italians. Though it is true that the worst features of Italian Colonial administration occurred not in Tripolitania but in Cyrenaica, and though it is true that we are adhering to the promises we made in respect of the Senussi, I wonder whether the Under-Secretary, who is to reply for the Government, could give us any indication of the reaction of the Arabs in Tripolitania to this proposal. I. wonder not merely what their reactions are, but what their actions might be if and when the Italians returned to Tripolitania. Presumably, if the trusteeship for Tripolitania were entrusted to Italy, she would be charged with the responsibility of keeping law and order, which would necessitate an adequate number of troops and police. I am not trying to make more difficult a problem the solution of which is already extremely difficult, but I do think that a warning note in respect of the Arab reactions to Italian trusteeship of Tripolitania should be struck.
The Foreign Secretary also referred to the need for a common approach by ourselves and the Soviet Union to our common problems, and no one on either side of the House would disagree with him on that. Most of us are aware that
1888
a considerable difference exists between this country and America on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other, in the interpretation of the phrase " democratic government." But it is also evident that a further difference of interpretation exists in the expression " concessions."The Foreign Secretary explained to the House that originally M. Molotov made a claim on behalf of the Soviet Union for the trusteeship of Tripolitania. He further explained that that claim was subsequently dropped, and that M. Molotov argued that by dropping that claim he was making a concession and expected a similar concession from us. It seems that if one makes a demand for which there appears to be little justification, and then that demand is subsequently withdrawn, there is little ground for argument that one is making a concession and, therefore, a similar concession is due from the other side upon whom that demand has been made. I suggest that until we and the Soviet Union agree upon a common basis for interpreting common phrases, the correct interpretation of which is vital in any diplomatic or international document, U.N.O. can only fire on three cylinders. I would also suggest that there is not much more room for concessions on our side in the interpretation of key phrases.
May I, in conclusion, say a few words on Trieste? Trieste and Venezia Giulia are full of highly inflammable material and a tribute should certainly be paid to the restraint and tact shown by British and American troops in the disputed area. I would like also to pay my tribute to the officers who were responsible for organising the Venezia Giulia police. It is no mean feat to have welded something like a police force out of the Italian and Slovene material in that area. I believe Yugoslavia has done no good to her case by over-stating it and by the number of frontier incidents which are continually arising. I do not wish to become involved in an argument as to what is the best ethnic line of that disputed area. There are so many lines, and so many different proposals have been made between 1918 and now, that if one looks at a map on which all the different lines are marked it seems more like a map of Clapham Junction than a map of Venezia Giulia. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that Trieste is predominantly an Italian town.

1889
and I also agree that as a port it is of unquestionable international value to the whole of Central Europe. I know that international zones have been the causes in the past of far more disputes than anything else, but my own view is that both for the port and the town of Trieste, and for the disputed area, the best solution would be to create an international zone for a fixed number of years in the hope that at the end of that fixed term the temperature of that part of the world might have dropped. I believe it would be to ask for trouble if there were any suggestion that in the near future the Allied Forces should be withdrawn, much as I understand and appreciate the desire of the Government to withdraw them. If Allied troops were withdrawn from that disputed area we would be faced with an extremely serious position. Conditions there are perfect for carrying out what I would call Sudeten tactics. There is a large and well organised Yugoslav minority in Trieste. It is easy to infiltrate across the Morgan line. It is easier still to organise spontaneous disturbances and demonstrations with the technique with which we are all so familiar, and if these were to continue for any length of time we should be faced with a constant running sore in an area where, under settled conditions, industry could make a considerable contribution to Europe's all too urgent needs.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. Solley: No one who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon could help feeling that he showed great ability in presenting his argument with cogency and force. But it does not follow that every hon. Member of this House, or even every hon Member on these benches, necessarily accepted everything he said, or all the implications contained in his speech. I was particularly interested in some of the generalisations in the first part of his speech and I would like to give concrete shape to them. It seems to me there are two fundamental propositions which one would expect any Socialist Foreign Secretary to follow in his foreign policy. The first is this. What is of importance in foreign policy is not the subjective intentions of the Minister, but the objective consequences of his policy. In other words, it is not magnificent perorations which count, but the
1890
political action or inaction which is consequent upon the policy. The second fundamental proposition, in my submission, is that the policy must tend not merely towards a consolidation of peace, but towards peace of a Socialist character; that is to say, it must be a policy which aids and gives succour to the progressive movement in every part of the world to which the foreign policy applies. Putting it in the language of the Yalta agreement, the policy must tend to wipe out all vestiges of Nazism and Fascism.
There are some very simple and practical tests which we can apply to any such policy in order to see whether it is indeed a Socialist policy. For instance, one can ask oneself: Is this policy giving greater power to the working class in any particular area? Is it, on the other hand, threatening the trade union movement in any particular area? Is it a fact that the policy is consolidating the power of Fascists, collaborators and so on? In the light of those tests, I propose to refer to one part of Europe to which, unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary—I have no doubt because of the exigencies of time—did not address his mind this afternoon, namely, Greece. I am sorry to say that if those tests be applied to the foreign policy of Great Britain in relation to Greece, it does not appear that we have followed a Socialist policy at all. On the contrary, we have followed a policy which has led to a deterioration in the standards of living of the workers in Greece, and, indeed, has led to what I submit is the setting up of a neo-Fascist state in that unhappy country.
Two of my colleagues—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany)—and I made a short but intensive investigation of conditions in Greece, leaving that country on 9th May. We did not go to Greece as an official delegation sent by this Government. Indeed, we had no time for governmental displays in our honour. We were the guests of the Greek people; we met persons of our own class. Wherever we went we were received by deputations of trade unionists, deputations from cooperatives, deputations of agrarians, deputations of professional men, and we were able to come to grips with the Greek scene, not from the Ritz bar in the best hotel in Athens, nor from the splendid reception rooms of the British Embassy, but from the

1891
humble cottages of the workers and from the trade unionist centres in the towns we visited. Our conclusion was that the Government in Greece today is go per cent. Fascist, and will be 100 per cent. Fascist tomorrow. We found examples of murder, assault, intimidation and illegal arrest, all perpetrated against the Left by the Right. Wherever we went, we found that the working-class people were being battered, that their trade union premises were being set on fire; we found that their meetings could not take place properly; that there was every symptom of Fascism. The gendarmerie were Fascist and rotten to the core, and the same thing applied even to the judiciary.
Mr. Butcher: It is a wonder the hon. Member stayed there.
Mr. Solley: We stayed there in order to be able to come back to this House and, as far as our own colleagues on this side of the House are concerned, to report the truth about what is happening in Greece and to pray that our Government should do something on behalf of the Greek workers and in the interests of world peace. I cannot here go into details with regard to the many atrocities which we personally investigated, and some of which we personally witnessed. I would like to give two illustrations of matters to which I have already referred. The first is in relation to the judiciary, because that illustrates the depths to which justice and democracy have sunk in Greece. The hon. Member for Peterborough and I attended a trial at Patras. The court was set up specifically to deal with collaborators. Three of the professional judges of that court had received pay from the quisling Government during the occupation, and had faithfully fulfilled their so-called judicial duties under the Germans. Those facts were admitted to us by the president of the court in a personal interview. That, of course, is typical of what is happening in Greece. The collaborators and quislings are in power, and the workers and democrats are being beaten up and illegally imprisoned by those gentlemen.
Another incident which illustrates the sort of conditions we met in Greece occurred in the port of Volos. The hon. Member for Peterborough and I visited that port at only a few hours' notice. We
1892
were greeted by a very large crowd of people in the market centre and at the trade union centre. As it was 11.30 in the morning there were more women than men. Our car was surrounded by many women, some of whom were crying, almost all of them manifestly distressed. They told us about the Fascist terror and appealed to us, as British Members of Parliament, to save them from the Fascists. That is a scene which I and, I think, the hon. Member for Peterborough will never forget—working class wives and working class mothers of Volos, a town not very different in its trade from Tilbury, which I have the honour to represent, actually crying in front of us and asking us to save them from the Fascists. That was not an exhibition which could have been put on for our benefit by any Communists. It was a condition of suffering which existed in reality, and which I feel it my duty to report to this House. Those are merely two illustrations out of many which I could bring before the House to indicate the state of affairs which exists today in Greece.
I turn to the election which took place on 31st March. We were not in Greece when that election took place, therefore, I cannot speak with first hand knowledge of what occurred during the election. However, it would seem an amazing thing if this Fascist terror could have evolved in a matter of the few weeks which elapsed between 31st March and our visit. It must obviously have existed, if not in so intense a condition, at least in a substantial condition on 31st March. On that date the election took place, in which there was not a single representative of any working class party; not a single representative of any Labour Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, Agrarian Party, or any Left-centre Party. It is in the light of that fact that we must regard the report of the Allied observers which has the impertinence to say that the verdict was a true and valid verdict of the Greek people. I have no time to go into the question of the observers' report, but I venture to think there is one aspect of it to which it is worth while drawing attention. It illustrates the depths to which the authors of this report have sunk in order to make their pitiful point. They speak of the courts of Greece in this language:

1893
" Generally speaking, the courts of Greece retained public confidence, even during the years of turmoil."
They are afraid to use the phrase "The years of occupation," because that sounds a little too bad; it is "The years of turmoil."They inform us that the Greek courts of justice retained public confidence during the German occupation. That is a lie, nothing but a lie. It is impossible for any person who has been to Greece, who has any respect for the Greek Resistance Movement, to say that the courts of justice which were peopled by collaborators and quislings, by judges who received their pay from their German masters and who treated members of the Resistance Movement, even at that time, and not the Germans as the enemy—that those courts of justice could have retained or did ever retain the public confidence of the Greek people. I venture to suggest that that is a sufficient commentary upon the nature of the Allied report.
We took the opportunity of an interview with M. Sophoulis, who was Prime Minister at the time of the election. Naturally, we were interested to know what his views were on the election. He told us that he had made representations to my right hon. Friend in no uncertain language that if the elections took place on 31st March the only outcome, the only possible outcome, would be the return of an extreme Right Wing Government. He made that perfectly clear. He went on to tell us that he also made it equally clear to my right hon. Friend that if the elections were postponed for two months there would be a chance for the Left to participate in the elections, with the result that there would probably be a victory for a coalition Government based substantially upon the Centre and the Left. But my right hon. Friend did not heed that advice, knowing full well what the consequences would be. Knowing full well that only an extreme Right Wing Government could be returned to power, he insisted upon the elections being held. But, of course, he did not need this advice. It was well known in England what the position was and, indeed, there were a number of back benchers on this side of the House who were as well seized of the facts as the Foreign Secretary. But in justice to the Foreign Secretary I may say that from what I have seen in Greece, I should say that 90 per cent.
1894
of the information which the Foreign Office receive from Greece is not worth the paper it is written on. Nevertheless; some facts were public, and it was quite obvious to the Foreign Secretary, in my submission, what the result of the election would prove to be.
Mr. Nutting: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to criticise information coining from institutions of His Majesty's Government abroad to that Government? Is it in Order to imply criticisms of the people who give that information?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman obtained his information, but he is entitled to make any comment he likes upon it.
Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member said it was information which the Government were receiving from the British Embassy in Greece. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, from Greece, from their channel; of information. He said this information was bogus, thoroughly bad, " not worth the paper it was written on "—those were his actual words. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to use such language?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may use his own judgment of any communication of which he has-knowledge.
Mr. Solley: I have not time to develop the point but I hope that my hon. Friends who have also been in Greece will have the fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and so be able to deal with the matter. It is my view, and that of my colleagues, that almost all the information that His Majesty's Government get from Greece originates from the Greek gendarmerie; and the value to be attached to that evidence is equal to the value of reports received from Germany before the war sent by the Nazis themselves. I venture to suggest that in the light of what I have said about the step taken by my right hon. Friend, who had a knowledge of all the circumstances, that we are entitled to an explanation and to say that on the face of it the step is the antithesis of the one we would expect from a Socialist Foreign Secretary, I say that on the face of it, it is contradictory to Socialist foreign policy and contrary to the intentions of the resolutions we have passed year after year at Labour Party conferences.
I have spoken of what took place on 31st March. We are now faced, as I

1895
said before, with a Government in Greece which is the 1946 model of Fascism. There are, of course, vestiges of democracy. The May Day celebrations are held, subject, in the small towns, to certain very stringent conditions; in the still smaller towns they are not allowed at all. Newspapers are published in the large towns, but the Left Wing papers are prohibited in the villages; and from time to time newspaper offices are smashed up. It is not the prewar model of Fascism; but it is the 1946 version. It is developing, and will probably get worse. What we have to consider now is the policy of the Greek Government in so far as it affects our foreign policy, and the question of international peace. While; we were in Greece the Royalist newspaper " Embros " stated frankly what the policy of the Greek Government was.
It followed the well-known Fascist technique by saying that Greece was terrorised by the Communists. It called on the Government to launch a ruthless offensive by 120,000 soldiers, gendarmerie and police, to start exhaustive investigations, to fill the workers' districts with mechanised patrols, to call in British forces to help in the task, and to arrest the Communist leader as soon as he spoke of self-defence The use of the word " Communist " by the Royalist paper followed the Fascist use of the word. The Royalists dub anybody " a Communist " who is anti-monarchist. The venerable Liberal leader told us, "They even dub me, a Liberal, a Communist. They characterise my party as Communist."The monarchists want British forces in Greece to help them to fill the workers' districts with mechanised. patrols. Thus it was not to be surprised at that we were told by every Right Wing politician whom we met that they wanted the British forces to remain in Greece, but on the other hand we were told by every politician from the Left Centre to the Left that the British forces in Greece were giving moral support to the extreme Right. What I say to the Government is this—and I am merely repeating what was said by M. Sofianopoulos, by the leader of the Agrarian Party, by Professor Svolos, the leader of the party nearest to our own Labour Party, by the leader of the Left Liberal Party and by the leaders of the different Socialist parties and the Communist Party—the British forces must leave Greece. The Right told
1896
us that British troops must remain in Greece. I say to the Government if they are to take advice at all they should take advice, not from the equivalent of the Tories and of worse than the Tories of Greece, but from the Left, the Left Liberals and the working-class people of Greece, because they are the people whose interests are nearest to ours.
Mr. Beswick: Which Left Liberal suggested we should leave Greece?
Mr. Solley: I had referred to M. Sofianopoulos. I have the names of half a dozen here, if I may be permitted to look at my notes because I cannot remember Greek names off-hand. What I am saying is that every responsible politician of the Left Centre and of the Left to whom we spoke, wanted the British Forces to leave Greece. I have exceeded the time that I set myself, and I close on this note. In view of our enormous responsibility in Greece; in view of the fact that we have had amazing opportunities of shaping the course of politics in Greece; in view of the fact that, as I understand it, we gave a specific undertaking that the plebiscite should not be held for another two years in order to give the country time to settle down, I do ask the Government to review their policy in relation to Greek affairs, and to pursue a policy which is wholeheartedly Socialist and which, by its consequences, will result not in the consolidation of the Right in Greece, but, in the furtherance of the interests of the Labour movement in that country.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Wadsworth: I am very glad to have been called in this Debate, because I have recently had the opportunity, as one of a party of eight, to represent this Parliament in Hungary, and I am naturally very anxious to tell the House some of my experiences. My experience in Hungary is in contrast to that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley), who apparently does not claim that British prestige is very high in Greece. So far as Hungary is concerned, British prestige is very high indeed, and this is partly due to the fact that we won the war—as a speaker for the Hungarian House of Commons stated, we have not lost a war for 400 years—and partly due to the reputation which our Foreign Secretary holds in that country. I only hope that we can justify the faith of the people of

1897
Hungary in the British people, and that we do not let them down in the peace treaty which is sure to follow.
There appear to me to be three problems which are outstanding in this difficult question of Hungary and the Danubian States, and, in my view, unless we solve these problems, we shall experience again a similar war to the two we have had in our generation. The first problem which faces the Hungarian people and the other States in Central Europe, is retention of their independence. The second problem is the old vexed question of minorities, and the third concerns economic security. We have been given a very good picture of the situation in Europe by the Foreign Secretary, and the frustration by the Russians at several turns which has been experienced in U.N.O. was made quite clear. It is obvious that if we are to have peace in our time, we must make the Russians our friends, but at the same time there is a step beyond which we must, not go. Speaking personally, I found an absolute terror overshadowing the whole of Hungary, not only in Budapest, but in the country. The Russians can only blame themselves for this attitude of the people of Hungary. Good discipline is practised by the Russians, but, nevertheless, their influence is felt through the Communist Party. I do not want to develop this too far, because I know that the Foreign Secretary is fully aware of the situation. If we are to enjoy peace by collaboration of the three Great Powers then the Russians must show a different attitude to these small states in Central Europe.
The minority problem has been a problem in Central Europe for a long time. With river boundaries and imaginary lines drawn across territory in Europe, we cannot expect people to confine themselves to their own countries. It is obvious that the peoples are intermingled over the whole of Europe. This question of boundaries must be a very difficult task for the Foreign Secretary at the Peace Conference, because wherever boundaries are drawn it is clear that some minority will be left out of their own country. I hope towards the end of my remarks to put forward what I think will be a solution to this problem. On the economic side, we have certain countries in Central Europe with land rich in agricultural produce, others with rich mines and oilfields,
1898
and others with industrial machinery and factories capable of producing industrial wealth. It is obvious that if we try to divide a country like England into various self-contained sections, with tariff barriers between them, we should have a good deal of economic chaos, and that is exactly what is happening in Central Europe at the present time. Imagine trying to separate the industrial areas of the West Riding and the Metropolitan Area of London from the agricultural districts. We should be faced with the same kind of difficulty which is facing Central Europe at the present time. I believe that the solution which will solve all these problems is that of federation of the Danubian States. This is not a new solution. It has been advocated for a number of years, and I believe it was first mooted 50 years ago. I would suggest a different method of applying federation. Federation will not come from the countries themselves because there is too much internal hatred and jealousy of each other. It must be imposed upon the States of Central Europe, and, if possible, it should be imposed by the three great Powers at some peace conference. I suggest certain conditions upon which will depend the saccess of such a federation. I believe that it will be necessary for the three great Powers to be represented on the federal council. At the same time each of the States of Central Europe should be equally represented, whether they have fought against, or for, the three great Powers. We must have equal representation to secure a firm foundation for the federation. It is very wise that the three great Powers should be represented, because they will be able to smooth over many of the teething troubles which will beset the federation. Obviously, there would be a good deal of friction in the first stages. If the three Powers had enough strength on the federation council, they could ease over these difficulties, and ultimately, within a generation, they would be able to relinquish their representation and leave the federated Central European States to themselves.
Whatever is settled at the Peace Conference, we cannot settle the future of Europe without creating new difficulties. If we could influence the other two great Powers —I think we should have no difficulty in influencing America, but if we could influence Russia—then this would become a practical proposition. If only we could

1899
impose this federation at the present time, we could build up a great State in Central Europe that would be self-supporting, with its own monetary standards, free trade and a higher standard of living. The mantle of leadership has fallen upon this country. Let us not betray that position and again sacrifice our principles for expediency, as we have done in the past. Of all the problems which face the world at the present time, the greatest is that of Central Europe, and I believe that if we can solve that problem, we can have peace in our time.
7.53 P.m.
Flight-Lieutenant Haire: I think that it was appropriate that the Foreign Secretary spoke at such length about the Danubian basin in his wide survey of the situation this afternoon, because for too long, I think, this country has neglected that area. I seem to remember that, only a few years before the war, the Prime Minister of that day metaphorically pointing an umbrella at Central Europe, and referring to Czechoslovakia as a country about which we knew little or nothing. I fear that applies equally to the Danubian basin, and I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend is anxious that we should play our part in the redevelopment and reconstruction of that area. The Foreign Secretary went on to say that the Soviet Foreign Minister, M. Molotov, believed that because the right hon. Gentleman took a very great interest in the problem of the Danube and its internationalisation he was therefore dictating to Russia. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary holds that view about the internationalisation of the Danube. I think that that great European artery should be opened up to international trade, but I can well see why M. Molotov may have taken the view that we were dictating, for it is true, with regard to the countries of South-East Europe— Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria—that we recognised Hungary only last November, we recognised Rumania only a few months ago, and we have still not recognised Bulgaria because we do not accept the regime in that country as democratic. For that reason M. Molotov takes the view that we are interfering unnecessarily in the regimes of those countries.
1900
I, like the hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth), only recently returned from Hungary. He and I were on the all-party Parliamentary delegation which went to that country. He has already told the House something of his experiences there. I shared many of them, although I disagree with him on certain points, which I shall refer to later. The House, I think, would be glad to know the answer to certain questions which have troubled them and this country for a long time. A great many questions have been asked about what is happening beyond the so called "Iron curtain," and there have been many rumours, even in this House, and many misrepresentations. I would like to answer certain questions that have been asked, such as: Is Hungary politically controlled by Russia? Is the present regime democratic? Is there political freedom? Is Hungary economically dependent on Russia? What part does the Red Army play? Is Hungary a satellite of Russia? These are the burning questions asked about these Russian occupied countries. Before dealing with them. I should like to give the House a brief picture of the background in Hungary.
Hungary today is lying derelict as a result of the war which razed it from end to end. Budapest, its capital, was fought over for 51 days, and is as wrecked as Berlin. The whole of Hungary was fought over acre by acre. The agricultural industry of the country is ruined. As well as the destruction caused by shell and bomb, the Germans, during their occupation and during their retreat, looted the country to the extent that they took somehing like 86 per cent. of the horses, 75 per cent. of the sheep and pigs, 80 per cent. of the cattle and 70 per cent. of the industrial machinery. The locomotives of Hungary, the rolling stock, are largely to be found in Austria today. Some 4,800 locomotives were in Hungary before the war; now, barely 500 remain. We saw, as we passed through Vienna, some of those trucks and wagons marked with Hungarian names. That is some of the spoliation and looting that went on in Hungary during the occupation, and it has left Hungary today economically broken down. Hungary was dragged into the war as an economic satellite of Germany in 1942, very much, I gather, against the better judgment of the people. Count Teleki, the Premier of that time,

1901
committed suicide because of the pressure brought to bear upon him by the Nazis.
As a result of the war and the economic breakdown, there exist in Hungary today two great problems which must be solved by the Government. The first is the problem of inflation. We, in this country, who seek to avoid inflation, would do well to have in front of us a picture of what is happening in Hungary today. I shall show to the House a note which was once regarded as the Hungarian £1 note—20 pengoes That note today is mere " dust,"The Hungarians say. Here is a note, which I acquired some three weeks ago, representing 100 million pengoes. When I acquired it it was worth is. 8d. Today, I believe that it is not worth 6d. That is how the inflationary spiral in Hungary is going up day by day; so much so that the workman, when he has done a month's work, cannot earn enough to buy his wife even a pair of stockings. He must work for a year before he can afford to buy her a pair of shoes. The result is that they are not even paid in pengoes any more, and the pengo is no longer a measure of exchange. We found that dollars and gold were the medium of exchange in the shops for the commodities that were on sale. This inflation is something which is crippling the country and must be cured.
A very great problem which Hungary has to face at the present time is one which is often referred to in this House— the problem of food supplies. The food situation there has to be seen to be believed. We saw thousands of individuals in one district in Budapest, 10,000 people in a working class area, who existed on a plate of maize-meal and water with four slices of bread a day. In another large District, we saw poor Hungarian people, many of whom looked like the " lifeless bones "In the concentration camps which we deplored so much in this country only a few months ago. These people live on a plate of soup and four slices of bread a day. These conditions are not general, but they represent the condition of a great many of the people in Hungary today. That is the background, those are the conditions which exist in Hungary at the present time which the Government has to face. It is a very big problem.
Is this Government in Hungary a democratic Government? It was elected
1902
in November last in elections which have been declared by all observers to be fair and democratic, and as a result of those elections our Foreign Secretary recognised the Hungarian Government. As a result of the elections the four main contesting parties formed a coalition. These four parties are the Smallholders, an agrarian party like any other agrarian party in South-East Europe, who have eight seats in the Cabinet; the Communist Party with four seats, the Social Democrats with four seats, and the National Peasant Party with one The Prime Minister is a member of the Smallholders Party and I do not envy him his job in holding together the many diversified elements 'of his Cabinet. It has been said, and was even hinted by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckrose that the Communist Party is exerting an undue pressure, that it is in fact translating Russian theory into practice in Hungary. I do not agree that the Communist Party is exerting as much pressure as has been suggested, nor indeed that it is about to take over Hungary in a Communist " putsch."There is no suggestion of that; the four Communist members in the Cabinet, work in close cooperation with the other members, and their leader gives an agreeable impression, and has a most dynamic personality.
There is in Hungary a considerable degree of political freedom. We have heard it said in this House that behind the "Iron curtain,"There is Press censor ship. I want to deny at once that there is Press censorship in Hungary. It is true that the Press is subject to post-publication scrutiny, but that is precisely what we did in this country during the war. We accepted editorial responsibility and we still do that. In Hungary it is true that a number of papers are suspended from time to time, but explanations are generally given, and when we asked editors, as we frequently did, why their papers were suspended, they frequently accepted the reason as being fair. I would like to tell hon. Members opposite the two main reasons why a newspaper might be suspended. The first is for an offence against the Big Three. This might upset international agreement at a delicate time when the peace treaty with Hungary is being prepared, and consequently the Press are asked not to offend against international relationships. On one occasion recently a Communist paper—
Mr. Stokes: Virtually, then, it comes to what the Foreign Secretary said today—unless the newspapers all take the Communist view, they are suppressed.
Flight-Lieutenant Haire: I was just about to inform the House that, recently, a Communist paper was suspended for several days because it spoke rather too violently about the expenditure incurred by the British Mission on its entertainment and by the American Mission on the flowers it provided for its lady friends. Equally, the radio is not subject to any more censorship than is found in our own B.B.C. The members of the delegation went to the microphone and had complete freedom. We were without script, and I would like to ask any of the members of that delegation who are present to confirm that to the House. When I was in Hungary in October last, I went to the microphone on three occasions, each time without a script, free to say what I liked, and I like to feel that on one occasion I was somewhat outspoken and that I had even offended. The radio gave us an opportunity of expressing our impressions on the spot, so we did not wait until we came out of Hungary to say what we thought. I conclude this section of my remarks by saying that I consider that at the present moment Hungary is not politically controlled by Russia. She has freedom in her day-to-day political affairs, and in fact, on the long-term view, would not be controlled by the occupying force so long as she adopts a friendly attitude towards the Soviet.
Mr. Vernon Bartlett; Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me if I come back to a point he made just now about freedom to talk on the radio? Would he tell the House whether he talked in Hungarian or English? If he talked in English, most people would not understand his criticisms.
Flight-Lieutenant Haire: That is a relevant point; we spoke in English, all five of us who went to the microphone, and our remarks were later translated into Hungarian. We had faithful interpreters who informed us that they were fair translations.
The Red Army has been subjected to some criticisms, and my hon. Friend the
1904
Member for Buckrose said he felt that there was a terror. of the Red Army in Hungary. I challenge him on that point and ask whether he can give any particular instance. He will well remember that we were together for most of the trip, and in fact we went out into the country together. I would like to give two illustrations of the impression given by the Red Army. The House will be interested to know that its size—it is very difficult to determine this figure, but we were informed on fairly reliable authority —is less than half a million. When I was in Hungary last autumn the Red Army was very much more obvious than it is now, and I should say it was then probably nearer a million. Now it is not so obvious; one hardly sees anything of it in Budapest.
We went out into the country and found that the distribution of the Red Army is very irregular. In some places it is very noticeable; in others scarcely at all. We went to the town of Keeskemet, with a population of 35,000, and we were told that there were 38,000 Russians, and there was hardly a house in the town where there were not five billettees. That, no doubt weighed very heavily on the local housewives, and undoubtedly such concentration leads from time to time to difficulties. We inquired if there were any actual incidents there and were told that there were comparatively few. We were told about one which had occurred on Good Friday, about 10 days before, when, unfortunately, several people were shot on a lonely farm. Here I would like to point out that the difficulty is that the Red Army do not speak Magyar, nor do the Hungarians speak Russian. Even in the occupying army eight different languages are spoken, and it is extremely difficult for any close intimate feeling to grow up, so that incidents do from time to time occur. They are not however of such a frequency as to justify the description of terror.
We went to another large town, the second largest town in Hungary, called Szeged—it is a very famous university town—and there we were given an extremely warm welcome. We were met by about 5,000 people in the square, given a gala performance at the opera at which the Russian commander and two members of his staff were present, and I must say I was greatly thrilled at the reception

1905
which we, as British representatives, were given. Subsequently, a reception was given in our honour at which, again, the Russian commander and his staff officers were present. A number of cordial speeches were made. It is my opinion that he probably made the warmest and most cordial speech of the evening when he quoted President Roosevelt and Generalissimo Stalin and said that the future of small countries like Hungary depended on the friendship which would exist among the great Powers.
I wish the House to appreciate that incidents occurred soon after the occupation but such incidents are largely of the past and are not now occurring as a regular feature of the situation there. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member who interrupted thinks that that is not so, I should like him to go to that country and see for himself. This was an all-party delegation which will shortly be issuing what, I hope, will be a unanimous report. As leader of the delegation, I can say that we all generally agreed upon the view which I have just given to the House of the occupation of Hungary by the Red Army.
Mr. Wadsworth: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member's opinion, but I hope in due course to have the report in the hands of all Members of the House, putting forward the unanimous feeling of the delegation.
Flight-Lieutenant Haire: I am not saying that everything I am stating is in the report. That would be a breach of the confidence of the delegation. I am speaking now for myself. If there is any challenge, it is upon what I consider was an exaggerated view of the effect' that the Russian Army is having on Hungary at the present time. I have paid two visits to that country, and after the intervening period of six months I have noted very considerable improvement. I believe that it will go on. We had an opportunity of speaking to the General commanding in Hungary and his staff and we put to him a number of pertinent questions on such things as the problem of billeting and the reduction of the Army. He told us that the Red Army in Hungary was being gradually reduced. He said, " Only yesterday we had a request to send back a further group."I think this will show that it is true that the Red Army has been
1906
very considerably reduced, and that it is the intention of the Russians to reduce it to the lowest level necessary.
The Foreign Secretary referred today to the great difficulties we have had in establishing trade with these Danubian countries. He said that Russian economic penetration there seemed to be somewhat exclusive. The House will be interested to know that there are, approximately, four economic agreements between Russia and Hungary, the general effect of which appears to tie Hungarian economy to Russia; but Hungarians recognise that close economic ties with Russia are inevitable, not only because of geographical affinity but because of the loss of the very large markets that Hungary had in Germany before the war. Those economic agreements are not exclusive. One has only to recall economic agreements which have been made with other countries and which are now in operation.
There is a trade agreement with Switzerland, as a result of which Switzerland sends food to Hungary by road convoy, and receives in return radio parts, such as valves. Hungary has a big radio industry. There is a trading agreement with Czechoslovakia. It is working. Czechoslovakia sends coal, coke and wood and, in return, gets from Hungary oil and bauxite. I would like the House to know that when we were in Hungary we hoped that this country would have trade relations with Hungary, but we were told that there was very great difficulty in establishing them. Does the House know that we still insist upon operating the trading with the enemy restrictions? When I was in Hungary last October I asked a member of the British Mission why we could not get trade going again, because Hungarians were most anxious to trade with us. He replied: " What these people fail to realise is that they are still technically our enemies."That is not an attitude that will lead to a renewal of trade for which the Foreign Secretary asked this afternoon. I believe that a payments agreement is about to be negotiated, and that trade will shortly be established. I feel, however, that the fault is to a large extent on our side.
My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of reaching agreement in Paris. One territory upon which agreement appears to have been reached rapidly is Transylvania. Apparently agreement was

1907
reached on that vital problem among the Big Three in a matter of five minutes. What was the argument and the reason why that large area in which there are 1,500,000 Hungarians, was handed back to Rumania? Why was this done, in view of the Treaty of Trianon, which is now very much despised in this country and has been greatly abused in this House? Transsylvania is a very large territory with a very large Hungarian minority. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us information on this point, because what has happened is contrary to what we should have expected, from the statements made in this House. I would refer to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on 5th September, 1940, about the Treaty of Trianon. He said:
"I have never been happy about the way in which Hungary was treated after the last war."
He might well not be happy. She lost two-thirds of her territory and 3,000,000 of her population. He went on to say:
"We do not propose to recognise any territorial changes "—
he was referring to the Vienna Award of 1940, by which Hitler gave Transylvania to Hungary—
"which take place during the war, unless they take place with the free consent and good will of the parties concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th September, 1940; Vol. 365, c. 40.]
Is the present change that was decided at Paris taking place with the good will and the free consent of the parties concerned? Viscount Halifax also referred to the Transylvanian Settlement and said the Allies were
"unable, however, to accept the settlement now announced between Rumania and Hungary since that was the result of dictation by the Axis Powers and has been imposed on Rumania under duress."
We did not propose, he went on, to recognise territorial changes unless they had been freely agreed to between the parties concerned. He added:
"We certainly hope at the end of the war there might be a general settlement on lines so just and equitable as to achieve durability. To that end the British Government will exercise all its influence."
I hope that the British Government and the Foreign Secretary will use all their influence to see that the decision to hand back such an important area, a decision
1908
so full of potential difficulty to one country, will be reconsidered. I feel sure that this is not a solution which will make for long-term peace.
What solution might there be? The hon. Member for Buckrose has referred to a federal solution. That may present immediate difficulties. There may be a more short-term solution to be found in a partition of Translyvania which will enable us to equate minorities and to give to Hungary as many Rumanians on her side as Hungarians are left on the Rumanian side. That equation of minorities might guarantee the continuance of full citizen rights. We received an answer in the House yesterday from which it would appear that the minorities agreement is not to be continued. What protection will these people have if our Government should not be behind them? That failure of the Government to recognise minority rights is very clearly seen in another part of Hungary. On the Slovak frontier there is a minority problem which is most vexatious. On the Slovakian side of the Danube there are some 720,000 Hungarians, and on the Hungarian side of the Danube some 60,000 Slovaks. Under the present regime in Czechoslovakia, there is an expulsion going on, and the result will be that even after there is a "man-for-man" exchange there will be left some 600,000 Hungarians in Slovakia. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee for them citizen rights? Surely, it is not right to leave to the countries concerned the solution of these minority problems. They are problems which must be settled by the United Nations if we are ever to obtain peace and prosperity in that tormented area.
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Flight-Lieutenant Haire) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument, although I agree with him to a considerable extent, especially in regard to the decision of the Four Powers to settle the frontiers of Hungary without any consultation of the people. I have come to that conclusion despite there being no gala performances for me at the opera or a series of extravagant meals. I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Member's argument because I want to talk about the wider issues. One has only to go through the Lobbies today to realise that my right hon. Friend's speech has caused

1909
considerable despondency owing to the long and detailed account that he had to give of Soviet non-cooperation. It has been suggested to me by one of my hon. Friends that if Mr. Molotov were an Englishman he would undoubtedly be a high official at the Treasury because of his persistence in saying "No"To every request.
The right hon. Gentleman s speech left me despondent rather for another reason. I had the opportunity of following the Conference at Paris, from the outside, from day to day, and, therefore, I was fully prepared for the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but I had rather hoped he would be able to talk a little less of the past and a little more of the future, and of the British contribution that can be made to brighten it. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be a very good thing if the Americans would not be discouraged because their proposal for a treaty for the control of Germany for 25 years did not receive a warmer welcome. I could not agree with him more. I think that American offer was one of the most important gestures that has been made for years, because surely anybody who has been inside Germany since the collapse realises that it will take fully a generation before the young Germans of today will be replaced in power by Germans who were too young to be entirely corrupted by Nazi doctrines. But surely that depends on the Americans, and does not depend so much upon us. In the same way it would certainly be a very good thing if the Soviet Government could be more cooperative, because unless the Soviet Government can make up their mind to accept majority decisions, one sees for the world nothing but absolute disaster. But that, again, depends not upon us, but upon the Russians.
What I think many of us hoped for was that my right hon. Friend would be able to say a little more about what is to happen if the conference breaks down, because it is the imminent danger of that which should be occupying the attention of hon. Members to a great extent. I know that my right hon. Friend did not talk about that because of his perennial optimism, his determination, that we shall not be defeated in this attempt to make peace; but it seems to me that we have to face up to much wider issues than were discussed at Paris. After all, the whole
1910
atmosphere seems to be poisoned by this attempt, that was foisted upon us during the war, to impose a Four-Power control, not only upon Europe, but upon the world. It was imposed upon us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) at the conferences at Teheran, Yalta and elsewhere. One could understand it perfectly well. It was vital at that time that the British Government should be assured of maximum cooperation by the Soviet armies. But one realises now what a tremendous burden of responsibility has been placed upon the present Government, what a terrible job it is to try to convince the Soviet Government that that policy of Four-Power domination cannot go on, that it is bound to break clown, and that particularly the British Government cannot stand for it; because of those four Powers, surely, it is the British Government which suffers most, the British Government which is so small, so unimpressive, if it is looked upon only as one-fourth, but so immensely big if looked upon as a colleague with the Dominions in a wider conference.
Therefore, it seems to me that we have to face the fact that this attempt at Four-Power domination is breaking down, and that it will probably involve a complete breakdown of the whole system of control in Germany. I do not think it is our fault. Even last October, when I was in Berlin, it seemed obvious to an outsider that there were going to be at least two Germanys, because already the Russian refusal to allow people from our side of the line to go into the Soviet zone of Germany meant that those two completely different Germanys were growing up. Yet, it is certainly true that our experts on the Central Control Commission were doing everything they could to make the impossible work. This, surety, will mean that, unless my right hon. Friend can succeed in the efforts he is to make at the end of next week, we shall have to face the fact that Europe is divided into two zones by a line running roughly from Stettin to Trieste, and in face of that fact it seems to me that most of the subjects mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his speech are relatively unimportant.
May I digress for a moment to say something about the conditions in which my right hon. Friend was working in Paris? The object of a conference is to

1911
enable people to confer, but the interchange of views seemed to me to be extremely incomplete in Paris. In Geneva, or at the United Nations Assembly in London, there was a lobby where not only the Ministers, but their experts, secretaries, journalists and the rest all mixed up and conferred and talked things over together, and one found in circumstances of that sort the development of a certain international spirit People came to look upon things not purely from the national points of view. There was my right hon. Friend struggling with an acute toothache, having two teeth out in the morning, and taking the chair for 7½ hours during the day. It would have been a great strain on anybody's patience. I do not know whether hon. Members realise the conditions of secrecy in which this conference and others of its kind take place. The Conference in London last September was absolutely secret, and it broke down absolutely. The Conference in Paris was very much better. The Press was entirely excluded from the building where the delegates met, or from anywhere near it, but the journalists were so admirably informed by the Foreign Office spokesmen that hon. Members who read "The Times " will have learned very little from the Foreign Secretary's speech today. They read it in the newspapers, because the service of information from the plenary sessions, although they were secret, was so complete.
Mr. Bevin: I spoke for the benefit of " News Chronicle " readers.
Mr. Bartlett: I thank my right hon. Friend for this contribution to the paper on which I work and I am sure I welcome it, for if a time ever came when he wanted to give up the job of Foreign Secretary I would gladly concede my place to him. There was one disadvantage about all these arrangements in Paris. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon time after time talked about the vital importance of the common man, of the common people. Let him remember that the people, of any country, except when they have the advantage of a speech by the right hon. Gentleman, have to be informed by the Press, and I would urge upon him—it may appear to be a small point—the importance of not having the delegation each in its own fortress of an hotel with no common meeting place at all and only
1912
giving the news through its own Press officer. That must inevitably mean that we who are writing will write much too much from the national point of view. Apart from that, there was an additional handicap. As a newspaper man I want all the news, but I regretted that even when a meeting of an informal nature was called the right hon. Gentleman and the other Ministers still had no opportunity of talking things over in an informal manner without any fear of what they said being passed on.
I think therefore there is room for improvement in the procedure, but this is going to be no use unless concessions can be made and I do want briefly to suggest two or three possible ones. First of all, my right hon. Friend on one occasion said he was not going to bargain with the lives of the people over Trieste. I think it is quite true on ethnical grounds that Trieste should go to Italy. But I have been in Trieste between the two wars and. have seen the grass growing in the docks because no one was interested in the development of the Port of Trieste. For once there was the possibility of Mr.. Molotov agreeing to a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman says that we cannot bargain with the lives of men or rather we cannot do too much of it, but only a day or two before there was a bargain with the lives of men, for the South Tyrol was left under Italian rule. That seems to me a far graver thing than any decision which might be made to hand Trieste over to Yugoslavia, especially if in return we could make a bargain with Mr. Molotov which would help other people in other parts of the world. After all, if we are going to have this appalling division of Europe into two different fields with a line running from Stettin to Trieste, the Foreign Secretary must concentrate on making as many contacts across that line as possible. I am not at all sure that some bargain could not have been made over Trieste which could have opened up the Danube Basin, about which my right hon. Friend spoke.
I think, too, that there is a great deal to be said about not nagging too much these small Governments East of that line. I believe that on the whole there is, as for example in Hungary, rather more freedom of expression of opinion than some of us in this House generally believe. I think it is a great tragedy that the Polish Government have not yet kept their.

1913
promise to hold elections. We have a right on every possible occasion to insist that they should do so, because there was a definite pledge that they would hold the elections and it was on the basis of that pledge that we recognised the Government. But I think we are in certain danger of worrying too much about these small geographical victories like Trieste. I do not believe that Trieste can be as important as the avoidance of an absolute breakdown with the Soviet Union and the division of Europe into two hostile zones.
I would humbly urge my right hon. Friend, whose wide vision every Member of this House admires, to do everything to ensure that we can keep as many contacts open across that line as possible. But everything in the relations with the Soviet Union is overshadowed by the future of Germany. We, in our desire not to break down that central control of Germany, have delayed, as those who have been to Germany know, to the last moment of danger, any decision as to what our policy in that zone will be. In the hopes that there will be a central policy we have allowed things to slide in our own zone. The young men there, who have done admirable work in administration and control of large cities and so on, have done it without any guiding policy, for none has yet been decided. From what the Minister said today it looks as though we are moving towards the idea of the socialised industry of the Ruhr, a nationalised industry on a small scale inside a federal Germany. I hope that as soon as we have decided our policy we shall announce it to the whole world, because it will not only give immense encouragement to promising elements in Germany but will disarm a great deal of the Soviet suspicion. The world must feel that a Labour Government is carrying out a Labour policy in that great and important area.
Sometimes I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend—and I hope he will forgive me for lecturing him in this way— underestimates the sensibilities of the French, the extent to which they suffered a terrible moral blow during the war, and the extent to which they have developed an inferiority complex. They need all possible encouragement, because they are sensitive to the least suggestion of affront. I believe we ought to do more in that direction. Lastly, I do not think my right
1914
hon. Friend mentioned, in the whole of his very able speech, one word about atomic energy. Immense responsibilities for the future peace of the world rest more on my right hon. Friend and three other men than on any other living human beings. They have not time to spend the whole morning, or a considerable part of it, discussing whether a lighthouse in the middle of the Adriatic is to be Italian or Yugoslavian. I hope that when my right hon. Friend goes back on his mission, with the good wishes and prayers of every Member of this House, he will bear in mind the whole time, that these problems, which take so much time, and which caused so much ill-feeling and discussion last month in Paris, are of little importance compared with the immense development, potentialities and possibilities of atomic energy.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Many problems have been discussed in this House today, some of them very difficult, but the most serious and dangerous of them is the problem of Germany. I visited Germany a few weeks ago and was there for some days. From almost the moment of my arrival I had the same story told to me—depression, industry running down, factories closing, the symptoms and most of the reality of a complete economic breakdown. When I spoke to the high Government officials there I received various explanations. Some said food was the crux of the situation, others shortage of coal, while others again said that it was the shortage of consumption goods which did not provide the incentive for workers to work or for the farmers to bring their produce out of the black market into the city.
There were many explanations, but the fact remains that there was this attitude of complete industrial pessimism without hope and without visible sign of hope for the future. Most remarkable of all, I heard from many high officials one explanation which has been reechoed in this House today. It was that the secret of this breakdown was really the Potsdam Agreement. That seemed very remarkable because when one examines the figures of production in our zone of Germany as a whole I think the general level of production when I was there was somewhere in the region of 22 per cent. of the

1915
prewar figure, and that for iron and steel production was something like 25 per cent. of the capacity provided in the industrial agreement under Potsdam. Generally speaking, the Potsdam targets were miles and miles away, yet at the same time we have this talk which we have heard this afternoon about Potsdam and economic insanity with the suggestion that that is what is preventing the British zone in Germany from getting on to its feet at present.
A plain examination of the economic facts reveals that whatever is at the bottom of the trouble it certainly is not the Potsdam Agreement. The Potsdam Agreement, or rather the industrial agreement under it, sets no limit to the production of coal, to the production of building material, or the building of houses, which is a job which is going to occupy many millions of workers all over Germany for a very long time indeed. Therefore, when all this blame is put on the Potsdam Agreement and when there is this agitation, sometimes whispered and sometimes expressed, for a revision and a breach of that agreement, we should endeavour to find out just where we are going. We are told that it is costing us £80 million to pay what amount to reparations to Germany. The strange thing is happening that in the Soviet zone they are not paying reparations to Germany, but from the produce which is being obtained there, are actually taking reparations out of Germany at the present moment. We are putting reparations in; they are taking reparations out.
Quite naturally in the circumstances we say to the Russians in the quadripartite committee—and the right hon. Gentleman has suggested it—" Let us divide all this."It is a very nice suggestion—" You share our expenditure of £80 million and we will share your reparations." No doubt if the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary could have brought home the bacon, nobody would have been more pleased than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the British taxpayer, but obviously, while it might be a very attractive suggestion so far as we are concerned, it is a very unattractive suggestion so far as the Russians are concerned, and I do not think we need look for any enigmatic Slavonic mind to understand the Russian attitude on this particular subject. What
1916
they say is: " We made our zone a going concern. You do the same, and then we can talk in terms of economic unity and division of the spoils or the payment of what we have all got to put into the concern."That is nothing to do with the question of Potsdam; it is primarily a question of making our own zone work. I think it can work, but it is not working now. When I went there one of the things which appalled me was that we had 26,000 Government officials running German industry, an industry which the Germans ought to be running themselves and which they are running on the other side of the Elbe. It should be running under our supervision, and we are paying for men to run it.
What is the mentality of our people who are running it? They are men, in many cases, with high intelligence and a good deal of enthusiasm and interest, but the way they are trying to solve the problem is to apply methods of British municipal government to Germany. There exists the conception that, because we have a workable democratic system in this country, these ideas can be applied to Germany automatically. In substance, that is the method which is being applied. We have the same idea with regard to non-political civil servants. That is one of the traditions of municipal government in this country. In Germany it is fatal, because the non-political civil servant is a reactionary and a Nazi, and that is why both the democratic parties of the Left insist that there should cease to be this idea of non-political civil servants. There arc other problems, including those of de-Nazification, the dismissal of Nazis, a very serious problem. Here is the sort of view that high officials take of the problem. It was put to me by a brigadier in this way, " We want the machine to tick over. No dislocation—the machine must tick over." What is the consequence? Instead of adopting the drastic measure of getting rid of the Nazis at the beginning, there is hesitation and procrastination, and the consequence is that there is confusion in the minds of the German people as to what it is we want, as to whose side we are on and where we are going. That is the cause, in my view, of the apathy and demoralisation which give the German people no objective and no purpose and has led to economic stagnation.

1917
From what I have seen and read, we have to face the issue that before we emerge into the light in Germany we must pass through the shadows. Our representatives there are afraid to pass through the shadows. Before we come on to the clear road which leads to a progressive and economically prosperous Germany, it will be necessary to take steps which will result in temporary dislocation for a short time. I believe that this job can be done. I think it was the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) who said that, in the event of the failure of Potsdam, we must consider making our zone a viable economic unit. Why not make it a viable working economic unit right away? Before we abandon Potsdam we ought to see where we are going. There is no doubt of one thing; if Potsdam goes, it means a Chinese wall dividing the whole of Europe, it may be for generations to come, and the prospect of any stable peace in those circumstances will have gone for the whole of our generation— for the whole of our generation we shall live in fear and dissipate our substance on preparations for war.
Therefore, I ask those gentlemen who are condemning this agreement to realise, before it is abandoned, what will take its place before the impasse between the West and the East is entire and complete. I believe it is still possible to arrive at an agreement with the East; it will not be easy, but I think it is still possible within a short time to make Germany a single workable economic whole by approximating the political system of the world on both sides, and by a spirit of cooperation and compromise on both sides. I think that is still a possibility, difficult as I have said, but a real possibility. The alternative is political catastrophe for the next generation.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Spearman: I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Vernon Bartlett) when he said that everything is overshadowed by the situation in Germany, and that we are heading for catastrophe through lack of policy in our zone. I have great respect for the Foreign Secretary, as I think he knows, and like hon. Members on all sides of the House I have an admiration for a great deal that he has done; so if I appear unduly critical in
1918
regard to his policy in Germany, I hope he will realise that I appreciate the great difficulties of the situation and that this German part of the picture, though very important, is only a part and, in some cases, it may well be that he has to decide between a choke of evils.
It seems to me that in Germany in our zone there are only two alternatives. One is to remain almost indefinitely as a conqueror, with all the expenditure upon the taxpayer that would inevitably entail, and the ruthless manner of dealing with a defeated enemy which is perhaps much more compatible with their own traditions than with ours. The other is to build up a democracy which, subject to supervision for security reasons, would be capable of governing itself and giving its citizens enough hope of a decent standard of living to make it worth while for them to make voluntary efforts. That, I am quite sure, is the policy of the British Administration in our zone but I believe that, whereas now we have the choice of which of those policies we adopt, very soon we shall lose that choice and be forced to adopt the first, which would in my opinion be a disastrous course.
On this side of the House we sometimes think that right hon. Gentlemen opposits believe in a planned economy to a greater extent than is practical. But surely in foreign policy there must be a plan. There seems to me at the present time to be no clear plan. It seems to be improvising to deal with each emergency as it arises. I should like to quote briefly from a letter which I received yesterday from an hon. Member of this House. He says:
"I was horrified at a report in one of the Sunday newspapers regarding the conditions in Bremen and Hamburg. It implied that we were marking time and doing nothing to get a reasonable working economy going again. I suppose our excuse is lack of agreement between the Powers. To mark time any longer would seem to make disaster inevitable."
The hon. Member in question, who is away seriously ill, was badly wounded at Arnhem, and was in the hands of the Germans for six months. So he is not biased in their favour. In view of his experiences, his views are entitled to some consideration. I would like to say with all the small force I have how very much I feel we are drifting into a situation of disaster, and we have not too long in which to get it righted.

1919
I suggest that among the conditions necessary in order to make possible the building up of a democracy on the lines I have suggested, the obvious one is food, but in view of the long Debate we had on that last week, I will not say much about it now. I think it must be clear that with an ordinary ration which consists of bread and margarine in the morning, soup in the afternoon and two more thin slices of bread in the evening with so-called coffee made from wheat, a man is not much concerned about getting on with his work. He is thinking about his stomach. I do not think it is possible for them to work on these rations. Moreover, there is little incentive for them to work. I believe the average wage is 35s. a week and the man can only spend about 6s. on rations. That leaves a little under £1.. There is nothing in the shops and it is far better worth his while to stay in bed or spend his time scouring the country in the hope of getting food.
Secondly, we should drastically alter the level of industry. The Foreign Secretary told us that the maximum steel production permitted is 7,000,000 tons. It is necessary to put 1,000,000 tons a year into the coalmines in the Ruhr alone. Before the war they used 800,000 tons and now they have about 200,000 tons. Unless there is an increase there is a certainty of a drop in output of coal, and a great danger of mining disasters. Coal output has been falling with the falling rations. When rations fell a few weeks ago, there was an almost immediate fall of about 30 per cent. in output. Coal and steel are vital. If we could get more steel, we could get more coal, and if we could get more coal and keep more in the zone, we could get more consumer goods, to help the country to get going again and provide the goods which could encourage " dis-hoarding" of food all over the world, and also relieve the burden on the British taxpayer.
At present we are sending coal out of the country in. an enormous proportion. The amount going to liberated countries in April was about 700,000 tons, which was stepped up to 1,000,000 tons last month. To allow coal to go out of the country leads to the inevitable consequence that industry cannot work in Germany and that means that there is nothing to pay for the imports. It seems to me that to use up coal in that way is
1920
rather like a farmer eating his own seed potatoes. We should use the coal to produce the goods that would produce the money to relieve our taxpayers. Would it not be possible to send coal to the other zones and liberated areas only in return for supplies of food from them?
What happened after 1918 made it very clear that insufficient measures were taken then, but I do not believe that what would have been right in 1918 is necessarily right in 1946. There is such complete devastation in that country now that I should have thought—and this is the opinion I have found expressed on every side in Germany—there is no immediate fear of military aggression by that country. The devastation is almost indescribable. The English manager of Krupps had lunch with me in this building today, and he told me that of the 450,000 people living in Essen, 75 per cent. are living in cellars, that there is hardly a drain working properly in the whole town. That is the sort of devastation which one sees throughout the Ruhr. I suggest that military aggression by Germany is not to be feared at the moment. Governments are so often apt to believe that a remedy which was right 30 years earlier, is applicable at a much later date.
Hon. Members opposite talk much about facing the future. Some of their economics are unduly concerned with the past, and I suggest that at the moment it is the present that matters. The menace of poverty, wherever it exists, menaces and undermines the wellbeing of all. I think that is what General Smuts was thinking of in what I thought was his most admirable broadcast last week. I would like to quote one sentence. About Germany he said:
"As a vast depressed area—human and economic—she may become a centre of infection which may poison much of the Continent "
and he called for a revision and reversal of policies. I feel that that great and wise man was voicing, as he has so often done before, not only the conscience but the common sense of the Empire. I believe that at every turn we are being paralysed by the quadripartite policy. Our efforts to provide food and coal and even to destroy the war potential are continually being frustrated by the fact that supplies of the essential articles are outside the zone. Germany was a complete

1921
economic entity, and I believe that even now it could be more or less self supplying with regard to food. We have not too long in which to put this matter right. With any force I have, I urge upon the Foreign Secretary the need very quickly to see whether we cannot reach some policy compatible with getting German democracy going again. Otherwise, I believe we face a disaster which may not only impoverish us in this country, but may even eventually endanger our existence.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Butcher: One thing running as a sombre undertone through the careful and objective survey which the right hon Gentleman gave us this afternoon was the fact that on so many matters it was completely impossible for this country to reach agreement with our Russian Allies. What a sad and lamentable change from 12 months ago, when on every lip there was praise for the gallantry of the Russians. Frankly, it is the Russians themselves who have done much to forfeit the confidence and trust which the people of this country extended to them in large measure. This is a fact which we must face in connection with the forthcoming conference of Foreign Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) said, we must go to that conference with our eyes open prepared to recognise that there is some possibility of breakdown between the West, on the one hand, and the East, on the other. In no matter is it more important than that we should be clear what we are trying to do than in the matter of Germany. That is the key state lying in the centre of Europe. Unless that problem can be solved, then no problem whatever in the range of international affairs can be solved. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Erdington Division of Birmingham (Mr. J. Silverman) said he thought that we should not attack the Potsdam Agreement. I would be happy if I could feel there was any chance of the Potsdam Agreement working. I see no sign of that at all. What actually is happening? The basis of the Potsdam Agreement, surely. was that Germany should be treated as an economic whole, and another equally important provision was that the standard of living of the German people should not be lower than the average for the
1922
rest of Europe, excluding the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R—
Mr. J. Silverman: Shall not be higher —not lower.
Mr. Butcher: I do not doubt my hon. Friend, but I am sure he will permit me to refresh my memory. The provision was that the average standard of living should not exceed the average standard in Europe. What is happening? In our zone in Germany there is one great natural product—the coal of the Ruhr. That, however, is not at our disposal. It is apportioned by the Quadripartite Committee sitting in Berlin. That would be all right if there was reciprocity. If the Ruhr is the coal producing area, then inside the Russian zone are the great agricultural and grain producing parts of Germany. We are entitled to say that the produce from those acres should be apportioned in Berlin and that we should have our share in the British zone.
Mr. J. Silverman: I did not want to interrupt again. As far as the Russian zone is concerned, the facts we were given are that we are sending 250,000 tons of coal into the Russian zone for which an equivalent amount of lignite is being transported into the British zone. Therefore, it is a very small matter and it is not a question of coal going to the British zone without reciprocity.
Mr. Butcher: That may very well be but we cannot feed many bellies with 250,000 tons of lignite. Unless the Russians are prepared to honour the quadripartite agreement to a degree that they have not done in the past, we as a House of Commons must be prepared to accept the possibility that it will be our duty to make the best possible arrangements for the future running of our zone. I believe it is possible to do it without any quarrel. It will be a matter for hard bargaining in which we offer to exchange the produce of our zone in terms of coal for the produce of other zones in terms of grain or other necessities of life.
How far can we go, I do not know. Everybody is at fault. There has been difficulty in organising trade arrangements between the American and the French zones and our own, but these difficulties are being overcome. The position at the present time is ludicrous. It is ridiculous that electrical machinery is

1923
being sent from this country for the equipment of the Ruhr mines though no Member of the Government will deny it. Here is this great mining and steel producing area, with so little coal left for its essential manufactures that the actual steel wires for the winding of the coal cannot be produced locally and have to be imported, and such a situation in so enormous an industry is impossible.
I would say to the Under-Secretary that the time is running out. There is not very much time left if we are to avoid a disaster of the most appalling magnitude in Germany. Either the Potsdam Agreement has got to work and Germany be treated as an economic whole, which will mean that the Russians will have to recognise it and play up to it in a way they have not done in the past, or, alternatively, we must be prepared to take over the task of running our zone to make the best use we can of the resources of that zone, not for ourselves, but, primarily, for the German people, so that they may live and not starve, and, secondly, for the benefit of Europe, and, finally, for the whole of mankind. Therefore, I hope that, before he goes to the Paris Conference of Ministers, the Foreign Secretary will have prepared plans which, if necessary, if the Potsdam Agreement be denounced, can be immediately put into effect by running our own zone and maintaining the livelihood of those committed to our charge there.
9.13 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I wish to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain F. Noel-Baker) said about Spain. It may be a rather small element in this great world scene we are considering, but I think that, on the way we handle it, much will depend. There will be repercussions in many countries of the world.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made his attitude towards Franco very clear, and so has the Prime Minister, who indicated how glad he would be to see a change in the regime there. I think there has been an implication that this was not really our concern, but was a matter for the Spaniards themselves. Further, in many places, we hear the argument that the Spaniards, being a proud race, would be consolidated behind Franco
1924
by any outside interference, for instance, by us. If Franco had been put into power by the united efforts of the Spaniards themselves, there might be something in that argument, but we all know that, in actual fact, he got enormous assistance from Hitler and Mussolini, to say nothing of his own extensive use of Moorish troops. Even so, he had a very long and bitter struggle before he was able to impose his tyranny on the Spanish people. If he had not had all that outside assistance, it is clear he never could have done it, and, in those circumstances, is it likely that the Spanish people, the ordinary masses, would really resent outside help in removing that tyranny? It just does not make sense, and I think there is every reason to believe what my hon. and gallant Friend said just now.
My hon. and gallant Friend said he had been told by the Spaniards themselves that they would put up with considerable hardship if economic pressure were put on by us to make Franco's position more difficult, in much the same way as the Czechs accepted, for instance, the bombing of the Skoda works.which they knew would tend towards their liberation. Further, we must not forget our own responsibility in this matter. If Hitler and Mussolini helped actively to put Franco into power, we helped him passively. No doubt we would like to forget that, but it is true. When the Republican Government wanted to exercise the ordinary right of buying from us arms and equipment which they so badly needed, they were not allowed to do so on the pretence that a nonintervention agreement was being observed and, in order to establish that standpoint, we even went to the ridiculous length of pretending that we were quite unaware that help was 'really being given by Hitler and Mussolini. It is up to us to remember the part we played in that matter, a part of which we ought to be thoroughly ashamed. It has been said that the struggle between Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, on the one hand, and the Republican Government of Spain on the other, was the first phase of the great war we have just completed—a sort of prologue. There is something in that point of view and, if we accept-it, we cannot regard this struggle as thoroughly completed while the junior member of that trio is still in power.

1925
As regards the action we might take, my right hon. Friend has already said a good deal about economic sanctions and I, too, think that much pressure could be brought by that means. He mentioned other means also, such as breaking off diplomatic relations which, in any case, will probably be recommended by U.N.O.—it has already been recommended by the Sub-Committee—and there is the establishing of diplomatic contact with the alternative Government. It may seem a trivial matter, but I wish to draw attention to the broadcasts to Spain, although I do not think it is so very trivial when it affects such large numbers of people in that country. Hon. Members probably know that during the war our broadcasts to Spain were of a very invigorating anti-dictator type. The Spaniards used to look forward to them, and were careful not to miss them. But as soon as the war ended, there was a complete change in the tone of our broadcasts to Spain. The robust words of democracy gave way to feeble bleatings of appeasement, and the broadcasts now, even if they do not actually have a friendly tone towards the existing regime, are, at any rate, exceedingly tolerant towards it. I can quite believe what I am told that not only do Spaniards not look forward to them, but that if they are listening to other types of broadcast they turn the wireless off as soon as ours come on. They know what to expect.
I have not been primarily concerned to suggest that the Government should take this or that direct action, but to establish the principle that we have a responsibility in this matter and that we cannot shelter behind the notion that this is no concern of ours. Once that responsibility is fully accepted, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will find ways and means of putting pressure on Franco. I am convinced that he is not as secure as he sometimes appears to be, though considerable elements in Spain who, I understand, were preparing to desert him at the close of the war—because they fully expected that our Government and that of the United States would do something fairly drastic which, of course, did not happen—went back to him. I think if that pressure is applied his position can in time be made intolerable, and we shall see in Spain a Government which really
1926
represents the masses. We helped to put Franco in. We must help to put him out.
9.20 p.m.
Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean: When one considers the Government's broad attitude towards world problems today, one cannot help feeling that, apart from a possibly quite healthy tendency to quarrel with our Allies, the most noticeable and constant factor is a tendency to withdraw. While others hold their ground or advance, we pull out. We have withdrawn or are withdrawing in Europe, in Asia and in Africa. I cannot help feeling that if our policy were rather more positive, perhaps we would not have quite so many quarrels with our Allies. But I do not propose to discuss the advisability or inadvisability of this policy of withdrawal. At the risk of being thought a Cassandra, I propose to deal very briefly with its consequences.
In a recent Debate the Prime Minister said that the responsibility for the defence of Egypt lay primarily with the Egyptians. That is a very easy way out. Anyone who spent any time in the Western Desert between 1940 and 1942, knows perfectly well that if our forces had not been in Egypt at the outbreak of hostilities, the Egyptians would not have been able to hold their own for a minute, and I see no reason to suppose that they are any better able to do so today. The Indians, it is true, are a more warlike race, but, surely, if left to their own devices, they would be more likely to direct their warlike tendencies to cutting each other's throats than to setting their defences in order. In short, is there any reason to suppose that if either Egypt or India had to stand by themselves, they would be better able to defend their independence than, say, Persia has been in the rough-and-tumble of international relations today?
Presumably, the case for our withdrawal from Egypt, India and all these other countries is based on two main suppositions-—first, that our presence there does not bring sufficient benefits to the people of that country to justify our remaining, and secondly, that we are not strong enough to remain even if we wanted. A wish expressed shortly before the war by the President of the Board of Trade, who said that he wanted to see the end of the Empire, may also help to

1927
clear matters up a bit, especially as he is now taking such an active part in the process of demolition.
Mr. Stokes: When did he say that?
Brigadier Maclean: In 1938. The trouble is that others do not share our inferiority complex. To take only one example, our Soviet Allies show a very clear realisation of their strength and behave accordingly. People are always asking, " Why is it that you object so much to the Russians doing this and doing that, when you yourselves stay in Egypt or India?"I would answer, " Why is it that you are so ready to see us clear out of Egypt or India, but so glad to see the Russians stay in countries in which they have no better right to be than we have in Egypt or India?"
Mr. Platts-Mills: Of which countries is the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaking?
Brigadier Maclean: I would say Persia.
Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that Soviet forces are still in Persia?
Brigadier Maclean: If the hon. Member looks at an atlas he will have no difficulty in finding a country in which there are Soviet forces, or which is under Soviet influences.
Mr. Platts-Mills: Name a single one.
Brigadier Maclean: The Russians show a clear realisation of their strength, and they consider that the various Eastern races, which at one time or another, and by one method or another, have been brought under Russian domination—and I am not talking only of the countries that have come under Russian domination since the Revolution—derive very considerable benefits from Soviet rule. Having travelled extensively in Soviet Asia I consider there is a certain amount of justification for saying that. It has been said that the Russians are children of nature. One thing at any rate they have in common with their parent, and that is that they abhor a vacuum. They are showing that very clearly in the Near East, the Middle East and the Far East. By our policy of withdrawal we are deliberately creating further vacuums all over the world. We are casting aside all heavy responsibilities which this country
1928
and our Empire have so long and so courageously borne. Let us not be surprised or shocked if others step in to pick up the burden which we have so lightly cast aside. Surely, it is our responsibility, both nationally and internationally, before we withdraw our protection from countries which are not able to stand by themselves, to ensure that a system of security or trusteeship is set up which is adequate to protect, not only the interests of the peoples concerned and of the great Powers, but also world peace, which is otherwise bound to suffer from our policy of continual abdication.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: After the speech of the Foreign Secretary the Debate seems to have ranged over many subjects. It has taken the form of hon. Members giving reports of the parts of the world which they have visited in the past few weeks or months. In my remarks I propose to make some reference to a country which I have visited recently. Before doing so I would like to make some comments on the general Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) said that he listened to the speech of the Foreign Secretary with a feeling of despondency. It certainly was not a very cheerful record the Foreign Secretary had to give us. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater was making a criticism of the Foreign Secretary or not, but it seemed to me that it was perfectly legitimate for the Foreign Secretary to make a list, and to give the House its contents, of the various proposals that have been discussed in Paris. He was able to show, and had to show, how many of those proposals had been blocked by the action of the Soviet Government. It was right that those facts should be revealed to this House, and it is necessary to reveal those facts to this House and to the country, for the reason that many persons are asking why some more positive action is not taken by the British Government.
But positive initiatives have been taken by the British Government. They have endeavoured to get peace treaties and settlements in Europe. They have been rejected by our Allies, and the fact that there is no settlement is not the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. That fact ought to be proclaimed. And it is

1929
most important that it should be proclaimed throughout Europe and the world, that if the British Government had had their way, the world would be on the way to a very much better peace than we see in prospect at the present time.
It is most important, for instance, that the people of Austria should know how eager the British Government are to see the withdrawal of troops from their country. This is one answer to the question of my hon. Friend who asked just now for an instance of a country from which the withdrawal of Russian troops is desirable. Russian troops are in Austria in defiance of the best interests of the Austrian people, and the Austrian people wish to see a withdrawal of the Russian troops. The British Government wish to see the withdrawal of troops from Austria. It would make a great contribution to the whole peace of Europe if that could be achieved. It ought to be known in Austria how eager the British Government and the British people are to see a full and final settlement of Austria's problems in accordance with the treaty made in Moscow in 1943.
Many hon. Members of this House in the Debates—and I think it is most remarkable how many have referred to this —have referred to the question of Potsdam and of the so-called "Iron curtain " which, they allege, exists in Europe at the present time. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater that the prospect or possibility of a line being drawn from Stettin to Trieste, dividing Europe in half, is one of the most important questions with regard to Europe with which we are confronted, and that it is possible that if the forthcoming conferences break down we shall be confronted with this situation. We shall have to devise a policy for dealing with it. But immediately, as I understand the statement of the Foreign Secretary, the policy of His Majesty's Government is to make one great new effort to get a common agreement.
That new effort to get a common agreement will be based partly on the proposals which the Foreign Secretary referred to regarding Germany and the Ruhr; it is based partly on the hope that a new approach by all the Powers will be made towards the possibility of a 25 years' treaty forbidding future German aggression, as proposed by Mr. Byrnes; it is to
1930
be a policy, also, which, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, would possibly envisage a revision of the Potsdam Agreement. I certainly hope that great emphasis will be laid on the possibility of getting a total revision of the Potsdam Agreement, because it is impossible to pursue a policy of keeping a country down and, at the same time, a policy of trying to build it up. It is impossible to give instructions to a people of a country saying, "Try to build your country up a little, but see to it you do not build it too much."That is an impossible policy to carry out. The sooner we make a real effort—with our Allies, first of all, if they will; but without them if they will not—to carry out a policy of reconstruction in Germany, the sooner shall we have a better chance of sanity and humanity coming back to the world.
With regard to the more general situation, I hoped, and all of us during the war hoped, that at the end of the war there would be a continuation of the common agreement between the Great Powers in the making of the peace. That hope has gone unfulfilled, and it is the lack of fulfilment of that hope and the deterioration in the relations between the Soviet Union and ourselves that is chiefly responsible for all the troubles we have to confront at the present time. I believe that these troubles were partly due to the decisions which were made prior to the ending of the war. They were due to the decisions made at Teheran and Yalta, because it is those decisions which prepared the way to Potsdam. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) coming to this House, as he did on Friday, or, in his speech on the other side of the Atlantic, trying to abandon responsibility for this policy of Potsdam, because it was a policy prepared by him more than by any other single individual in this country. It is no good hon. Members on the other side of the House coming forward in this Debate and demanding a more positive policy from the Government, while three days ago they were denouncing the Government for trying to get a decent food policy for the whole of Europe. It is no good demanding a more positive policy regarding the British zone, and then kicking up a tremendous howl because we happened to have made suggestions for feeding the British zone in Germany.

1931
We will never carry out any policy in Germany on a ration of 1,000 calories per day.
What are we to do about this situation? If it comes about that, following the new effort which is being made to get agreement, there is still deadlock, what are we to do? First of all, there is the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford in the United States, that we should enter into a solid alliance with the United States. However, we have not been invited to do so, and even if we are invited, it is clear that the United States is totally disunited on the question. Even if the invitation was issued, I believe that that policy is the most certain and the shortest way to create the gulf across which the next war will be fought. There is also the proposal made by a diminishing number of people in this country, that the way to get peace is to agree to all the proposals which are made by the Soviet Union. The Foreign Secretary made clear in his speech the kind of things to which we would have to agree. We should have to abandon our interests over a large part of Europe and the Middle East, and break many of the pledges we have given, particularly in regard to the Poles, that we would seek to ensure that they should have free elections. We should have to hand over Trieste to the Yugoslavs, and the results of that would be inevitably to kill the prospects of democracy in Italy.
Mr. Tiffany: Is the hon. Member aware that the majority of Italian workers in Trieste are in favour of working for Yugoslavia?
Mr. Foot: I do not know from where my hon. Friend gets his information.
Mr. Tiffany: From Trieste.
Mr. Foot: I also have a very good source of information. My information comes from Mr. Ignazio Silone, the greatest Italian Socialist living today. He knows more about Trieste than any hon. Member in this House, and is, in fact, an expert on this subject, and when an expert comes along and tells me plainly that the Italians prefer to rule themselves rather than be ruled by anyone else, I am in favour of believing it to be true. If Trieste is to be handed over to Yugoslavia, it will be a mortal blow to the prospects of Italian democracy, because no Italian statesman
1932
can put his name to a treaty which cedes Trieste to Yugoslavia, and which in addition would impose an enormous economic burden on the Italians if we were to agree to the Russian reparation proposals. Therefore, if we were to carry out this policy of ceding to the Russians on every count, we would have to break all these pledges, dishonour ourselves, and, even in the end, we would not have the certainty that we would get the conciliation which we want with our Allies. Only if the surrender is abject and complete can we be certain of getting conciliation with the Russians, and if the surrender is abject and complete we may as well abandon all principles of democratic Socialism for which we stand in this country.
There is a third alternative, apart from the alternative proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, and apart from the alternative supported, no doubt, by my hon. Friend who has been interrupting. It is the alternative that we should judge each issue on its Socialist merits; we should prove to the world by words and deeds that the British Government is not the reactionary Government which it is always alleged to be by the Russian megaphones; we should prove that this country is acting always in the interests of the common people throughout the world. I do not claim that the British Government has done that on every count. I believe that we have been far less bold in the matters of Spain and Greece than this Government has proved itself to be over Egypt and India. We want to judge each issue on its merits and only when we have shown the world that we have a great body of opinion of the world on our side, shall we have the prospects of convincing the masters of the Kremlin that we are far from being the weakest member of the Big Three, and that it will not pay to treat us as such.
I would like to refer to Persia, which I visited recently. I realise that Persia is a far away country of which we know little, but I believe that the Persian question is of great importance for the future of the United Nations organisation. I was reading recently a statement made in the New York "Herald Tribune," a very fine newspaper in the United States, which had come to an opinion on this Persian matter which I regard as deplorable, and which, I think, makes it evident that the Persian issue

1933
has been gravely misunderstood throughout the world. It said:
"This is a sorry position for the United Nations Board of Directors in charge of peace. The Persian case makes a sad first chapter of the Security Council's career, a career whose success is of vital interest to the whole world, if only the British and the Americans had the practical wisdom to avoid launching the Council in such muddy waters; if only now its statesmen had enough courage and decision to cut their losses and extricate themselves from an impossible situation that grows more frightening every day."
That statement agrees almost exactly with the kind of statement about Persia which is made by the Russians, and it is alarming, in my belief, that such a view about Persia should have spread throughout the world. What has happened in Persia? There cannot be any denying what has actually happened. It is that a powerful State by the use of force, plain, open force, has been able to work its will on an independent State. If anyone denies that that is the truth, it can be proved. It can be proved very simply by the words and actions of the Persian Prime Minister, who is a very good authority on this matter, because he was described by the Soviet Ambassador in Teheran as the " greatest diplomat of the age."
What does this " greatest diplomat of the age "do? In fact, the Prime Minister of Persia went to Moscow in February to conduct negotiations with the Russian Government. The Russian Government made three demands. Remember, that over a large part of the Northern part of Persia and the most important part of Persia, the Province of Azerbaijan, the Russians had been in authority, and had a Government which had been carrying out their policy for the last two or three years. He went to Moscow, and the demands made by the Russians on the Prime Minister of Persia in February were these. First of all, an oil concession to be granted to the Russians; second, autonomy to be granted to the Province of Azerbaijan; and third, only when those two things were carried out would it be possible for Soviet troops to withdraw from Persian territory. That was in February. Those demands were rejected by the Persian Prime Minister, and, as I believe, quite rightly and properly rejected. The Persian Prime Minister made it clear at the same time that he was not opposed to giving an oil concession to the Russians—the Russians have a perfect right to have an oil concession in the
1934
North of Persia. It all depends on the methods by which it is gained. The Persian Prime Minister at that time made it clear that he was not opposed to giving an oil concession to the Russians, but he could not do it until the Soviet troops had been withdrawn.
Two months later a treaty is signed in Teheran between the Russians and the Persians, while the Soviet troops are still on Persian soil, and that treaty says that an oil concession is to be granted when a new Parliament has been formed in Persia and that a provincial council is to be established in Azerbaijan. It is not stated definitely whether that provincial council shall act under the central Government, but certainly the Prime Minister of Persia believed that it was quite certain that his central Government would be able to restore its authority all over the whole country once that treaty was carried out. It is quite certain that that is the fact, because when I was in Persia he told me so quite emphatically. We discussed the treaty which had been made, we cross-examined him about it, and he said that certainly the central Government in Persia would be able under this treaty to establish its authority in the Province of Azerbaijan, and, therefore, the whole problem was over. What has happened since? What has; happened is that the central Government of Persia has no more control over the Province of Azerbaijan to day than it had many months ago. It has not restored its control over Azerbaijan. The Government that has been in operation for the past year or more is still in control of Azerbaijan and, not merely that, but that same Government has signed a treaty, as if it was an independent Power,. with the Kurds, thus revealing that it was the intention of Azerbaijan to maintain an independent country—independent of the central Government in Persia.
I do not know whether the Minister, when he comes to reply, will have more evidence to give us about this matter, but it is quite clear that the Persian Prime Minister had to accept in May what he had categorically rejected in February as being incompatible with the sovereignty of his country, and therefore—and this is the crux of the matter and its most important aspect—at the same time, when he is accepting what he rejected two months before, he is appealing to the United Nations organisation to drop all

1935
interest in Persia. He even has to go to the length of repudiating his Ambassador, who was representing him at the United Nations Conferences. If that kind of procedure is to continue in these matters of aggression, it will make the whole United Nations organisation a farce. Here is a small country which made its appeal to the United Nations organisation, which said it would help them. Then, owing to the pressure brought to bear by the powerful State upon the smaller State, the latter's representative at U.N.O. is gagged. That is what has happened, and I hope and pray that we shall not look back on this Persian dispute as the Manchuria after this war, because it may be if we are to continue this kind of proceeding.
Mr. Solley: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the application of the small country of Persia to the United Nations organisation and gave Persia as an example of the Socialist approach. Would he be good enough to tell the House to what extent the workers and peasants of Persia had any say in that matter, and further to what extent the workers and peasants of Persia are benefiting or otherwise through the intervention of the Soviet Union, which I suggest is the only test of the problem?
Mr. Foot: I would be very glad to try to answer my hon. Friend. The reason I selected the Prime Minister of Persia as the man whose actions were to prove the fact that Persia had been compelled to act contrary to her interests, and in defiance of what was regarded as her sovereignty, is because the Prime Minister of Persia has the support of the Tudeh Party in Persia, and the Tudeh Party is the pro-Russian party which very rarely, in fact hardly ever, attacks Mr. Qavarn, the Persian Prime Minister. Therefore, I quoted the Prime Minister's actual words to prove it. I thought that some hon. Member would interrupt and ask, " What is the good of his evidence?"The Prime Minister of Persia is a man who is never attacked by the Tudeh Party. He is supported by them. In fact, it is on his actions I have attempted to prove that the sovereignty of Persia has been threatened.
Now I come to the second point of my hon. Friend. He asked, " What about
1936
the conditions of the workers in Persia? Is it not a fact that Russian interests and influence in Persia would assist the people of Persia?"It is perfectly true that if anyone compares economic conditions in Persia with those across the Russian border he will find that more has been done for people across the Russian border than for people in Persia. I admit that; but is that a justification for the invasion of Persian sovereignty? If so, is it not a further proof of the fact which I am trying to prove that Persian sovereignty has in fact been invaded? When the United Nations organisation say they are there to protect the sovereignty of those nations, it is no use saying that the fact that the Russian Government has established itself means that conditions will be better for the people.
Mr. Solley: Is my hon. Friend more concerned about the sovereignty of Persia, which really means the rule of a few landlords and moneylenders, than about the interests of the working class?
Mr. Foot: I am concerned about the sovereignty of small States and the welfare of their people. I am dealing with the subject of the sovereignty of small States. If we have a United Nations Charter which says, " We are going to protect these States," why come along with some different story after they have been-invaded? And what about the question of the common people of Persia? They have. been desperately and scandalously used for 20 years and more. It is a poor, wretched, miserable country.
Mr. Platts-Mills: Have we changed it?
Mr. Foot: I am ashamed and sorry to say that the British influence in Persia since we went there in 1941 has been used to back the wrong horse instead of getting together the best people ready for reform. We have been looking for the wrong people and we have backed the wrong horse. That is not a justification for an invasion of sovereignty. It is a justification for trying to persuade the Government to do something on this matter. I hope to persuade them to do it under the United Nations organisation, which has an Economic and Social Council which I believe can be of immense benefit to the people of Persia. In fact, the Prime Minister, with the support of

1937
the Tudeh party, would like, according to what he said to us two months ago— I do not know whether anything has happened to change his mind, but sometimes his mind does change—that he would very much like action to be taken by the Economic and Social Council in order to assist Persia to carry out drastic reforms which are needed in that country. But let us not imagine that the Economic and Social Council can carry out these reforms if we, with the other hand, pull down and wreck the whole United Nations organisation by agreeing and turning a blind eye to all the actions which have been taken in Persia.
In conclusion, I would say only one word. No one envies the Foreign Secretary the task which he has undertaken. In the Middle East he has undertaken to make tremendous changes. It is no use our thinking, like the hon. and gallant Member who spoke a short time ago, that we can stay put in all those parts of the world. The whole place is going up in smoke, and we have to make big changes.
Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me, I did not suggest that we could stay put. I simply pointed out the consequences of not staying put.
Mr. Foot: I may have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in common with many other hon. Members, but if he says there is something very wrong in a policy of withdrawal, I can only imagine and suppose that he wants to stay. It is a question of either staying or going, and apparently he has not made up his mind. At any rate, it is impossible for us to maintain our situation in these parts of the world. The principle of, " What we have we hold,"Is no principle on which the foreign policy of this country can be based. Nor is it a principle on which the foreign policy of this country can be based to search out reactionaries in order to build up a bloc against the Communists, because that is the surest way of making Communists. It makes more Communists than the Comintern ever converted. Nor is it possible for us to agree to these demands which have been made by the Soviet Government; it would dishonour ourselves, it would be the end of Socialism and the democratic ideals of Socialism.
I believe the only chance is to take our stand on principle. We must act in
1938
the interests of the common people. We must show the world that we are acting in accordance with those principles. I do not believe there is going to be any easy settlement of these disputes. I do not believe these storms are going to evaporate quickly. I think they will go on shaking' this planet for quite a long while yet; but above the din, I believe it would be a very proud thing if the voice of deliverance came first of all, and most emphatically, from this land of freedom that we love.
9.58 p.m.
Brigadier Head: I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye, as I feel it is not only logical in subject but also perhaps anatomically that I should follow the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). The hon. Gentleman has said many of the things that I had intended to say, but I would like to trouble the House further on this subject, because I believe it to be important, not only for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has already stated, but because it is necessary to inform world opinion on recent events in Persia.
I would like to divide my remarks into two parts: first, to describe what is going on now—trying to skip, as I go along, the bits which the hon. Member has already described—and secondly, to state what I believe are the steps which should be taken regarding this situation. As the situation has been caused by Russian action, it is only fair to begin by stating, very briefly, the Russian case—and it is my belief that they have a case. The Russians, first of all, wanted an oil agreement with Persia. We had one, and in the Russians' opinion, we were very remote from Persia; the Americans appeared likely to get one, and, alone, the Russians had nothing. Therefore, they said, " We want, and are justified in wanting, an oil agreement."The Persians then did a very slick political move. I do not say whether they were justified or not, but they voted themselves incapable of giving the Russians an oil agreement. To put it in parallel, it was rather as if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, said, "That strong man from round the corner is coming to have a drink with us; let us lock up the drinks in the cupboard, throw the key to the bottom of the well, and tell him he cannot have a drink until the well is dry."That is in effect more or less what the Persians did. I am not saying

1939
whether they were justified, but it exasperated the Russians. Secondly, the Russians are neighbours of the Persians, and we, especially in their eyes, are a very long way off.
Thirdly, the Russians have never forgotten that after the 1914 war the Persians, of all people, said, " We want a bit of Russia."That has never been forgotten. So I think it was not surprising that the Russians "surfaced," as it were, and said, " We are going to do something about this." Where I think the world was against the Russians was not that they had no case, but the means whereby they went about this business. Without exaggeration they adopted a somewhat rough method. I believe that the Russians are rather realistic—perhaps that is putting it in a minor key— and they did not realise how much world opinion was going to be shaken by such a flagrant and blatant violation of a Treaty.
I would remind the House, even at the risk of boring hon. Members, of the situation at the time of the violation of the Treaty. Hon. Members will recall that it was referred to U.N.O. But before it actually came before U.N.O., an agreement, directly negotiated between the Russians and the Persians, was made. It was agreed firstly that "an oil agreement will be arranged."There was no valid reason why there should not have been an oil agreement. The second point was that the Russians were to be out of Persia by 6th May. It is a curious commentary on the times in which we live, that the Persians themselves are not yet certain whether the Russians are out of Persia or not. As far as a Persian delegation, looking through telescopes from a Russian plane flying over Azerbaijan, could see, they are out. So let us leave it at that. The third point was that the Azerbaijan dispute was between Azerbaijan and the Persian Government, and should be considered as a domestic matter. I do not wish to go back on past history, but when this announcement of the agreement came through the hon. Member for Devonport and myself, away from the pundits and experts of these matters, said, "This is the red light."In fact, we felt so strongly on it we sat into the night drafting a telegram home. I do not wish to say "I told you so," but we both said that
1940
the Azerbaijan question was the crux of the matter. I myself was a little concerned two days later to see that the world Press said that this was a great settlement, and that the Azerbaijan question was satisfactorily settled. My colleague, having some connection with the Press, was not so perturbed. Even in a very short time, it was evident that the Azerbaijan question was the crux of the Persian situation.
Again I would apologise for detaining the House, but I should like to explain why this was so. It is important that this matter of Azerbaijan should be fully understood and I do not think that the hon. Member for Devonport, in the short time he devoted to it, could make it clear. Azerbaijan is green, and Persia is sandy and arid. Azerbaijan is the food-growing area, the granary of Persia and not only that, but from Azerbaijan come the ablest leaders and the most energetic Persians. At the risk of unduly inflating certain hon. Members of this House, I would say that it is as important to Persia as Scotland is to England. Not only that, but the province of Azerbaijan is so situated that, if I may use a colloquialism, Russia can easily " give it the works."That is to say, it has a common frontier with Russia of some. 300 or 400 miles. The people who live on each side of the frontier look the same, and speak the same language. The Azerbaijanis have a perfectly legitimate grievance against the Teheran Government. There was a local Communist Party already installed. For these reasons it was the key to Persia. The Russians are never slow to see the point, and so the inevitable happened and Azerbaijan " got the works."
I do not want to overstress this—it is most important that one should not—but the fact remains that troops went in, and troops are a useful aid in grafting an alien political structure on to a country. The local Communist Party was strengthened; its name was changed; it was called the Democratic Party. There seems to be no copyright on that phrase at the moment. M. Pishevari, a Russian trained Communist was installed at the head, and against the day when troops went out—although I cannot prove this —a lot of people were brought into Azerbaijan and " strong-arm men " were planted. The Azerbaijan army, an independent army, was trained and equipped by the Russians. Propaganda went on at

1941
full blast. I am not saying whether that was right or wrong; I am merely stating the facts as they happened. There was undoubtedly, also, recourse to what one can only call food politics. Of course, as is customary, the iron curtain was rung down at the opening bars of the overture of what one might call the " Russian movement in Asia Minor." Since that time no Government troops have been allowed in Azerbaijan, and Russia has in effect made a de facto annexation of that important area. To put it vulgarly, by doing so she has, to a large extent, " got Persia by the short hairs."
Great pressure has been exerted on this unfortunate Prime Minister who, as the hon. Member said, is no beginner. If Members doubt that pressure was exerted I would only ask them to read the newspapers. The Home Secretary and the head of the gendarmerie—very important people when an election comes along —were not 100 per cent. sympathisers with the, Russian regime. M. Sayedzai, known to be somewhat anti-Russian, went into prison while the hon. Member and myself were there. M. Ala, who was their representative at U.N.O., and who spoke loudly and boldly, which is much easier to do in Washington than at Teheran, has been removed as their representative. The Prime Minister himself complained strongly about something, and then withdrew his complaint. He had his best friend in U.N.O., yet he asked that the whole question should be taken off the Conference agenda. It all. reminds one of some conversation one might have through a locked door. You say, " Are you all right? " and the person replies from behind the door saying, " Yes." But that answer comes back because someone is twisting. his arms, and whispering into his ear say " Yes."There is great pressure on the Persian Government today, and I do not believe that anyone who has done what the hon. Member and I have done would fail to notice that.
There is, undoubtedly, great difficulty in knowing what can be done about this situation. I listened with great interest for what the hon. Member would suggest, but I noticed that he did not make an actual suggestion. I want to be bolder and to make one; I hope Members who criticise me will think whether they could have made a better one themselves. Many say that we cannot do anything
1942
about the situation because the Russians are there, that it is a. fait accompli, and that it will be embarrassing for U.N.O. The same advice might be given after one has recovered from the toothache and is told, "There is no reason for that occurring again, and there is no reason why you should go to the dentist." But the trouble in this particular instance, I believe, is that if we let this go we are laying up for ourselves great trouble in the future in the international situation. This is the first case of an important international situation which has been brought before U.N.O. Furthermore, there are, in my opinion, great dangers latent in this area; at the risk of using an overworked adjective, one could truly say that, in Persia, there are vital British interests
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has called the Middle East the throat of the Empire and, in passing, I would say that he has neglected his throat a little lately. It would be equally true to say that in Persia oil, and it is the main source of supply, is really the life-blood of a i.iodern State or Empire. I do not exaggerate there and oil played a very big part in the defeat of Germany. What I am leading to is this. Supposing Russian influence spreads to the extent that it has almost a puppet government in Persia. I am not saying that this will be done, but that there is a possibility of it. Then, should the Russians wish to —and again I do not know whether they would—by stirring up trouble with the Kurds in Iraq and threatening the Kirkuk oil fields, by questioning our oil agreement in the South and by stirring up labour troubles, they could threaten all our oil supplies in Persia.
When an Empire like ours is threatened in its most vital spot there, in my opinion, is the red light of a serious international situation, because one is forced to take action when absolutely essential supplies are threatened in that way. I am not suggesting that the Russians will do it, but am merely saying that if this situation goes on they will find themselves, whether they have thought of it or not, in a position where they could do it if they wished, and that is extremely dangerous.
I feel that on all counts we should try to do something. It would appear to me that recently the difficulty in U.N.O. has been to get at the facts. M. Ala has

1943
behaved very courageously and has stated the facts that have almost inevitably been denied from Persia. It appears to me logical in a situation like that that U.N.O. should appoint a commission consisting of some four or five unbiased men, and send them to Persia to find out the facts. That is so logical that it is not legal. I have found out from a legalistic expert in the House that if we send a commission to Persia to find out the facts and report back, then the question at once becomes a dispute, and if the matter is a dispute then the right of veto obtains. If there is anything in form I cannot believe that M. Gromyko would abstain from giving a veto—and that settles it.
So we have the rather melancholy spectacle of U.N.O. in this question standing there shackled by its own rules, a somewhat impotent spectator. However, not despairing after having found this out, I thought to myself, " What else can be done? "It is my belief, rightly or wrongly, that one of the biggest factors in getting the Russian troops out of Persia, if they are out, was world opinion, and I believe it remains a great factor today. Furthermore, it is a factor that the Russians will be very loth to flout, because they want a lot from the world. They want loans, machinery, and technical help, and indeed if they would only come with us they have a lot to give the world. How can world opinion take an interest in and discover the truth about Persia? I believe the best way is to let in the light on the whole question at the moment. I believe people are very confused about Persia, and public opinion has not been well instructed. I tell the House that I think that some people—perhaps I might particularly mention some of the leader writers in "The Times " newspaper—are not guiltless in this respect. They have, if I may say so, been perched and squatting on the fence with the most astonishing virtuosity, like a lot of literary Blondins. It is better to come down and state the facts and not sit on the fence pending what is going to happen. The best chance is to let the light in.
How can that be done? We are an interested country, but there are many other countries less interested who have great men who are known for their integrity—men who have no great bias, who can express themselves and broadcast and
1944
write and tell the world about the situation. I cannot specify names, but there must be many people in other lands who have great reputations, like, say, the noble Lord who has just returned from America. Could not such men go to Persia, see the situation, write about it, broadcast about it and tell the world? Then, when the world knew about it, I believe the pressure on the Persians would not come just from one direction, but would come also from the Western freedom-loving countries, and the Persian dispute would not be left as a situation which may be extremely dangerous to the future peace of the world.
10.17 P.m.
Mr. Boothby: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs delivered what I think we should all agree was an extremely able and masterly survey of the foreign scene; and I do not think any of us on either side of the House would say that it was anything but a sombre and melancholy survey. I am not altogether surprised. At Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam, we were negotiating under the impact of war; and we negotiated these three Agreements upon three assumptions— [Interruption.] The Japanese war was still going on then. The first assumption was that unity of purpose and outlook existed between the Big Three Powers, and that no serious ideological differences would arise between them. The second assumption was that it was not only desirable but essential that the, new world order should be established by the Big Three, and only by the Big Three. The third assumption was that the unification of Germany was also desirable and necessary.
All these assumptions have proved to be false. Unity of purpose among the Big Three does not exist today. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made that perfectly clear. I doubt if it ever did, beyond the immediate purposes of winning the war. Over a year after the cessation of hostilities, agreement has been reached by the Big Three on two points, and two points only—the retention of the Tyrol by Italy and the cession of Translyvania to Rumania—and for neither of these two decisions can I personally think there is the slightest

1945
ethnical justification. Finally, Germany, far from being unified, is divided by an iron and almost impenetrable curtain. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, and unlike quite a lot of other people, I do not feel that the situation is by any means irretrievable. I do not think we arc heading now for a shooting war. I have not the same sick feeling in my stomach that I had throughout the year 1938. Further, I am not convinced that any of the assumptions of Potsdam were in themselves either wise or good. I see the gravest objections to any attempt at a world dictatorship by the Big Three which seemed to be the idea at one time, even if it could be worked which clearly it cannot.
I think it a great pity that France was not invited to the Potsdam Conference. I think it an even greater pity that the so-called middle and smaller Powers, who played so great a part in winning the war, are apparently not to be invited to take any great part in winning the peace, unless it be that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion today that it might be necessary to convene a conference of the 21 Powers to talk about how peace is to be made, comes off. Everybody seems to think that this conference would be, somehow or other, a disaster; that unless the Big Three or Big Four can come to decisions upon all these matters it will really be a terrible thing, and that the other nations who fought in the war should not have any say in making the peace. I do not share that view; and I say that if the forthcoming Conference of Foreign Ministers in Paris breaks down—and I think, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech today, one can only conclude that it is more likely to break down than not—I personally would not regard the convening of a meeting of the 21 nations, all of whom played a very considerable part in winning the war, as a major disaster. I am not at all sure that it might not be the solution of the problem that confronts us.
As for the unification of Germany, far from that being the blessing that some would have us believe, it has proved to be the scourge of Europe ever since it was first achieved. Who can deny that Europe was more prosperous, more peaceful, and far happier, when Germany consisted of a series of small kingdoms and principalities, when the Hanseatic towns
1946
were linked by the bonds of an increasing and expanding seaborne trade to the West, than after the unification of Germany was achieved by Bismarck in 1870? I believe that for a loose federation of Germany there is much to be said; but for a centralised German Reich there is nothing to be said. Have we already forgotten the days when the cry: "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Filhrer" re-echoed through a terrified and almost paralysed Europe? We do not want to see that happen again.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he said that this problem of Germany is crucial. We have hitherto had no positive policy at all for Germany or, indeed, for Europe. It was clear to anybody who was present at the San Francisco Conference that the failure of the Western democracies to agree about a foreign policy of any kind must have disastrous results. I do not want to claim any credit for being a prophet; but I want to try to convince the House that the idea which I am now going to attempt to put to hon. Members is no sudden or new one on my part. On 8th April, 1945, I wrote from San Francisco:
" Many realistic Americans are bewildered because we have not already negotiated a regional pact in Western Europe with France, Holland and Belgium. They hold that such a pact is not only desirable from a strategic and economic point of view, but also necessary for the effective control of Germany."
On 6th May I wrote:
"If the Western European democracies do not get together fairly soon, nothing is more certain than that the entire continent will be brought finally and decisively within the Russian orbit.…It is my firm conviction that the foundation of a new world order can best be laid on regional groups of nations which have strategic, political and economic interests in common. And, so far as Western Europe is concerned, the lead must be given by Great Britain."
Finally, on 16th May:
"The great question-mark of the San Francisco Conference is whether the democracies of Western Europe are so tired that they have abandoned any attempt to formulate a foreign policy of their own, and are content to tag along as best they can in the wake of one, or both, of the formidable federations to the East of them and to the West. If this should happen it would, in the long run, be a tragedy for Europe and the world."
We gave no lead at San Francisco to Europe, and we have given no lead since. That is the truth of it. Meanwhile the Americans at Mexico City negotiated and

1947
signed the Act of Chapultepee, which establised a full regional agreement covering defence policy and economic co-operation for the American continent. And the Russians have moved fast.
The answer to the question, "Security or expansion?" for which the world waited somewhat breathlessly last spring, has been given by the Soviet Government in no uncertain terms. While the Western democracies chattered at San Franciso and elsewhere about majority decisions and minority rights, the Soviet Government acted with a speed and singleness of purpose which must command our admiration, if not our wholehearted approval. The combination of Soviet power and Communist ideology has so far proved irresistible. It derives its force from the crusading spirit of the Communist religion; the patriotism and the immense vitality of the Russian people; and, last but not least, the historic sanction of pan-Slavism. In answer to the hon. Member who challenged the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), 11 countries — Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania—are now under Russian control in one form or another; and a twelfth, Austria, is dominated by the Red Army of Occupation. Add to this the Russian zone in Germany, and you get a population of something of the order of 150,000,000 added to the Soviet system as a result of the war. That is not bad going for 12 months.
Slav unity under Russian auspices has already been achieved. Germany has been penetrated. The Adriatic has been reached. What next? Events move with great rapidity these days. We must not be left too far behind again. At Yalta it was the Oder, at Potsdam the Elbe, and tomorrow it may be the Rhine. I am not prepared to be dogmatic, but it would be a pity if we were under any illusion regarding the ultimate purposes of Soviet policy.
I must quote a statement which Dimitrov, one of the ablest of Russian propagandists, and for a long time head of the Comintern, made within the last few weeks.
"It sometimes happens that Communist parties are obliged to make temporary pacts with other parties, and to abandon for the moment their programme and their revolutionary methods. It may even be that they
1948
are compelled to hide their true intentions under the mask of an ordinary democratic party. But that is only a technical manoeuvre and not the abandonment of the political aim of the Party. Pacts with other parties will only last until the day when the new Communist order can be established.…When the moment for action arrives, a single party will remain on the stage of history—the Communist Party of Lenin and Stalin."
That is quite unequivocal. I am not now complaining of Russian policy; but it would be a pity if we misunderstood it. On the other hand, do not let us be too self-righteous in this business. The Russians have never left us in any doubt about their conception of economic security, or their intentions, which are to get all they can while the going is good. And the going, for them, has been very good lately. The method has often been rough; and it is always exasperating for a man who suffers from a paralysis of indecision to watch another man who knows exactly what he wants getting it. We have never really known what we wanted; but they have known exactly what they were doing and why. If we have not achieved anything comparable ourselves we have ourselves very largely to blame.
Meanwhile, we have to face the fact that the Russian zone in Germany has been incorporated into the Soviet system, politically and economically; while our zone in Germany is drifting into ruin and collapse, and we ourselves are doing our very best to facilitate this process by deliberately and insanely preventing the reconstruction of German industry and throttling the production of the Rhineland and the Ruhr at a moment when Europe is crying out for capital goods. If Russia chooses to exploit this situation in order to become master of a unified Communist Reich, then she is master of the European Continent, and that is the end of Western civilisation as we know it.
Mr. Stokes: I submit that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that policy was really established at Yalta by the Leader of the Tory Party.
Mr. Boothby: I think that is really a cheap point, because the Yalta negotiations were conducted by the Coalition Government; and I think the Prime Minister, who is here, would be the first to agree that he associated himself with them. As I have said, the Yalta agreement was negotiated under the impact of war, and on assumptions which no longer

1949
hold good. I repeat, the agreement was negotiated by the Coalition Government as a whole and was their collective responsibility; and the right hon. Gentleman cannot pull this one off as being the sole responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition.
There is only one way out, a Western Federal Union; by which I mean the political, cultural and economic integration of Western Europe. I had hoped to examine this proposition in some detail, but I have not the time. I will content myself by saying that the ultimate aim should be to include the states of Western and Southern Germany in this Union. There is no need to ask Mr. Molotov for permission to go ahead. He did not ask our permission to go ahead with his Eastern Federal Union.
Mr. Paget: What would the hon. Member do about the Communist parties within that proposed federal union? It seems to me that any combination of States which would include within themselves the Communists as their largest party simply could not work.
Mr. Boothby: I do not agree. I would admit any Communist Party that existed in the proposed union of States. Of course it is to be a free democracy. Any one of them could go completely Communist if it wished, and secede from the Union; but I do not see that happening at the moment. Look, for instance, at France, Belgium, Holland and Scandinavia. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. Whether the forthcoming conference of Foreign Ministers succeeds or not, a Western Union is in my opinion, and in my submission, essential. Why? May I, in the few minutes at my disposal, make a few somewhat dogmatic assertions? The democracies of Western Europe are too small to survive as independent political or economic units in this modern world. That is the first assertion. Flanked as they are by the vast federations of the Soviet system and the United States, they cannot survive, they cannot hope to raise their standard of life in isolation. They are dependent to an exceptionally high degree upon trade with one another. They are all subject to mass unemployment; and all are agreed that a deliberately planned policy of economic expansion is the only way to prevent it. In the words of the " Economist ":
1950
"It would be difficult to imagine a more conclusive case for purposive economic integration."
My second point is that the principle of regional groups of nations which have strategic, political and economic interests in common is accepted in the charter of UNO; and it is well that hon. Members should not forget that. Call them federations, unions, blocs—that is a word I do not like—call them what you will; they should be something less than a single sovereign State, something more than a league of nations. My third point is that no separate sovereign State is in fact going to allow itself to be voted into war by a bare majority in an assembly of other sovereign states; but if you have a federal union represented in the Security Council, and the countries of that union have played a full part in the framing of the policy that is put forward in the council, then I believe that in the long run they would submit to the decisions of the Security Council. This would give the middle and smaller nations, as I have termed them, a definite part to play in the preservation of their own security, and relate their responsibilities to direct and defined interests.
The British Commonwealth and Empire has already demonstrated how small communities can combine together on the basis of freedom and self-government for their mutual protection and benefit, without loss of status of any kind; and I believe that the regional expension of this group to include the democracies of Western Europe, and their Colonies, could only bring increased stability to the world. It is pointed out sometimes in the Press by opponents of this idea that such a union would be too weak. I believe it would be far stronger than many people think, if it was supported, as it would be, by the dependencies and Colonies not only of ourselves, but also of France, of Belgium and of Holland. Pursuing a middle course between the extremes of laissez faire capitalism on the one hand and rigid State Socialism on the other, I believe such a federation or union would have a contribution of immense value to make to the world and to the future of civilisation, and would also be able to maintain a most desirable balance between the potentially opposed forces of collectivism and individualism.
Much depends on France. I say at once that the productive industries of the

1951
Rhineland should be placed under the control of an international commission and coordinated with the productive industries of Luxemburg, the Saar, Lorraine, and Belgium into one great heavy industrial unit which could and should produce the necessary steel and coal for the reconstruction of Western Europe. It is nothing short of a tragedy that we should be shutting down these industries at the present time.
Mr. Stokes: Would the Ruhr remain part of Germany?
Mr. Boothby: It would be part of a federated Germany. That is the proposal I made just now. With regard to France, I say that the record of France between the two wars was in some respects better than our own. I do not give up hope of France at all. There was the Geneva Protocol of 1924, which would have given some semblance of reality to the League of Nations. There was M. Briand's scheme for the economic integration and organisation of Europe in 1930—again rejected, this time by the " universalists "In tins country, who thought it would somehow diminish the authority of the League of Nations, but which, if it had been put into operation, might have saved the sum of things. Those of ns who are inclined to blame France for her record between the two wars should not forget these two proposals, both sponsored by M. Briand—one of the greatest of Europeans—the protocol in 1924, and the economic integration of Western Europe in 1930.
I have left the cultural aspect until the end. On that I am content to quote to the House a brief paragraph from a book written recently by Mr. Cyril Connolly called "The Condemned Playground ":
" Britain is by far the weakest of the three great Powers. If it fails to unite Western Europe it ceases to be a world Power. If it succeeds, it may become one of the greatest middlemen in history, by incorporating the best elements of communist idealism with the best elements of humanist individualism. Europe still remains the chief breeding ground of ideas as well as the laboratory, the studio, and the reference library of modern civilisation. To save this civilisation we must assume the cultural as well as the political protection of Western Europe; we must restore not only economic security, but also freedom of expression and mental audacity."
I think there is a great deal to be said for that.
1952
The Russians, of course, will object. They are at the present in the mood to object to everything. In so far as their objection is based on fear of attack, it is not valid. This union would not be strategic; it would be political and economic—more economic than anything else. So far as a shooting war is concerned, the only ultimate security and hope lies in the Security Council of the United Nations. We shall not be able to sleep quietly in our beds until we have armed that Security Council with the riecessary powers,-which must include control over destructive atomic energy, and control of an international police force. In the meanwhile, the danger is not a shooting war. What is going on at the present time is a " cold " war between Social Democracy and Communism.
On the other hand, the American objection is based on dislike of discriminatory trade agreements of any kind This is a subject on which I could dilate for some time, but I will say only that there are more important things in the world today than non-discrimination in trade. Twice during the last 25 years the Americans have had to send their boys over to be killed in Europe because of the failure of the Western democracies to do two things: first, to keep together and stick together in resistance to successive violations of treaties that had been solemnly signed; and, second, to achieve any kind of economic integration on the Continent of Europe, with the result that an attempt was inevitably made to impose economic integration by force. The Americans have much more to gain from the prosperity of 120 million people than from the poverty of these people which is inevitable if they fail to keep together.
In conclusion, I would only say that this is a moral rather than a political crisis. In the final analysis it is a struggle between totalitarianism and individualism, or social democracy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that these religious and ideological wars, because that is what they are, are destroying the human race; and my plea, like his, is for a scale of human values which protects and defends toleration, and seeks to put an end to the fighting. The problems of today are problems of construction; and a war psychology, whether it be class war or international war, is not compatible with a constructive spirit. If you inhibit freedom of expression you in-

1953
hibit thought. What good can come in any part of the world from encouraging people to hate, and prohibiting them from thinking? That is now going on in many parts of the world.
Totalitarianism is the elimination of all alternatives — alternative Governments, alternative ideas, alternative parties— alternative economic systems. It is an instrument of absolute domination; and in the countries now under Russian control this domination is complete. I know that Mr. Voigt does not command widespread approval today. He wrote the other day:
" All these countries are severally and collectively a means to her ends—not one of them can live for itself, no one person in them can live for himself, or for his country, or for Europe for mankind, for science, art, or religion, but only for Russia. And yet, save for a few zealots, there are none who wish to live for Russia—ninety-nine out of one hundred at least have the wish that the Russians may leave, never to return."
I think that is true of many of the countries which are dominated by Russia at the present time. In my view, the two greatest contemporary fallacies are: first, that any single person or party has an ethical right to impose their will on others; and, second, that ends justify means. Dogma breeds intolerance, and intolerance breeds authoritarianism, and authoritarianism breeds persecution—mental and physical. Moreover, no creed or dogma that ever was invented can possibly justify the infliction of one iota of additional or avoidable suffering upon humanity.
We offer a quite simple alternative to totalitarianism, which was well defined some years ago by a great Empire statesman, General Smuts:
"The common principles, I had almost said the commonplaces of decency, fair play, fair dealing, tolerance, and justice, the right of each to live his own life freely so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others to live their lives equally freely—this simple ordinary commonsense human code of behaviour, put into practice and guaranteed by law, with the power of society behind it to enforce it, seems to me to be the essence of the British constitution."
I certainly cannot hope to put it better than that. For thirteen years before the outbreak of this war I advocated an Anglo-Soviet treaty; and I advocate an Anglo-Soviet pact today, but on terms which will make it a reality and not a sham. There can be no genuine pact between this country and Russia until the cold war stops; and the cold war will not stop until Western Europe is securely
1954
established, and has no longer any need to struggle for survival, or to be frightened of its own immediate future. Fear—that is the trouble in Europe; the desperate fear that clutches at the heart. Until that fear is exorcised, you can argue as you like about Anglo-Soviet pacts, but you will never get one that is genuine, or will last.
The choice which confronts us today is between the renaissance of European civilisation and a longer night than we now dream of.
10.47 P.m.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: We have had a very interesting, thoughtful and varied Debate on this all-important subject. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) must forgive me if I do not follow him in all his remarks. I do, however, very largely agree with the last part of his contribution. The Foreign Secretary's grim and gloomy speech today clearly showed where and with whom lie the difficulties which are facing this country at the present critical juncture in world affairs.
I would like to offer to the House, at this late hour, just one or two suggestions about those aspects of the problem which must be tackled and solved if we are to avoid an unparalleled calamity for the human race. I want particularly to underline and endorse all the remarks that have been made in a notable speech by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). He tackled the problem of Germany, and I also want to draw the attention of the House to that core and kernel of the whole problem of international relations. Germany is the very touch stone, I think, of success or failure, not only in respect of our relations with Russia, but also with regard to the spread of social democracy in Europe and the world. At present, Germany lies stricken and bleeding—a festering sore at the geographical centre of the Continent of Europe. The German people's spirit, in all urban centres at any rate, is matched by the wretchedness of their surroundings. There is scarcely a flicker of interest in the day to day developments of the outside world in at least three of the zones in the Germany today, and there is little hope, except among that small but growing section which is looking to a final split between ourselves and Russia—a section which is chiefly located in the Russian zone of influence.

1955
What of this Russian zone of influence? Their " remote control "Is much more sensible psychologically, I think, than the rather detailed and very often fussy authority in the other areas of Germany, and it has done a great deal to restore self-respect to the average German in that zone. Russia is spreading a conviction in her zone that the cause of democracy must look for inspiration to the East. The political leadership which she is giving unfortunately appeals to the regimented German mind. Compare, for example, her slogan: " Hitlers may come and Hitlers may go, but the German people go on for ever," with our own inept non-fraternisation orders. Within her zone, Russia knows her German friends and treats them as friends. All this, in its Outward appearance, has obviously an attraction for the ordinary unthinking German. All I would say about it is, let it serve as an object lesson for us. The shadow of a Russian tomorrow amid the press of events and the daily difficulties and problems of the German people does not at present enter into their calculations. A supreme effort must be made to get Russia to change her international policy. The provisions of the Potsdam Agreement must be revised, and revised so that they provide no rival policy to which the Russians cannot subscribe and come in as full partners.
I believe that the objectives for Germany to which we should try to get agreement are these: first, the ending of all zonal barriers; second, a Big Four agreement on social reform; third, an agreed settlement about the future ownership of German industry; fourth, the setting up of an all-German administration; and if the Eastern frontier problem could be grappled with also, that, I think, would be a factor in enabling that part of Europe to settle down. Such objectives as I am outlining, if they were sponsored by this country, might do a very great deal to remedy and save the present drift to disaster. As things are tending, I feel it is well within the bounds of possibility that Russian policy may eventually unite all Germany under a Moscow controlled Government. Such a development, surely, poses the question, How would such Russian power be used? If Russia fails in whatever plan she has in mind, surely her policy of stripping German industry, which clearly conflicts with re-establishing
1956
German life, will at the very best leave Central Europe in a state of anarchy and misery, with all the resulting and unforeseeable consequences involved.
So it comes to this, that until a modus vivendi is reached, there should be a truce on all sides and an end to the slogan-baiting tactics of the world's mischief makers. Tossing rejoinders and rude epithets across the globe is both unhelpful and dangerous, and the blaring of ideological catch phrases from all the loudspeakers within earshot is only calculated, as I see it, to keep mankind in a state of jitters. I ask our Soviet allies to desist from their abuse and from their criticism of this country. On our side—and we have our part to play—we would then, I think, be the better able to make full allowance for that oriental bargaining technique in which the Russians are undoubtedly indulging. We should be the better able to understand it. I believe that Russia's policy—and we should have this always in mind—can often be explained by her need to follow what I might call diversionary tactics, if her own people are to be braced for that united effort which they will have to make if Russia's stricken areas are to be adequately rehabilitated. The Soviet Union is suffering from a sense of strain and from a sense of quite unjustifiable vulnerability.
A hopeful feature of the position is this. There is, I believe, in the Russian people a profound anti-military mood. If only the co-operative effort needed for the alleviation of the world's hunger could be used as a means of ironing out our differences and sinking them in the service of humanity, then the whole scene might be changed over night. Ineptitude there has been among Russian Allies, and a failure to realise the psychological difficulties of the present situation. Let us realise that, and let us admit it. I have in mind the stupid handling of the atom bomb discovery. This cannot, however, excuse the barrage of criticism and abuse to which this country has recently been subjected. We have got a priceless contribution to make to the future of the world. Our British way and purpose is of inestimable value, and will, please God, eventually command the assent of the rest of the world. Let us practise and let us preach this way of life on every occasion open to us. A well balanced

1957
and well developed social order, in which justice is done both to the individual and to the community, may well become the envy of the rest of the world. That is a way in which, I think, our internal policy links up with our foreign policy. The leadership of Britain, which is not only progressive in reality, but is seen to be progressive by our friends and by our rivals wherever they may be, can, I believe, save the world and set its feet in the path of permanent peace.
Mr. Whiteley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Llandrindod Wells, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th May, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: Before this Order is approved, I think that the House should consider it very carefully. The Statute of 1932 makes it perfectly clear that Parliament did not intend cinemas to be opened on Sundays before a very careful procedure had been gone through. The procedure is provided in the First Schedule, which lays down that certain steps shall be taken, by the urban authority in this case. First of all, notices shall be issued announcing that a meeting shall be called, and after the meeting there shall, if necessary, be a poll. Then the Order is presented to this House for approval, accompanied by a statement of the result of the poll. Prior to that there is the notice for the meeting itself. That notice must be given within 14 days of the meeting being called. Not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days must elapse. I want to ask what assurance there is that these provisions have been complied with in this case. Before the House is asked to approve this Order, it should be assured that the statutory provision has been complied with. If that statutory provision has not been complied with, the House should not approve the Order.
11.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The procedure
1958
prescribed by the Schedule to the Act of 1932 has been complied with by the urban district council, which gave due notice in two local newspapers and by means of placards first, of their proposal to submit to the Home Secretary a draft of the present Order, and, second, of the holding of a public meeting of local government electors to consider the proposal. The decision of such a meeting would have been final unless a poll of the electors had been demanded by not less than 100 electors, or one twentieth of the whole number of electors, whichever be the less; or if the decision of the meeting had been against the proposal by the resolution passed by the council. The public meeting held in Llandrindod Wells decided in favour of the proposal. A poll was then demanded by 233 electors. This poll was taken on the 27th of April, 1946. There were 704 votes in favour of the proposal and 450 against. The majority in favour was, therefore, 254, and in historic words, "The ayes had it."The Order was then submitted to me, and as I received a certificate from the local authority indicating that all these steps had been gone through, and a signed certificate of the result of the poll, I made the Order. Tonight my Under-Secretary has submitted it to the House for its approval. I admit that in this case the figures in the poll were not as large as some of the figures I have seen; but Llandrindod Wells is not as large a place as Leeds or Gateshead, or some of the other places which have been polled recently. I think, however, that there can be no doubt that a clear expression has been given of the wishes of the inhabitants and that all the due formalities were carried out.
Mr. Watkins: As the Member for that constituency, may I say it is the first I have heard of it, and I want to utter my protest about it?
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. I am not disputing the question of the poll; that is in order; but I would like to know what time elapsed between the issue of the notice and the calling of the meeting.
Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that without notice I could not answer that question, but I had the appropriate certificate that all the formalities had been complied with.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. to the Urban District of Llandrindod Wells, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th May, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tiverton, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th May, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

TEACHERS' TRAINING (GRANT REGULATIONS)
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Challen: I beg to move,
"That the Training of Teachers Grant Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 630), dated 29th April, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 6th May, be annulled."
Hon. Members might take exception to many things in this Order, but there is only one aspect of the subject which I propose to touch on. The Order is concerned, as is indicated by its title, with the training of teachers in training colleges, and it is concerned with conditions relating to the obtaining of grants from the Ministry with respect to training colleges for teachers, and for hostels. The Order deals with voluntary colleges in addition to other colleges. "Voluntary"Is defined as meaning
"a college or hostel maintained by a body-other than a Local Education Authority, a Joint Education Committee, or persons authorised by any such Authority or Committee."
Paragraph (3) of the first Regulation says that a voluntary college, in addition to its compliance with these Regulations, shall comply with the requirements of Schedule I. So that, cutting out all the paragraphs and conditions applicable to these, I come to Schedule I, which is the part of the Order I am speaking against. I am aware that this is not a completely new Order. There was an Order similar in effect in 1941 under the Act of 1921, and it may be that this Order is being initiated to comply with the new Education Act of 1944. Be that as it may, it does not prevent anyone in this House from reconsidering the whole matter, and I cannot imagine that the Minister of Education
1960
is going to take the view that it is not open to us to reconsider this whole matter now. It is before us, and I want to draw the attention of the House to its provision in relation to what are called voluntary colleges.
Schedule 1 starts off:
"No Catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination may be taught in the College except in accordance with this paragraph."
The Schedule continues:
"If the instrument under which the College is governed requires, or does not prohibit, the giving in the College of religious instruction distinctive of any particular denomination, the Governing Body may provide such instruction for those students who desire it."
There is then the further provision that this must be done out of funds not provided by the Minister or any local authority. Then, we come to the next sub-paragraph, which says:
"In the selection of candidates for half the number of places which will be vacant, the authorities of the College must not reject, or invite the withdrawal of, the application of any candidate not belonging to the denomination of the College on the ground of religious faith, or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship or any religious observance or instruction in religious subjects in the College or elsewhere, etc."
In other words, half the candidates have got to be people who are under no obligation to receive this denominational instruction which the college is established to give, and the college is under no obligation to require that that instruction shall be given. The words of Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule are:
"The instrument under which the College is governed must not require any members of the teaching staff to belong, or not to belong, to a particular religious denomination."
I do not see how much further one can go in getting secular instruction in education into denominational colleges.
I speak for no particular denomination, but obviously this applies to every kind of denomination in this country, whether Nonconformist, Church of England, Catholic or any branch of the Christian religion as established in this land. It seems to be an astonishing thing that colleges set up for the definite purpose of training teachers according to a particular denomination should have this requirement imposed upon them by the Minister as a prelude to their receiving any grants at all. As I remarked before, it

1961
may be said, and, indeed, it will probably be said, that this is not an entirely new Order. That does not affect the issue before us. This Order is being made new and it is before Parliament, and I myself and those who think with me would very much like to hear from the Minister a statement as to what this policy really means and what is the real justification of it.
Times pass fast and views change. We are living in a time when many changes are taking place and many people are feeling very seriously the undercutting of requirements such as these in established institutions. Surely if there is to be legislation and the basic requirements in institutions of this nature are to be taken away, there should be debate in Parliament, it should be subject to an Act of Parliament, and the whole matter should be done openly and above board and in the light of day. It hardly seems to me to be a matter for Regulation in relation to education grants, to remove essential requirements from these colleges of the nature which I have described. I think I have shown that this is a matter which should be above being the subject of a Regulation, and certainly we are entitled to some real explanation from the Minister as to the policy which is being followed in this matter.
11.14 p.m.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Motion.
I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen), who said that there is really nothing new in the terms and provisions of this Order. I believe I am correct in saying that the principles laid down in it are already established in so far as they affect primary and secondary schools. I suggest, however, that the whole basis on which these Orders were originated has changed. I believe I am correct in saying that the first time the problem of these Orders arose in this House was in 1908, and that since then they have been the subject of some contention; but equally I would suggest that, since then the whole policy of this House and the whole policy of successive Governments to this question of education since 1908 has altered. From 1908 until 1944 the policy of education, the scale of education and the scope of education have gradually progressed. Whereas in
1962
1908, when this question first arose, the whole of our education schemes were in their infancy, today, under the 1944 Act, they have reached maturity. Under the 1908 Act it was perfectly possible for any Minister to say that there were limited means, limited powers and a limited field they would be able to cover, that consideration is now no longer true.
I believe it is the boast of Members in all quarters of the House that the 1944 Act has laid down a real and genuine basis on which education can be brought to all the members of the community. If that is so, this House is equally responsible for the effect of any Order on an individual citizen. That is a sine qua non if we accept the principle that the 1944 Act achieves its genuine position. There are millions of people in the country who still believe that education does not consist in passing examinations, or reaching a high theoretical standard which is applied by the Minister, but consists in preparing children for their future life, and grounding them in principles in which their parents believe. The Minister has forgotten that in promulgating this Order. She, with her scope and wisdom, has adopted the principle that the Navy applies to every ship—that it should be painted battleship grey. The right hon. Lady wishes to paint this grey conventionalism over the whole field of education, in which all the minor points of difference shall be swept away. Thus she hopes she will safeguard herself from any criticism. I am sorry to see that.
I am trespassing on your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, but it is essential to make that point, for if teachers are not properly trained then children cannot be properly trained. The structure of this Order must have an effect on education. I suggest it will have a devastating effect on the quality of education. The right hon. Lady no doubt considers that she is safeguarding the interests of taxpayers, but surely if you are to expect all citizens who believe in religion to subscribe to taxes you must make some provision in your Order to help to safeguard the rights of every denomination. It seems to be absolute common-sense, if I may put it like that. One of the things every family values is the knowledge that their own children can be brought up according to the way in which they themselves believe. An Act has been passed which lays down the scale of education over the whole country. It has been

1963
received with appreciation by the country, but here we have an Order which goes against the very essence of that great Act which was to provide real education for everyone irrespective of class or denomination.
This Order will make it impossible for any properly conducted college, or hostel, to fulfil the duties for which it was established by those who believe in their own denomination. No doubt the Minister will say that nothing new is involved here, but it is important to emphasize that the circumstances in which the first Order was made have changed. Whereas it was possible for a Minister to say in the past that the action taken was for the benefit of the whole country, such no longer applies when you have an Act governing all people and all classes. Therefore I do hope that the Minister will consider tonight making a relaxation of this Order, which can only cause grave harm to the purpose which she has set herself, to provide for everyone the means whereby children can be educated according to the wishes of their parents.
11.20 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): If I may first take the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, I really wonder whether he consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) before he spoke as he did, because, as a matter of fact, the whole of these Regulations were drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary. I am, however, amazed at the idea that I desire to paint the whole of the teacher training colleges of this country with a grey conventionality. I beg the hon. and gallant Member not to tempt me to say, for I am surprised at my own restraint in these matters, that if he would really like them painted in the colours that would appeal to me, he might find them not quite to the preference of the right hon. Gentleman who held this office before me. In any case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was talking complete nonsense. I wonder if he has taken the trouble to read the Regulations he is talking about or anything to do with them, because, as a matter of fact, far from it being the case that no provision is made for
1964
denominational teaching, and that nothing was being done for colleges that were being provided by the two denominations, the actual facts of the case are that at least 50 per cent. of the expenses are met and paid by the State. Really there is no reason for him to complain on that score. If he would just look at the Schedule which upset the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen), who considers that the colleges, being voluntary institutions, should have more complete freedom in regard to the students they take, what is the present position?
Voluntary bodies who are running colleges have to make no contributions to maintenance expenses, and in most cases they have had very substantial help from the Government in capital expenses. Really, is it reasonable, when the financial contributions from the Government are so large, to leave the college authorities with complete discretion to select the candidates as they might choose to the prejudice of candidates who do not belong to those particular denominations? I would remind hon Members that 45 per cent. of the places in the whole of our 80 training colleges come under the heading of denominations—mostly the two denominations, the Church of England and the Roman Catholics. Would it be common-sense or fair when, as I say, the State pays the whole of the maintenance expenses and has made large contribution to the capital expenses that the colleges should say that only members of their own denomination should go into those colleges? If they did, there would be very real reasons for complaint on the part of the ordinary citizen whom the two hon. Members have been trying to defend.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think Regulation 23 of this Order is the one about which the right hon. Lady is speaking. Is it not a fact that only one half of the expenditure over £500 is granted by the Government in regard to capital improvement? That makes a very great difference to the right hon. Lady's argument.
Miss Wilkinson: Oh, no. It still remains true that the maintenance expenses are paid by the State. If the State is to bear 100 per cent. of the cost of maintenance of these places and 45 per cent. are under the heading of denominational colleges, is it reasonable to expect that

1965
these denominational colleges should train the whole of the 45 per cent. for their own denominations? I may say that no responsible authority for these denominations in fact makes that claim.
It has been said that I must not use the argument that what has been done in the past necessarily should be done in the future. I am the last person to make that argument, but I submit that the two hon. Members are the last persons, if they are really keen denominationalists, to want to upset what in fact is a very delicate balance. The whole of the period when these things were first established at the beginning of the century was a time when education was bedevilled by the fiercest denominational passions. During the years, these have settled down. Why have they settled down? It is largely because there has been general agreement on behalf both of the State and of the denominations to be reasonable in this matter. Therefore, we have a reasonable compromise. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary had a great deal to do with the drawing up of these Regulations. They went into these denominational matters with the Catholic hierarchy, with the leaders of the Church of England, and other denominations. They maintained a balance, though it may be said that large numbers of people might not agree with them.
If this question is to be reopened, believe me it will not be reopened to the benefit of the denominations. There are large numbers of hon. Members on this side of the House who might like to see the question reopened from a different point of view. And people who believe that denominational teaching should be a matter for the denominations themselves and not for the sake of the colleges at all might be able to find a majority in the lobby. Therefore, I say that my hon. Friends show very considerable restraint in this matter in the fact that they have not been the ones to suggest the upsetting of this delicate balance. That is what has guided me in bringing forward these Regulations. I have not desired to upset that balance because I know perfectly well that if we did we should once again throw education into the cockpit of denominational controversy. That is the last thing that anyone who is really
1966
keen on education wants to do, because the moment you do that the child no longer becomes the centre of the picture, and other vested interests take its place.
Therefore, I do not think of altering these Regulations. I am prepared to maintain this, and I only want to warn hon. Members opposite that before they come forward with irresponsible speeches they should first of all consult their own leaders on the matter, they should consult the man who for several years held the honoured place in the Ministry of Education, and if they wish to throw this leadership over, they should consult the leaders of their own churches and not some person who has an axe to grind. This is a very delicate matter, and it is best dealt with by leaving it where the Church leaders have been content to leave it, and letting us get on with the job of educating the children.
11.32 p.m.
Mr. Challen: I feel I must say a word in answer to the Minister. I am not concerned to press this matter to a Division, but I do feel that the Minister really has ignored the criticism I have ventured to put forward. She has based her case upon a mere financial basis; because the money, she says, is supplied to these colleges, therefore these Regulations must be brought into effect. But I pointed out that the Order expressly states that any religious instruction must be from the institutions' own funds and not from the grants made by the authority. Therefore, if the institution is prepared to give this instruction of its own funds, is the Minister to go to the extent of legislating against the institution in this matter of instruction and preventing the authorities from requiring that denominational acceptance on the part of candidates which its foundation requires? That was the point I endeavoured to make.
The other point that the Minister has made has been a kind of veiled suggestion of delicacy on this denominational question, and a kind of veiled threat against Members on this side because party leaders have at one time or another said this or that. I get very tired of always finding discussion of this question being stopped by these veiled suggestions of the delicacy of the situation, that you must never probe into the matter.

1967
Please do not argue, please do not probe," we are told; " otherwise you will hear something from us."I am not advocating any particular denomination; I am simply standing for freedom and I am simply urging that this question be really faced argumentatively and logically and not dealt with by these arguments about the delicacy of the situation and " Please do not discuss it because it is delicate." We always have these arguments raised, and I suggest that it is not relevant to this particular subject. We are not talking about the religious teaching of children, but about the training of teachers, and about colleges instituted for the training of teachers and colleges instituted upon a certain denominational basis. The Minister, by an Order tantamount to an Act of Parliament, prevents those colleges from exercising the requirements of their constitution. If we are to face this subject properly, it should, be done by an Act of Parliament.
Miss Wilkinson: I did not say, or in any way intend to imply, that I was preventing the colleges from acting upon their constitution. Quite the contrary. The colleges are acting on their constitution, and so am I.
Mr. Challen: The Order says that the colleges must admit half of the members without any requirement of religious observance, and it says that notwithstanding the instrument under which the college is governed, the members of the teaching staff must not be required to belong to that denomination. Therefore, I say that the Minister is legislating for these colleges by Order, and it would be better if these colleges were legislated for by Act of Parliament, so that the matter could be fully debated. It is only because the Minister has now made a new Order, under the new Act, that those associated with me have ventured to bring the question forward for debate in the House. It is time that fundamental matters of this sort were debated on the Floor of the House, whatever views we may hold, instead of being settled by Order promulgated by the Minister behind the scenes. That is the purpose for which I moved this Prayer.
Question put, and negatived.

RATS (DESTRUCTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
11.37 P.m.
Mr. Gerald Williams: A few months ago I was disturbed at night by rats running through the timbers of my house. I said that that must cease, and I called in the district council to deal with the rats. They said, " Yes, we can destroy the rats in your house, but it is no use our doing that unless you destroy the rats on your farm also."They advised me to call in the county war agricultural executive committee to do the job for me. Their representative duly came along, and quoted me £6 for clearing the rats from my farm for one year. I wrote out a cheque, and after I had done so, I thought to myself, "If it is necessary to destroy the rats on my farm in order that my house shall no longer be infested, it is equally certain that the rats must be destroyed on all the farms surrounding mine in order that my farm shall not be re-infested."In other words, it is essential that there must be some sort of block scheme of destroying rats in this country.
I looked into the position and I round that there are two Orders for the destruction of rats—one dated 1940, and the other 1941. The 1941 Order requires the owners of corn ricks, occupiers of land on which a rick is situated, and threshing contractors, to fence the rick before threshing, and then to destroy the rats escaping during the operations. This is being done, but there are some loopholes. In fact, some of the wire which is put round the stacks during these operations has holes that a large terrier could run through. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to see that the regulations are tightened up. The 1940 Order authorises county war agricultural executive committees to direct occupiers of agricultural land to destroy their rats, and failing this, they can prosecute for failure to comply with the directions. Secondly, they can authorise entry upon land and destroy the rats. Lastly, they can charge the cost of the destruction to the defaulter. These are wide powers. But I want to know how often they are used. How many people have been directed to destroy rats on their farm?
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present.
Major Haughton: On a point Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order to call a Count on the Adjournment?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Certainly, it is.
House counted, and, 40 Members not of Order, being present, the House was adjourned, at Seventeen Minutes to Twelve o' Clock, till Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Disused Army Huts
  Disused Army Huts
  Brick Production
  Brick Production
  Temporary Houses, Sheffield
  Temporary Houses, Sheffield
  Prefabricated Houses (Imported Materials)
  Prefabricated Houses (Imported Materials)
  Requisitioned Brickworks
  Requisitioned Brickworks
  Methodist Church, Finsbury Park (Release)
  Methodist Church, Finsbury Park (Release)
  Bricklayers (Wage Rates)
  Bricklayers (Wage Rates)
  Constructional Softwood (Housing Work)
  Constructional Softwood (Housing Work)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Exports to Eire
  Exports to Eire
  Miners (Pay and Outfit)
  Miners (Pay and Outfit)
FUEL AND POWER
  National Car Hire Association (Representations)
  National Car Hire Association (Representations)
  Coal Supplies (Norfolk)
  Coal Supplies (Norfolk)
EMPLOYMENT
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Servicemen (Registration)
  Servicemen (Registration)
  Victory Celebrations (Holiday Pay)
  Victory Celebrations (Holiday Pay)
NATIONAL, FINANCE
  Movement of Funds (Sterling Area)
  Movement of Funds (Sterling Area)
  Japanese Silk Allocation (Payment)
  Japanese Silk Allocation (Payment)
  Food for Germany and Austria (Dollar Payments)
  Food for Germany and Austria (Dollar Payments)
  Licensed Trade (Reliefs)
  Licensed Trade (Reliefs)
  British Overseas Airways Corporation (Capital Requirements)
  British Overseas Airways Corporation (Capital Requirements)
  GERMAN GOLD (DISPOSAL)
  GERMAN GOLD (DISPOSAL)
  MINISTERS (OFFICIAL PREMISES)
  MINISTERS (OFFICIAL PREMISES)
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Scholarships and Bursaries
  Scholarships and Bursaries
  Agricultural Area Committees (Membership)
  Agricultural Area Committees (Membership)
  Emergency Hospitals
  Emergency Hospitals
BRITISH ARMY
  Release Deferment
  Release Deferment
  Pacific Islands
  Pacific Islands
  Dress Committee Recommendations
  Dress Committee Recommendations
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Serving Aliens (Demobilisation)
  Serving Aliens (Demobilisation)
  Clothing Depot, Oldham
  Clothing Depot, Oldham
  Medical Specialists
  Medical Specialists
  Derequisitioned House (Fittings)
  Derequisitioned House (Fittings)
  Cigarette Issue, Italy
  Cigarette Issue, Italy
  Marriage (Austrian Women)
  Marriage (Austrian Women)
  Greece (Families)
  Greece (Families)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Illegitimate Children (Responsibility)
  Illegitimate Children (Responsibility)
  Inoculation and Vaccination
  Inoculation and Vaccination
  Forces Publications
  Forces Publications
  Overseas Service
  Overseas Service
  Jewish Soldiers (Demobilisation Allowances)
  Jewish Soldiers (Demobilisation Allowances)
  Surveyors
  Surveyors
  Footpaths and Open Spaces
  Footpaths and Open Spaces
  Welsh Books
  Welsh Books
  Victory Celebrations (Leave)
  Victory Celebrations (Leave)
  B.A.O.R. (Families)
  B.A.O.R. (Families)
  Regular Officers (Pensions)
  Regular Officers (Pensions)
  Stakehill Detention Barracks
  Stakehill Detention Barracks
  Compassionate Pasting Committees
  Compassionate Pasting Committees
  King George V Club
  King George V Club
  Retired Pay Code
  Retired Pay Code
  Ration Allowances
  Ration Allowances
  Clifton Heath Camp
  Clifton Heath Camp
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Non-Fraternisation
  Non-Fraternisation
  Frisian Islands
  Frisian Islands
  Gimp, Waterloo
  Gimp, Waterloo
  Newspapers
  Newspapers
  Repatriation
  Repatriation
POLES
  Resettlement Scheme (Scotland)
  Resettlement Scheme (Scotland)
  German Army Service
  German Army Service
  Victory March
  Victory March
  Orphans
  Orphans
  Ex-Servicemen (Naturalisation)
  Ex-Servicemen (Naturalisation)
  TRIESTE (TERRITORIAL DISPUTE)
  TRIESTE (TERRITORIAL DISPUTE)
  ROMMEL'S CHARGER
  ROMMEL'S CHARGER
  WAR GRAVES (VISITS)
  WAR GRAVES (VISITS)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Housing, Wanstead Flats
  Housing, Wanstead Flats
  War Purposes Huts
  War Purposes Huts
  FRANCE (BRITISH NATIONALS, TAXATION)
  FRANCE (BRITISH NATIONALS, TAXATION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Level of Preferences
  Level of Preferences
  Plimsolls
  Plimsolls
  Cotton Regatta Cloth
  Cotton Regatta Cloth
  Newspaper Advertisements
  Newspaper Advertisements
  WAR CRIMES TRIALS
  WAR CRIMES TRIALS
  HOUSING, FOLKESTONE
  HOUSING, FOLKESTONE
  ATOMIC BOMB TESTS
  ATOMIC BOMB TESTS
  INDIA (RAILWAYMEN'S DISPUTE)
  INDIA (RAILWAYMEN'S DISPUTE)
ROADS
  Transport Commissioners, Scotland
  Transport Commissioners, Scotland
  Accidents (Foreign Countries)
  Accidents (Foreign Countries)
  NAVAL ARTIFICERS (PENSIONS)
  NAVAL ARTIFICERS (PENSIONS)
  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS (SPECIAL TRAINS, WESTMINSTER)
  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS (SPECIAL TRAINS, WESTMINSTER)
  SOAP (INVALIDS)
  SOAP (INVALIDS)
  OIL CONTROL ORDER
  OIL CONTROL ORDER
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Bottled Fruit
  Bottled Fruit
  Victory Celebrations
  Victory Celebrations
  National Bread (Ingredients)
  National Bread (Ingredients)
  VICTORY MARCH (COLONIAL TROOPS)
  VICTORY MARCH (COLONIAL TROOPS)
  PALESTINE POLICE (PAY)
  PALESTINE POLICE (PAY)
  R.A.F., SIAM (COMPLAINTS)
  R.A.F., SIAM (COMPLAINTS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and referred to the Examiners.
TYNE TUNNEL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Whitsun, and that, until that date, Government Business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence of other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF TIVERTON ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
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 Tiverton and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF LLANDRINDOD WELLS ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
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 Urban District of Llandrindod Wells, and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BORROWING (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Schedule:
Provisions as to Enforcement and Penalties.
3.—(1) No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in England except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(2) Any proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts which may be taken against any person under this Act may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in those Acts, be taken at any time not later than twelve months from the date of the commission of the alleged offence or within three months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Treasury to justify the proceedings comes to the knowledge of the Treasury, or, where the person in question was outside Great Britain at that date, within twelve months from the date on which he first lands in Great Britain thereafter whichever of the said periods last expires.
For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, a certificate of the Treasury as to the date on which such evidence as aforesaid came to the knowledge of the Treasury shall be conclusive evidence thereof.
This sub-paragraph shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if for the references to evidence sufficient to justify a prosecution there was substituted references to evidence sufficient to justify a report to the Lord Advocate with a view to consideration of the question of prosecution.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in paragraph 3 (2), to leave out "under the Summary

693
Jurisdiction Acts." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. At the Report stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on behalf of the Government, agreed to an Amendment to Paragraph 1 of the Schedule, as a result of which proceedings may be taken either under the Summary jurisdiction Acts or by way of indictment. Your Lordships will appreciate the fact that under the Summary jurisdiction Acts proceedings must be taken within six months or within such longer time as may be provided in a particular Statute. There is normally no time limit for taking proceedings by way of indictment. It is quite true that in certain cases, such, for example, as prosecutions under the Customs Acts, there is a time limit for taking proceedings by way of indictment. The object of the present Amendment is to ensure that whether proceedings be taken under the Summary jurisdiction Acts or by way of indictment there shall be a time limit, and the same time limit, for taking those proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.")—(Lord Meston.)
2.37 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has set out the effects of his Amendment so clearly that perhaps you will allow me to deal with the matter very briefly. Against the noble Lord's Amendment is the fact, to which he has alluded, that there are not many instances in our law of statutory limitation on prosecution by way of indictment. In favour of his Amendment is the undoubted fact that the Government were content with the time limit in the Bill, as long as all proceedings had to be taken summarily. There does not appear to be any strong reason why we should alter that arrangement when we offer alternative methods of proceeding. Therefore, although I cannot pretend that the Government feel violently partisan one way or the other, I would like on their behalf to express gratitude to the noble Lord for bringing forward this Amendment, and to say that we have pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in paragraph 3 (2), to leave out "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in those Acts."
694
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next Amendment is, of course, consequential. It involves leaving out the words "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in those Acts"—meaning the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 26 and 27, leave out "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in those Acts ").—(Lord Meston)
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have pleasure in accepting that Amendment also.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That this Bill do now pass.—(Lord Pakenham.)
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, before we finally pass the Bill, and before it goes back to another place with the Amendments which we have introduced, I should like, with the permission of the House, to express in a very few words the fundamental objection that I, and I think many of us, fed to the form of legislation which is illustrated in this Bill. It is, of course, a Bill which gives a power to the Treasury to make orders and regulations. I am not one of those who object to that form of legislation in appropriate cases, and within appropriate limits. The criticism that Acts of Parliament under modern conditions not infrequently content themselves with conferring powers upon a Department or upon a Minister to make regulations is, I think, inevitable. Within proper limits it is quite natural and justifiable. Indeed, I do not know how you would carry into operation a complicated Act like, say, the Education Act or the Social Insurance Acts unless there was power to make regulations authorized by the Act.
The objection which I wish to state in a very few words, is this. The Bill itself, which we in Parliament are asked to pass, confers enormously wide powers upon a Minister or Department which I am quite certain he will never attempt to use in their full width. In fact the sort of regulations he will make are of a very much more moderate and reasonable character. As this Bill stands—I leave out the Amendment for the moment—it provides that the Treasury may make Orders for regulating, subject to such exceptions

695
as may be specified in the Orders, the borrowing of money in Great Britain. Unquestionably, as far as power is conferred, that power is wide enough to authorize the making of a regulation to prevent anybody borrowing anything from anyone else, anybody from mortgaging his house, or any private person from going to his Bank and asking for an advance in return for securities. Although a little later in the clause a proviso occurs that this "shall not apply to the borrowing of money by any person (other than a local authority) in the ordinary course of his business from a person carrying on a banking undertaking," that proviso does not in the least exempt the case with which some of your Lordships may not be unfamiliar, of going to your bank and asking the bank for an advance. That, therefore, is the nature of the power which Parliament is by this Bill invited to confer on a Minister.
Of course, as we have been most frankly assured by the noble Lord opposite, who was in charge of the Bill, there is not the slightest intention of using those powers in this wide form at all. I recall that the noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that he wished to make it quite plain beyond any shadow of doubt that there is no intention of using the control under Clause 1 for any but exceptional dealings, and in substance the intention is to use this power in cases of great transactions which it is considered would, or might, otherwise prejudice the prospect of employment or interfere with the wise conduct of exchange, or have other substantial consequences upon our national and financial economy. That may be quite right. At any rate, it is quite reasonable for a government that thinks such a purpose is quite right to promote a Bill for that purpose and to use its majority to carry it into law. But with great respect I do wish to protest—and I do not think I am the only one who feels like this—that it is, in my humble judgment, quite wrong for Parliament to fall into the habit of giving enormously wide and quite unrestricted powers to a Minister to make regulations in a way which is out of all proportion to what he really means to do.
It would have made a great difference to some of us if for example this Bill,
696
whilst conferring these powers, had said what was the purpose for which they were to be used. There is nothing in the Bill about that at all. It would have made a great difference if the Bill itself had said that such power was to be exercised in transactions of over £50,000, which was the figure the noble Lord mentioned as the sort of limit with which it was thought necessary to deal. Of course it would be quite impracticable for the Treasury to make any regulations to interfere with the numberless cases of borrowing—it would be too ridiculous. No committee that was ever set up could possibly deal with it and I quite understand that it is not the Government's intention to do that. My respectful submission to your Lordships is this, that it is wrong for Parliament to confer powers of perfectly unlimited width on a Government Department to make regulations when it is avowed, and is of course officially recognized, that they will never exercise such powers but will only use them in a certain important class of case, which is capable of being defined by setting a lower limit.
There is only one excuse that could even be suggested for it, and that is that those Orders will have to be laid on the tables of both Houses, and may then be challenged by negative resolution. I agree that that is something, and I have not the least doubt that if an absurd Order were made under this Bill it would be suppressed by that procedure. But that is no excuse, in my submission, for treating Parliament as simply authorizing in advance a rubber stamp and saying, "Oh, well, it will be all right in the end, because by means of this negative resolution cases which are really quite improper may be suppressed." Without wanting in the least to raise a quarrel or indeed to do anything more about this Bill—we cannot do more now than pass it and send it on its way—I hope the moment is not thought to be inopportune for me very earnestly, as a sincere supporter of our constitutional methods and as one who recognizes that new methods have to be adopted within reason to meet a new situation, to submit to His Majesty's Government that it will be a bad day for Parliament and for this country when we regard it as a natural course of legislative procedure to confer upon a Minister or upon a Department immensely wider powers than they themselves admit they ever intend to use, and in effect therefore offer

697
a blank cheque which might be used for most improper purposes. That would mean removing from Parliament what I venture to think is the proper exercise of its duties. Such delegated legislation should be restricted to the class of case with which it is really intended to deal.
In war-time you have to go further. I am conscious that I was to a certain extent one of the originators of the Defence of the Realm Act. D.O.R.A. constantly haunts my unhappy and sleepless nights, but in war-time you are bound to have power of that kind. Under D.O.R.A. all that was needed to do was to say that a regulation was to be made for the defence of the realm, which is wide enough, Heaven knows. But there is no excuse for following that process, I venture to submit, in peace-time or even in times like the present, which are not normal times of peace. It is possible now to say at what point you really mean these powers to be exercised. My submission to the Government (which I think will not be disapproved of by many of your Lordships) is that we really ought not to drop into the habit of passing through Parliament powers of absolutely unlimited scope without the slightest attempt to say for what purpose they are to be used, and then simply trust to the assurance that they will only be used in extreme cases and for a modified purpose. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for making these observations. It seemed to me that it was not an inappropriate time to make them, do most sincerely think we are in danger of changing the real character of our Parliamentary enactments if we allow this case to be a precedent.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as the first Government speaker to take part in a debate to-day, I hope I shall not be assuming or taking too much upon myself if I say what no doubt is in all our hearts, and that is how very pleased we are to see the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, with us to-day. I feel sure that there will never come a time when it will be inopportune for the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to offer views on the form in which legislation is cast. With the permission of the House—I am as usual in your Lordships' hands—I do not propose to argue the case
698
at length to-day. I would simply call the attention of your Lordships to the character of his objection. It was, as I understood it, simply an objection to the constitutional form of this legislation. With regard to that, I feel that he is giving himself too many of those sleepless nights which we were so sorry to hear about just now. I feel that he need not worry. He has set out the position in his own speech so clearly that I need not go over the ground again but, quite frankly, as in the debate at the Committee stage so again to-day, I find it very difficult to appreciate the manner in which the very learned and very gifted noble Viscount passed over the provision, which is set out in a clause in the Bill, that no Order can be made by the Treasury unless it is submitted to Parliament.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg your pardon—I did not pass over it.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount mentioned that particular point—
VISCOUNT SIMON: I did not pass over it.
LORD PAKENHAM: —but the noble Lord laid very little stress on it. He mentioned it. We attach great importance to that, because, as the noble Viscount has rightly said, an absurd Order can always be set aside by this House, even if—which I would not wish to assume—the other House passed it. So we are guaranteed against absurdity, and I venture to suggest against unwisdom of any kind. The noble Viscount is a great authority on the Constitution. His remarks, of course, will be noted, and we are grateful to him for expressing his views. I would simply record one other view which I hope will go alongside the remarks of the noble Viscount. Noble Lords opposite have given evidence of their strong feeling about this measure. I hope they will believe me when I say that we also feel very strongly. We are in favour of it, because we believe this measure is necessary if full employment is to be secured in this country and if the tragedy of the inter-war years is to be avoided.
On Question, Bill passed with the Amendments and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BURMA LEGISLATURE BILL. [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FLOGGING IN DEPENDENT TERRITORIES.
2.54 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the excessive use of flogging as a penal sanction in dependent territories; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is, it has been said, no argument in favour of the lash which does not apply equally in favour of the rack or the thumbscrew. To-day I think I am in a very fortunate position because, in view of the recent announcement of the Home Secretary, I have every hope and expectation that I shall receive from the noble Lord who will reply to my Motion a wholly favourable answer. It therefore seems to me unnecessary to go into any great detail about the frequently debated points in favour of and against corporal punishment. I will merely remind your Lordships that it has been maintained on various occasions and in various places that corporal punishment is effective as a special deterrent in special types of cases. I suggest that in fact this is an argument which has very little weight, because of the total number of persons flogged in this country fifty-five per cent. come up subsequently for reconviction.
It is maintained, too, that flogging is a general deterrent. The figures for England in, I believe, 1934, were thirty-three
700
per cent, of the average figures for 1890–1894, whereas in Scotland, where flogging did not exist, the figures for the same offences were only six per cent. It is sometimes said, in criticizing those figures, that flogging is applied only to the worst type of offender. Inquiry will show that this again is a contention without foundation. In fact, in the ten years between 1921 and 1930, forty per cent. of the offenders condemned to be flogged had no previous serious conviction against them. There can, I think, be little doubt that in fact flogging is a practice which tends, so far from deterring, rather to harden the offender. To-day, when we have an extremely important debate to come on shortly, I will not give a number of cases to support this thesis, but, if your Lordships wished, I could give a large number of cases where floggings have been repeatedly and ineffectually imposed upon the same criminal.
In addition, there can be little doubt that this practice serves to poison the public mind. Your Lordships will remember, no doubt, cases which have been much reported in the papers and which have received from the public what is quite clearly an excessive amount of interest, indeed, I may say a morbid interest, as shown by letters to the Press and so on. In this connexion I would like to quote Dr. Havelock Ellis, the well-known psychologist, who says:
"Flogging is objectionable because it is ineffectual and because it brutalizes and degrades those on whom it is inflicted, those who inflict it and those who come within the radius of its influence."
To-day I am drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to the excessive use of flogging in our dependent territories.
Those of us who have taken an interest in the Colonies know well that a great numberx—I will venture even to say the majority—of the reproaches that are levelled against our Colonial administration by foreigners are ill-founded and are largely based on lack of experience, lack of knowledge of the conditions and circumstances, and lack of appreciation, too, of the difficulties which present themselves in the Colonies. But there is one reproach which I regret I have to state is undoubtedly well-founded, and it is the reproach that we in our Colonies have tolerated and supported this type of brutal and old-fashioned punishment.

701
Moreover, there is a particular objection to this type of punishment in Colonial territories. It is not only that the same objections hold there that hold against its infliction in other countries, but in the dependent territories themselves this type of punishment is most deeply resented by the Colonial peoples who feel that it is inflicted upon them by an alien Power and is, as it were, a symbol of their subjection.
I appreciate that the immediate abolition of corporal punishment in the Colonies presents formidable difficulties. There is a lack of probation officers, and there is a lack of approved schools. I was happy to receive recently a letter which I think I am quite at liberty to quote from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he gave not only a most encouraging 'account of the appointment of probation officers (whose number is still, I suggest, extremely inadequate in view of the size of the Colonial population) but, and this seemed to me to be perhaps even more encouraging, a long list which I will not quote in detail to your Lordships, of the legislation which has been recently introduced in our Colonies dealing with offences by children and young persons, probation of offenders and so forth. This long list of legislation is an extremely encouraging symptom of a new attitude towards our Colonial Empire. Indeed, were it not for a particular case to which I feel bound to draw your Lordships' attention, I should expect that to-day I should get from the noble Lord who will reply for the Government an answer which I should certainly find to be wholly satisfactory.
Those of us who are interested in the Colonies have been very deeply disturbed by the recent re-introduction into Trinidad of a flogging Ordinance. A good deal of protest has been voiced in another place against this particular Ordinance and I myself find it difficult to understand quite what were the circumstances which induced the Colonial Secretary to give his consent to it. There have been, I need hardly remind your Lordships, extremely authoritative protests against that Ordinance in the Press here. In particular, two ex-Governors of Trinidad have written to The Times newspaper protesting and declaring their belief that the use of flogging is no deterrent and will not be effective. Moreover, it is possible to quote the experience of Kenya and Jamaica,
702
where flogging has been re-introduced within recent years, but where no benefit has resulted and where crime has actually increased. In particular, it is useful to consider the situation in Jamaica. The figures for Jamaica are a little difficult to follow, and do not seem to be Very satisfactorily compiled. The re-introduction of this punishment into Jamaica was apparently largely to deal with what is called predial larceny or the theft of growing crops. That is a crime which is obviously an extremely serious one, affecting, as it does, the feeding and subsistence of the people, but it is also a crime which arises from poverty and from a shortage of food.
It has been found in Jamaica that this crime has been in no way diminished but rather has increased as a result of the reintroduction of this penalty.. It would appear from reading reports from Trinidad that the re-introduction of this penalty there was largely the result of the intervention of the new Attorney-General. I will venture to quote what he said in supporting this measure:
"We can produce no statistics, but I maintain myself, and sincerely believe, that the threat of corporal punishment is a deterrent."
I believe that any man who is appointed to the position of Attorney-General in an important Colony ought really to inform himself of the recommendations in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee of 1937 which was set up in this country. It seems to me that he should have done so, and if he had done so, he would have found that that Committee came to the conclusion that, after seventy-five years experience in this country, there was no evidence of the effectiveness of flogging as a punishment, or as a deterrent.
This Trinidad case is one which causes considerable anxiety to all of us who are interested in this matter. The Colonial Secretary has assured us that it is his intention to reduce the use of this penalty, but it seems difficult to understand how an officer of the Crown in a Colony was able to speak so far out of harmony with the Colonial Secretary here as to support its re-introduction. Moreover, we are told that it was re-introduced as a result of a free vote in the Council in Trinidad. I submit to His Majesty's Government that if the Colonial Office had, as I understand it had, a definite policy in this matter, it was improper that the Governor and his

703
officials should have left this matter to a free vote, and have themselves voted freely upon it. It seems to me that the official representatives on any Colonial Council should be the spokesmen—and surely that is the reason for their presence there—of official Colonial Office policy in that Council. We have been promised that there will be a report on the operation of this new legislation in six months. I am not sure how much time has elapsed since its re-introduction, but I think the six months is now very nearly up, and I shall be interested if His Majesty's Government can tell me anything about it.
There is one other particular blot on our record in this matter—one which has in the past always been a particular reproach against the Government in one of our dependent territories which otherwise has an extremely good record in many respects. I refer to the Government of the Sudan. Unhappily, throughout Africa, the record of the Sudan in this matter of flogging is one which is constantly quoted to one by Africans, and indeed by foreign critics of British administration. Recently, the Sudan Government put out an Order directing that this punishment was only to be inflicted in such cases as those in respect of which it could be inflicted in this country. I should like here to pay tribute to the Sudanese Government for their enlightenment in this matter; they are now ahead of any other British dependent territory. I realize, of course, that the Sudan is not a British dependent territory, but a condominium. I may add, incidentally, that the position when it became condominium was particularly invidious, because no such freedom in the use of flogging existed in the territory of the other Power in the condominium, namely, Egypt, where flogging was allowed only in prisons for prison offences and where the whipping of juveniles could be ordered by the Courts. It therefore was, alas, only too apparent that the responsibility for this practice lay on the other member.
Unfortunately, what the Sudan has done in the civil sphere has not yet been followed in the military sphere, because this practice still continues in the Sudan Defence Force. Some of your Lordships will have been present when I received a reply from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in response to an inquiry which I made into this matter. Your Lordships will
704
understand how serious it is when I inform you that the figures for the Sudan Defence Force alone are larger than the flogging figures for the whole of the rest of the Empire. I do not know if your Lordships are aware of the nature of the instrument that is used for the infliction of this punishment. It is a rhinoceros-hide whip of the type which some of your Lordships may have seen brought back by friends, or perhaps has been brought back by yourselves as souvenirs from Africa. It is an instrument which, I am quite certain, all of your Lordships would hesitate to use upon a dog. What is more, if any of your Lordships were found to be inflicting upon a dog a whipping such as can legally be inflicted upon a member of the Sudan Defence Force, you would (and in my opinion, justly,) be prosecuted by the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. During the war certain difficulties were experienced by those in command of our own troops in Khartum who objected to this treatment of their coloured comrades in arms. I have heard of V.A.Ds. who asked to be transferred out of the S.D.F. wards in hospitals because they could not bear to have to nurse the victims of this abominable treatment.
I come to the third principal place in which this punishment is taking place and for which we are responsible, and that is in Eritrea. Six months ago flogging of juveniles was re-introduced in Eritrea. There are in Eritrea, under Military Government, no juvenile courts. There is one reformatory school housing 200 children, and the reports that I have received of conditions in that school in respect of food, medical care and general conditions, are such that I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that it is essential that some inquiry should be made into this matter. I am told that the police in Eritrea are not, as police, open to any criticism at all. They are keen, conscientious men trying to do their best, but they are not, and I am sure no one would expect them to be, experts in child psychology. Therefore there should be, I suggest—and I press the Government to appoint—some person with expert knowledge in this matter who can direct the Military Government in order that errors of this kind may not be made.
In conclusion, I would like if I may to quote from a well-known psychologist, Dr. Glover, who, writing on this subject

705
of corporal punishment, says the following:
"And now, with all due submission, let us state briefly the ex-cathedra opinion of medical psychology on corporal punishment. It is first and foremost that flogging is a crude form of homœopathy. It is an antiquated and conservative form of treatment which blocks the way to understanding the pathology of crime. So long as we flogged our lunatics we were unable to understand the pathology of insanity. And however ethically justifiable may be an attitude of moral indignation against crimes of violence, this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that punishment by flogging is an indulgence of a passion motivated by the same criminal tendencies in ourselves. When the puzzled citizen seeks to evade an odious responsibility, or washes his hands of the matter, saving 'After all the punishment fits the crime,' the modern psychologist is bound by canons of scientific objectivity to remind him that his appeal to talion law does not fit the facts. He is certainly entitled to say that the punishment resembles the crime. Even then he has not reached the acme of objectivity. The psychological truth, by which alone penal policies should be measured, is that punishment by flogging repeats the crime."
I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, it falls to me to make such reply as I can to the noble Lord, but I must confess that I confined my preparation of a reply to the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper, and therefore I did not acquaint myself with the researches perhaps necessary to give a general reply to his case at large. I do not propose, myself having been the victim of this chastisement in my early days, to apply myself further to the pursuit of the doctrine which psychologists have enunciated. I am sorry therefore that I cannot reply to some of the points raised by the noble Lord but I will do my best to cover the ground generally indicated in the question. I am sure he will think, after he has heard the reply, that it is on the whole progressive and encouraging.
I understand that the War Office is not yet able to give us the particulars about Eritrea, but as soon as we can get any I will take care that they are supplied to the noble Lord. On May 7 the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, replied to my noble friend on the points raised with regard to the Sudan. I notice here that it is said that the Sudan Government were requested to furnish this information, and in order to obtain it it will be necessary to consult military authorities, many of them in outlying
706
districts. I am sorry to say that it has been reported to me that they have not yet received the further information, so in that case I cannot reply to the noble Lord as I otherwise would have sincerely wished to do.
On the case generally I am afraid I shall have to confine myself largely to reading from this brief as I am not myself thoroughly acquainted with the particulars of the various matters referred to. In certain Colonial territories corporal punishment may be imposed, as in Great Britain, either by an order of the Court or for prison offences. A Court order may impose it upon a male adult for serious crimes, in general for crimes of violence or for sexual offences. A Court order may also impose it upon a juvenile in addition to or in substitution for some other penalty but no authority can award corporal punishment to a woman or a girl. Corporal punishment may also be imposed as a penalty for prison offences by male offenders normally either for mutiny or for violence to a prison officer. In practice I am glad to say this is a diminishing offence.
There is a report as to the action taken by the Colonial Office to reduce imposition of corporal punishment. The reduction of corporal punishment is no new preoccupation, and legislation in Colonial territory had made considerable progress prior to 1940. After publication of the report of the United Kingdom Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment in 1938, and the introduction in the same year of the Criminal Justice Bill, Colonial Governments were approached on the subject of corporal punishment and urged to make a reduction in the use of this form of punishment. They were at the same time asked to consider alternative methods of treating juvenile delinquents. The Secretary of State has lines of action open to him by receiving in detail annual reports and reviews from the Colonial authorities. So far as juvenile offenders are concerned, there are also alternative forms of treatment in the Colonial territories either by probation or by admission to an approved school. As a result of this, European probation officers with Home Office training and experience have already been appointed to ten Colonies and more appointments are contemplated. The difficulty there is to find suitably trained people. However, three

707
of them have already trained local probation officers and three other Colonies have local men either trained or in training in the United Kingdom under the Home Office.
Probation is a constructive contribution to reducing offences by children and their punishment. At the same time the interest in youth organizations is rapidly extending and is contributing to the reduction of juvenile delinquency. It should be mentioned that the Secretary of State has tried to reduce the number of offences for which corporal punishment may be awarded and legislation has been passed to this effect in British Honduras, Gold Coast, Nigeria, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Sierra Leone and Trinidad. Incidentally, corporal punishment may not be awarded at all by the courts either in Malta or Palestine. In Trinidad, to which I will refer again, corporal punishment was abolished in 1941, though a limited reinstatement was authorized in 1946, only by order of the Supreme Council for grave offences, and only for a limited period of two years, and for a six months period for report—and I may say in reply to the noble Lord, that the period for report, I understand, ends on July 1.
Amendments to prison rules making reductions of a similar kind in respect of prison offences have been passed in Gold Coast, Leeward Islands, St. Vincent, Sierra Leone and Trinidad. It is to be observed that to put in hand any legal drafting during the war was a matter of considerable difficulty complicated by acute staff shortages in the colonies. No comparable changes as regards corporal punishment were enacted in this country. Moreover some of the difficulties arise from awards by native courts, often in Colonies in which owing to the strain of recent years it has not always proved possible to watch as effectively as is desirable these awards. But local governments are alive to the matter and the staff is being increased as far as possible.
May I now say a word about some recent legislative changes. Owing to special individual circumstances, it has been found necessary in three places, Jamaica, Kenya and Trinidad to make alterations which to some extent increase corporal punishment. In Kenya, where housebreaking and burglary had shown
708
a marked increase, the imposition of corporal punishment on conviction for burglary or housebreaking was authorized in 1945. In ten months—and this shows the necessity for not exaggerating the case—with a population of 5,750,000 it was imposed in only twenty instances. In Jamaica a serious increase of crime occurred in 1942, and was met by the passing of an Ordinance authorizing magistrates to impose corporal punishment for certain crimes of violence. Corporal punishment previously could be awarded only for theft of growing crops and for witchcraft. During the following year there was a considerable drop in crimes of violence (roughly from one quarter to one third). Later figures, I am glad to say, show a similar drop.
In Trinidad, a serious outbreak of violence occurred towards the end of 1942, less than a year after the abolition of corporal punishment. The Government of Trinidad tried to control this by Defence Regulations providing increased terms of imprisonment, and otherwise. The success of these measures was doubtful until the end of 1943, after which there was a definite reduction of crime. Unfortunately, however, the situation deteriorated, and towards the end of 1945 a situation as serious as in 1942 had arisen. As a result of strong representations made by the Governor and his Executive Council, the Secretary of State did not withhold his consent to introducing into the Legislative Council of Trinidad a Bill authorizing, within narrow limits, the reintroduction of corporal punishment, and the Bill became law in January. It provided that, in the first place, corporal punishment could be imposed only by the Supreme Court, and that it could be awarded only for robbery with violence and offences involving violence, likely to do grievous bodily harm, and rape. In addition—and this is very important—at the express request of the Secretary of State, the Ordinance has a limited life of two years only.
There are many other measures in contemplation. The Secretary of State is desirous of eliminating and reducing this kind of punishment as rapidly as possible, and he is taking constructive measures to that end. It is, I am sure, to be recognized that in a varied Colonial empire like ours the problem is complex and exceedingly difficult. Nevertheless the Secretary of State is doing all that

709
is in his power at the moment. The whole question of corporal punishment has been referred to the Treatment of Offenders Sub-Committee, and they are advising him as to any further steps which he can possibly take in the matter.
3.27 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his very full reply though it is not, I think, quite as satisfactory as I had hoped that it would be. The noble Viscount's statement was not, if I may say so, very clear on one or two points. I find him in one breath saying that the offences for which flogging could be inflicted have been reduced in Trinidad, whilst in the next breath he said that it had been reimposed for other offences. However that may be, what I had hoped was that he would say that the Colonial Office was doing for the Colonial Empire as the Home Secretary is doing for this country. Clearly, he is not prepared at the present moment to go quite so far as that. However, he is evidently considering the matter and I have no doubt—or at least I have every hope—that the arguments which brought the Home Secretary to his conclusion will have a similar effect upon the Colonial Secretary. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY had given Notice that he would call attention to the recently announced Government policy in regard to the iron and steel industry, and its effect on that industry; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apologies to your Lordships for moving this Motion which I have narrowed down, for the purposes of this debate, from a wider one which stood in my name in the Minutes of Proceedings. The subject is one of very considerable consequence to the country, and it looms large in the public mind at the present time as the result of the Government's expressed intention to bring important sections of the iron and steel industry under public ownership in the lifetime of the present Parliament. I must first disclose to your Lordships that I have a large personal interest in this industry. I
710
would not, however, have the temerity to address your Lordships on this subject,. had I not been able to say with all honesty that during the twenty-five years in which I have been actively engaged in the industry, I have been far more concerned, as a Councilman of the British Iron and Steel Federation and as Chairman of the British Iron and Steel Corporation, with the welfare and advancement of the industry as a whole than with my own stake in it. In claiming some degree of public spirit in this regard, I would add that it only follows the example shown over this long period by my colleagues in the councils of the Federation. I have heard them described in the course of the debate in another place by almost every derogatory name conceivable. But I can assure your Lordships that in all my experience of public and commercial life, I have never found a body of men possessing a greater sense of public responsibility and disinterested loyalty to the industry in which most of them have spent all their working lives.
As, no doubt, many of your Lordships have done, I have followed very closely the two-day debate in another place and I believe that nothing emerged from either the Government spokesmen or from any protagonists of their so-called policy to justify this latest death-sentence on private enterprise in one of our most virile basic industries. The effects, I am convinced, will be tar-reaching and disastrous. It is now abundantly clear, I think, that the decision to nationalize iron and steel has been taken purely on political grounds, and not from any economic merit or necessity. Indeed, after claiming that the decision was taken on the facts of the industry in the circumstances as they are now, the Minister of Supply went on to quote from a Labour Party pamphlet called Let us Face the Future, and he cited exactly six words, namely, "Public ownership of iron and steel" as his mandate and justification for this revolutionary measure.
To assume that this piece of propaganda, which the great majority of the electorate have neither seen nor read, together with the general references to public ownership made in the course of the Election, now confers upon the Government the right to take over one of the best organized self-governing industries in the country, seems to me a travesty of that intelligent democracy

711
which Ministers of this Government never seem to tire of evoking. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his turn, did not disguise his relish at the prospect of plucking this "ripe peach," and he actually congratulated the independent chairman of the Federation on having so completely welded the industry together as to make it ready to fall into his lap. This is what he actually said:
"I desire to pay my tribute to the right honourable gentleman the independent chairman, Sir Andrew Duncan, for what he has done. In what he has done he has ripened this industry for nationalization as the sun ripens peaches on a wall. I am deeply grateful."
Nothing could be more effectively designed to discourage good planning and cohesion in any industry than that contemptible sentence.
The case for nationalization of some public services can possibly be argued. The coal industry, it can be said, has sunk so low in the political cockpit over many years that it can only be retrieved as a nationally-owned industry. There can be no case whatever, on the grounds of unhappy relations, for the nationalization of an industry which for many decades has a record of good fellowship and absence of strife between all of those engaged in it, which is hardly equalled by any other. It will be a great tragedy, I submit, to undermine that state of affairs. The men who work at the furnaces and the mills can only be kept happy and contented by the most sensitive elasticity of treatment, and by strong decisive leadership. They will get neither of those things under State management, hedged around, as they will be, by departmental regulations, Treasury yardsticks and political vacillations. In the long run, and from long experience, they know that they get a square deal under private enterprise. They know that there is mutual respect, confidence and understanding, and a good team spirit. Without that, the industry could never have achieved the records of production which the Government themselves have so rightly extolled. So fulsome indeed was the praise last week for the managers and workers in iron and steel, that it seems that the Government take it for granted that the same spirit and effort will be forthcoming when these men become the graded and uniform servants of a State bureaucracy.
What is it, in fact, which makes for that vigour and foresight in planning—that "sweep and freedom of management" as the Lord President terms it—and which, incidentally, form the very mainspring and source of the industry's detailed schemes? In my view it all comes down to the expert experience, the untranslatable enthusiasm and the integrity of the managers of the individual undertakings. What is going to be the effect of public ownership on this precious and intangible asset? The Lord President said that there was no reason why the Government should not buy the same brains and technical knowledge as are at present available. I do not deny that that is hypothetically possible, but even if you could ensure continuance of the same managerial zeal and initiative, it would not be enough. It is the hand at the helm that counts; and the hand of the State can never be so light, so sure, so experienced, so free from political tremors, or be guided by the same vision and understanding, as the hand of enlightened private enterprise.
A leading Socialist Member in the debate last week emphasized that nationalization implied no reflection upon those engaged in the industry. Most of those serving on the management side, he said, are "big men with a big outlook and vision." But he went on to say that "they are the victims of finance capital." I should like to know what this means, and, incidentally, whether the Government have found any support for their views among these very men to whom he referred. Who, precisely, are the villains of the piece whom the Socialist Party are now going to liquidate?
In their speeches last week the Socialist Party drew a completely unreal distinction between those who manage the plants and those responsible for the economic policy of the companies. But, my Lords, they are often the same men. I should say that the great majority of the directors of our iron and steel concerns, have worked their way up from the bottom and often retain an active part in the management of their firms. They are familiar with local conditions and keep the closest possible contact with their younger colleagues who may be full time managers. What intimacy or understanding can flourish between managers and the nominees of a Government Department appointed to watch over them and answerable to Parliament for

713
every action which they may take, even in day to day administration? That is my first point.
My next concerns the nature of the industry's plan, as recently published in the White Paper, which does not seem to be fully understood. There is nothing hasty or ad hoc about this plan. It is based on schemes which have been carefully worked out by the various sections and firms of the industry for months and years past, as part of their planned and deliberate evolution. They are schemes which in the main but for the war would have been carried into effect long ago, to follow on those other great schemes of extension and reconstruction at Ebbw Vale, Corby and elsewhere which were carried out in the years immediately before the war. As usual they were carefully scrutinized by independent technical experts, by committees of the Iron and Steel Federation and by the appropriate Govern-Departments. In this way we have fully ensured that the unified plan is one which would serve the interests of the community, the consumers of steel, and the industry as a whole. I cannot emphasize too strongly to your Lordships the forward-looking spirit and the amount of give and take which has supported the framing of this plan. Even the Government, who have had it before them for over six months, have not been able to make one criticism of principle or of detail.
The industry's plan then accepts as a primary condition the fullest measure of Government supervision which would ensure its being carried into effect equitably and wisely. Government supervision is nothing new to this industry. For years past it has subjected itself to it. But it would be entirely wrong to assume that the plan was predicated equally on public or on private ownership. The Lord President seemed to go out of his way to stress that this was a purely technical report and that the industry had not attempted to argue for or against public ownership. That is perfectly true. That, he said, was the "political aspect" of the matter. We might well wish that the future of this great national industry could be taken out of the rip-tide of Party politics into which the Government and their supporters have now plunged it. But the Government cannot expect the authors of the plan to be complacent on the score of ownership.
May I emphasize—what should be obvious to the Government—that the blue-printing of this intricate plan was based all along on the intention that it would be carried out at the risk, on the responsibility and at the cost of the units concerned? Why indeed go to the immense trouble of working out the details for each plant and adjusting the balance of capacity between them, if a national steel corporation is going to expropriate and merge them all? I will go so far as to say that the plan is technically incapable of execution under the Government's present proposals. The Lord President, however, went on to say last week that there would be a lot of argument between firms before the plan could be enforced in practice. He said that the Government had already approved in principle a large number of the component schemes and, finally, that, with State ownership assured, there would be no hold-up or uncertainty.
The whole seriousness, of the situation lies in the fact that die prompt execution of initial schemes totalling some £50,000,000, already approved in principle by the Ministry of Suppy, is likely now to be held up for an indefinite period, just because very momentous; issues are not yet decided, since the companies concerned have no clue whatever as to how their own construction may be affected by changes in the general plan which the Government may make. How can directors, who are the trustees of their shareholders, start on their schemes under this threat of expropriation without the smallest idea of how the interests and assets of their shareholders are going to be safeguarded? The same utter uncertainty will prevail in the case of the remaining £100,000,000 or so of new works planned.
Your Lordships will readily understand that the reconstruction of a steel works entails, in the main, the destruction of existing plant, not necessarily all of it obsolete, but still capable of producing material at a comparatively low cost, though not the very lowest. It follows that this plant is still an asset of considerable value, and that it would be sheer idiocy on the part of the directors to replace it with new plant from which—taking the long-term view that they must take, since the plant will not be installed for several years—they can never recover any benefit whatever to the shareholders.

715
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech last week gave no indication whatever as to how these difficulties would be surmounted or on what basis the shareholders would be compensated for their existing assets. The bait of cheap money which he held before the nose of the industry will not catch a single fish if the new money has to over-ride existing investments.
What fundamentally, then, is the reason for State ownership? What can it possibly accomplish that cannot be better accomplished by private enterprise subjected to Government supervision? The Lord President admitted last week that the onus was upon him to show by argument that nationalization will be an advantage. But what did he do? He proceeded to cite the fluctuating fortunes of the industry in the inter-war years and he concluded that physical changes now needed, which the industry and not the Government have put forward, could be carried out "more cleanly and more sweetly"—I quote his exact words—under public ownership. That was the whole extent of his so-called argument.
All the nebulous dangers which were adumbrates in the debate by Government spokesmen—the danger to society caused by the scrapping of plant and consequent possible dislocation of population; excessive prices; actions prejudicial to international relationships; failure to raise funds for proper development; priority requirements; lack of good planning in various directions and so on—all these are matters which would be fully and adequately safeguarded by the Government supervision proposed in the industry's plan, and which would also guarantee to the Federation that unified authority about which the Minister of Supply has such unfounded doubts. Indeed, as regards prices and further plant extensions, the degree of control necessary to safeguard the status and the profitability of the new State steelworks is likely to be very much more harsh and more rigid than under the present system which the Socialists decry.
Whereas at present the only possible criterion is efficiency, and no manufacturing group in the Federation has any prerogative over another, it is inconceivable that a State Corporation, however
716
inefficient, should be allowed to incur a loss, or should be allowed to "lose face" as a result of competition. Your Lordships will readily understand how jealous the Treasury will be on these points. And what then will be the effect on the engineering and export trades and indeed upon the taxpayer also? The disasters to the country which will follow the threat of this nationalization scheme are almost limitless. There is to be a long interim period before the necessary Bill can be drafted and brought in, and meanwhile the Minister of Supply, who denies any uncertainty or delay, hopes for detailed consultations with the industry, firm by firm. What is going to happen in this indefinite interim period? It must follow that initiative and progress will be largely atrophied.
The industry will be comparable to a man awaiting execution in the condemned cell for an unspecified period. The industry will no longer attract the best recruits, and young men of brains and ambition who are at present its future leaders will seek employment elsewhere. That is already happening. The goodwill of individual firms, many of them founded a century ago, which is the greatest selling point of their products, particularly in the export markets, will be rapidly dissipated and lost. These names are the hallmark of private enterprise and they cannot possibly be anything else. The indecision and obtuseness of the Minister in attempting to define the limits of his nationalization scheme within the industry is already causing immense confusion and dislocation, and hardly any firm can tell whether it is in the scheme or outside it. Whatever limits are eventually decided upon, the industry and many of the firms in it are bound to be emasculated.
To illustrate the utter perplexity which exists in the Minister's mind, I would instance a contradiction contained in his two statements with regard to the Control Board. In his preliminary announcement on April 17 he said:
"The Board will also act as my advisers on questions arising in the preparation of the scheme of nationalization, including the definition of the sections of the industry to be taken into public ownership."
But in his speech on May 27, after he himself had made an abortive attempt to define those limits, he said:

717
"It is completely false to suggest, as has been done in some quarters, that this Control Board will be asked to design the pattern of nationalization. Nothing of the kind. That the Government have already determined."
I hope very much that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government this afternoon will be able to tell us with more clarity what the functions of the Board really are to be when at last the Government, if they ever do, have discovered suitably experienced and well-disposed men to serve on it and when it is ready to go into action. I hope he will tell us what the Government intend to do next, and how soon. How are they going, in the Lord President's exact words, to "develop managerial consolidation and managerial fluidity"—whatever that may mean? How are they going to make good the serious delay which they alone have incurred—six vital months—in considering a plan which they now admit is acceptable and sound? How are the Government going to tackle right away some of those elements of cost, like coal, which are admittedly outside the control of the industry and which are, to a large extent, responsible for that war-time rise in prices which it is the unanimous wish of the industry, unprompted by social economists, to correct? These are questions which demand immediate action, not the promise of piecemeal consultations and eventual legislation.
The Governments proposals stand condemned by all men of good sense and knowledge of the industry. I feel quite sure that the weight of advice given to the Government was preponderantly against a scheme of nationalization. In the months during which the Federation's scheme was under consideration by the Government, it must have passed through a committee or committees of Ministers, civil servants and technical experts before it went up for final Cabinet decision. What was the verdict of these advisers and senior administrators, as well as that of the leaders of the trade unions concerned? The people have a right to know what it was, and I ask the Government to produce these reports so that we may know the reasoning which lay behind this calamitous conclusion. I beg to move for Papers.
3.44 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I speak to this Motion with some difficulty owing to the lack of clarity in the statements
718
that have been made about the iron and steel industry. I have tried to follow what has been said in another place and what has been written, and I find it extremely difficult to arrive at a consecutive story. I am very glad however to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, is here, because he will no doubt deal, with clarity and courtesy, with the questions which the noble Earl has asked and those which I propose to ask. I trust he will not follow the precedent which he created last week when I had occasion to put one or two questions to him. I put, as it were, a couple of ferrets down a likely-looking hole, and had the most astonishing result, because I got not an answer to my questions but a small puff of camouflage smoke and the sight of Lord Winster doing sixty "over the horizon. Moreover, he reproved me for addressing your Lordships on a Second Reading in terms of a Committee stage. He will not be able to do that to-day, so I will venture to repeat the same tactics I adopted then and put certain questions in the hope of getting a definite answer. I am sure he will find me very reasonable, as always.
We have been enjoined more than once in your Lordships' I-louse and elsewhere on these measures, not to make political capital on either side of the House out of the difficulties in which this country is situated, and I, for one, certainly have no wish to make any worse what is obviously a difficult problem, namely, that of the restoration of British industry to a modem basis. When I say Lord Winster will find me reasonable, I am sure he will, because I wish to preface my remarks by saying that when sensible people, including a very large number of sensible supporters of the Government and members of the Government, have arrived at a certain conclusion, they have presumably done so for very good reasons. If we accept that they are both sensible and patriotic people, it behoves us to examine their conclusions with care and, if we differ from them, seek to persuade them to our point of view.
In order to examine the problem raised by the noble Earl's Motion we must first see exactly what it is we are talking about. That involves looking into not only the conclusions which the Government and their advisers have reached in the matter of the iron and steel industry, but also the data on which they have reached those conclusions.

719
Now of the data there is one outstanding document which is familiar to all those who have followed this question, and that is the report of the Federation. I understand that the Government accept, broadly speaking, the report, though not perhaps in every detail. I think Mr. Wilmot said in another place that he was broadly in agreement with it. The Federation, in that report, have arrived at a certain conclusion. The Government, accepting that report, have arrived at a different conclusion—a different conclusion certainly as to ways and means. There must be some reason for that. We can at least accept that data as being common property, and argue from that point.
There was a series of other data referred to in another place in the course of the debate last week, about which perhaps there is slightly more controversy. Here I would like to touch upon two points which need clearing up and which certainly, so far as I am concerned, need the statement of an opposite view. Mr. Wilmot, in another place, referred to the profits earned by iron and steel companies in past years, and there I think perhaps some of your Lordships opposite will agree that he was less than fair to himself in an otherwise very lucid and interesting speech, because at that point, instead of dealing with the problems of the iron and steel industry and the Government's proposals, he took what I think may be described as a rather more political view. He submitted certain figures about increases of profits, percentage-wise, and quoted increases in the profits of certain individual companies.
It is very difficult to discuss profits, either percentage-wise or by individual instances, in any industry or in any group of companies. I do not think it is a point that lends itself to debate at all, but it is clearly less than fair, either to an industry as a whole or to the individual components of that industry, to speak of percentage-wise increases referring only to the figures for individual parts, and not to the figures for the whole, as he did. I am reminded at this point of a Lancashire friend of mine (unfortunately now departed from this world), who started life as a mill hand and who ended up as a director of one of our great industrial companies in this country. Incidently, he was not a Socialist. I was arguing with him about a percentage increase in a
720
certain context, to which he retorted "50 per cent. of nowt is jolly little"—only he did not use the word "jolly"! I think the increase to which Mr. Wilmot refers falls into that category.
The second point in his speech on which I think some comment is necessary concerns cost. As your Lordships well know, the question of costs is a very difficult subject even for an accountant and it is not the sort of subject that can be properly debated in Parliament. Costs are extremely difficult to examine, extremely difficult to compare. Comparison between costs in this country and costs in America, for instance, becomes entirely and completely ludicrous, as do comparisons between costs of production in this country and costs of production on the Continent. You can only compare like with like; you cannot compare like with unlike, which is what has been attempted in so many cases in the iron and steel industry. You cannot, for instance, compare the costs of production of pig-iron and steel here in England, where we have very little ore and that of very low grade, with the cost of production of pig-iron and steel in America, where they have ore with a very convenient and high content.
Nor can you compare costs of conversion from coal. In America it is mined in convenient and large measures, and in this country it is mined in very old and very difficult measures. Similarly, you cannot compare costs in this country with costs on the Continent without an adequate allowance for wages and costs of living, and Heaven knows that is difficult to arrive at. Therefore I suggest that in discussing this matter extraneous elements like that of the profitability of certain companies in this country during the last few years and comparisons of profits between groups in this country should be left out of account as misleading and as tending to introduce what may be called political prejudices into the matter instead of allowing us to examine it dispassionately, as it should be examined. Before passing from that, may I say that the record of profitability of the iron and steel industry in this country during the last twenty or twenty-five years has not been really considerable? On the other hand, costs of production from those materials which are available in this country have been very remarkable.
In discussions which have taken place both in another place and elsewhere in the

721
country quite insufficient weight has been attached to how much has been achieved by the iron and steel concerns in producing iron and steel out of the materials available to thorn. If we were, say, American citizens instead of British citizens, we would know a great deal more about the competence and efficiency of the steel industry of this country than most of us do now, and, what is more, we would be telling the work how efficient it was. As your Lordships will be aware, and certainly as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, is aware, in this country we have achieved something that has never before been achieved anywhere else. I am referring, of course, to the production of steel from the Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire ore fields, from the lowest grade ore that has been commercially successfully worked anywhere.
If you say to an American in the steel trade who knows nothing about production in this country that concerns are currently smelting, and converting into steel, ore with an average content of about 24 per cent. he is inclined to think either that you are lying or that you are mad. That can be done here successfully, and what is more, it has been done during the inter-war years when the steel industry in this country was being described as inefficient and incompetent. During those very years, this achievement has been made possible by our steel producers here. I think it is time that those who have criticized the industry in the past had the grace to give it credit for what it has done.
I want to pass an to what I think is perhaps a more important issue, namely, qualifying exactly what is meant and what is intended by the statements that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, on May 15 in your Lordships' House said:
"Nationalization is not an end in itself, and the Government have at no stage taken a general decision to nationalist industries, as is rather mistakenly implied in the noble Lord's Motion."
That was the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, added:
"The Government fully accept the position that nationalization ought not to be carried out on political or doctrinaire grounds."
He was speaking with great care, from notes, and I feel sure he meant then what he said, and that he was also conveying views which his colleagues in the Govern-
722
ment shared. I must assume that that is so, and I will refrain from asking him what might be regarded as an impertinent question, namely, whether he still means what he said then. Having regard, however, to the fact that the Government broadly accept the Federation Report on its general lines and conclusions, I must come to the conclusion, if that is a statement of the Government's motive in this matter, that His Majesty's Government think that they themselves can do better what the leaders of the steel industry have hitherto been doing. But I wonder whether that is the unanimous view of all Lord Winster's colleagues? It is true that in another place the Lord President said much the same as I have quoted the noble Lord, Lord Winster, as saying,. In particular, he said:
"We are debating the future of a great, vital, basic: British industry. It is, therefore, not in its essence a matter of policy at all. It is in essence a business matter, namely, what is the best course to take in the interests of the community and of the nation in the handling al this great, vital, basic British industry."
Then, again,
"It is not really a Party political matter; it is a matter of business, and national business at that."
Those two statements are very clear, and we can agree with Mr. Morrison on that statement entirely. If there is a better method of running this industry we must examine it and if they can persuade us to do so we must agree with them.
But His Majesty's Government and the Federation, while agreeing with the report in the main, apparently disagree about how to run it. Sir Andrew Duncan was described by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President in terms of very high praise as an extremely competent business man, which we all know him to be, and as being a leader in business matters and in industrial organization. Sir Andrew Duncan, however, does not agree with Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Morrison about how this business ought to be run, both of them having arrived at their conclusions from the same data. Is not that rather odd? One man for whom the Government express the highest regard, and certain gentlemen in His Majesty's Government who have little or no experience of business and none at all of the iron and steel industry, arrive at an entirely different conclusion about how the business ought to be run.

723
I am inclined to wonder in point of fact whether the assertions made by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on May 15 in your Lordships' House and by Mr. Morrison in another place last week, really do represent the true motive of His Majesty's Government in putting forward these proposals.
I would like to ask the noble Lord who is to follow me, and perhaps the noble Lord who is going to close this debate, whether efficiency really is the real motive at the back of these proposals or not, because until we know that it is very difficult to continue discussing the matter. If the motive is efficiency and nothing else, then it is up to those who disagree with His Majesty's Government to put forward their arguments, and the Government, as sensible people, may be persuaded to say: "Well, we agree with you; we were wrong; it is perhaps more efficient to go on in the way we are going." That is one type of argument. It is a totally different thing to argue the matter on a doctrinaire basis which, however, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and Mr. Morrison have denied. I think we should have great difficulty in arguing the doctrinaire basis because in that line argument seldom if ever prevails. The whole history of dogma and the whole history of the human race shows that. Before we can proceed with the argument we must know what is the motive at the back of these proposals. That is the first of the questions I put to the noble Lord, Lord Winster—the first of the ferrets I put down the burrow.
As a matter of fact there is evidence that that is not the whole motive, because I observed that in the debate in another place Mr. Wilmot said:
"It is this system of private monopoly which stands condemned, and this is what the Government are determined to change."
Note that, he said "determined" and not "think ought to be changed in order to render the industry more efficient" or anything like that.
LORD PAKENHAM: Can the noble Lord give me the reference to that?
LORD RENNELL: It is in Column 848 of the Commons Hansard report. Moreover, if he was only referring, as I think he was, to the monopoly aspect, that really has no bearing on the question of public ownership because it is admitted I
724
think by all that the monopoly aspect can be dealt with per se by suitable Government control to which no objection will be taken I understand by the industry and which most of us would consider to be right, desirable and necessary. There are indications, apart from the statement by Mr. Wilmot which I have quoted, that have come to a great many of us that this alleged motive of efficiency is not the only motive. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has referred to possible differences of opinion and has referred to advice which His Majesty's Government have received.
My second question to the noble Lord is this: Was or was not the advice which His Majesty's Government received preponderantly against nationalization and public ownership of the industry? I am sorry to harp on this question of motive, but I regard it as so important to clarify the issue that I have perhaps detained your Lordships too long on it. May I quote two lines, if I recollect them rightly, which seem to be very appropriate in this context, because it is by motives that people are going to judged. Your Lordships may remember a remarkable play which was put on here in London which was called "Murder in a Cathedral" and you may recollect the Archbishop Thomas à Becket, while being tempted by a devil, in his prayer says:
"Lord save me from the greater treason, Doing the right thing for the wrong reason."
It is by motives that people will be judged, and until we learn what those motives are we cannot profitably continue a fair and sensible examination of this question.
The last point I want to raise is on the proposals themselves. I found in Mr. Wilmot's admirable speech a great deal of interest and balance and, with the exception of the one point that I made, fairness. But I found nothing adduced as evidence to show that His Majesty's Government could run this industry more efficiently than those who are running it now. Moreover, he was not clear—at least not clear to me—in what he said about public ownership. I want to leave the question of control on one side. We are perhaps more in agreement about control, or so much in agreement about control that it is not worth developing that point. Mr. Wilmot spoke about public ownership. Noble Lords on the other side

725
of the House, and their friends in other places, speak of public ownership and nationalization in the same breath. They are two rather different things. Which is meant here, and what sort of public ownership?
Public ownership ranges over a very wide field. It may be whole or it may be partial. It may, for instance, represent an investment by the State as in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It may represent the whole ownership of civil aviation. Is it intended in referring to public ownership in the iron and steel industry to have partial or whole ownership, either in any one concern or in any concern up to a certain point? I do not know whether I make myself clear. If up to a certain point is intended—say up to production of steel billets—is it intended to take into public ownership the whole of production up to that point in every case or riot? Or is it intended, in order to facilitate the provision of capital required for the development, of this industry—and this has been put forward as one of the motives by a spokesman for His Majesty's Government—to make an investment in an existing structure? I do not think we can discuss public ownership and nationalization without knowing what is meant. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, therefore, is: what is meant by public ownership? How far is it intended to go and where?
Lastly, what is meant by taking over integrated concerns? I think that Mr. Wilmot was asked about tubes, and suggested that public ownership might involve the taking over of the continuous process from the iron ore to the finished article—namely the tube. Does it follow that the same will be done throughout the industry, whether tubes are concerned or not? One does not want specific examples to be given, it is too early yet to ask for them, but I do think we need clarification about what is meant by public ownership and the form it is to take. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that I have asked questions which are legitimate to ask, and that I have taken a reasonable view about: their proposals. I do not wish them to think that I agree with their proposals—for I do not—but I find it difficult to disagree until I know what it is I am disagreeing about. And that has not been made clear to me. If that is made clear, and the conclusions
726
are what I fear, then I wish to finish what I am saying by using the striking phrase which was used recently by the noble Viscount, Lord ElitKink—if he will allow me—and say that I am squarely and roundly opposed to nationalization.
4.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this Motion made a most forcible contribution to this discussion, and every word that he said merits deep and full consideration because we all know the part which the noble Earl has played in the iron and steel industry as past president of the British iron and Steel Federation, past president of the Iron and Steel Institute and, generally speaking, as one who for many years has been amongst the leaders of the industry. The views which the noble Earl has to express on this subject must merit most careful consideration by the Government. I think that many points which he raised will be covered in the course of the remarks which I have to make, but there were one or two special matters which he mentioned to which, perhaps, I might reply at once. I certainly accept fully the noble Earl's statement that he is far more concerned with the industry than with his own personal interests. But when he tells me of derogatory terms being employed about heads of the industry, I must remind your Lordships that the Government have praised these men in no uncertain terms, that the Government have warmly praised the contribution that they made to the war effort.
The noble Earl asked if the Government's decision with regard to the industry had been taken on political grounds. I answer at once "No," and I will return to that point later. He further said that managerial zeal and intelligence were not enough, that it was the hand at the helm that matters, the hand of enlightened private enterprise. Many of the workers engaged in this industry who have had experience of that hand at the helm have asked for nationalization, and although I do not wish, in my remarks, to dwell too much upon the past—because it is the present and the future which matter—yet the fact remains that enlightened private enterprise was not showing up in a very favourable light during some of the immediately pre-war years. And it was

727
on that account, because private enterprise was not showing up in a very good light, that the situation was reached to which the noble Earl referred when he said that Government supervision was nothing new to the industry. Had the private management been so enlightened as the noble Earl claimed there would not have been any need for that Government supervision, which he admits was nothing new to the industry.
The noble Earl raised certain questions relating to compensation. That is a matter which will, of course, have to be dealt with when the Bill is introduced into Parliament. He asked me what would be the functions of the Board. The Control Board will be a board of management and workers which will be set up and operated. Until legislation has been enacted, the industry must continue to function. Government help and Government control must continue. That is admitted on all sides. The Control Board will take over functions hitherto performed by the Iron and Steel Control, that is, regulation of production and distribution and advice on prices. But it will not be a function of the Control Board to settle the pattern of the measure of nationalization which will be decided upon. It will be concerned with technical advice and will function for a limited period. The noble Earl rebuked the Government for having taken six months to consider the plan laid before them. Had they taken less than this time the Government would have been accused of acting with undue haste. I am asked if the Government will publish the Report. That matter has been raised in another place. It has been suggested that the Report ought to be published in order that Parliament can judge why the recommendations of the expert committee have been set aside. When my right honourable friend, the Minister of Supply received the Federation's Report, he naturally asked the officials of his Department to examine it.
LORD CHERWELL: Only the officials?
LORD WINSTER: The noble Lord always anticipates me. Our minds must work alike in many matters. The Minister of Supply naturally asked his Department to examine it, and for this purpose arranged for some people with special qualifications to assist his Departmental
728
officials in their examination. The purpose of that examination was to consider the Federation's plan from the standpoint of its adequacy and broad technical and economic suitability to provide a fully efficient industry. The examination was not in any way concerned with the question of the ownership of the industry. Comments were, of course, made on certain financial aspects, but as the noble Lord, I am sure, knows, it is not the practice to publish such Departmental papers. In any case, there has not been any serious criticism upon the broad aspects of the Federation's proposals from a technical angle, although there are a great many points of detail which will have to be clarified as the proposals come forward for more detailed examination. I think that the noble Earl will find the rest of the questions which he addressed to me, and the points which he raised, will be dealt with in the course of my remarks. I have endeavoured here to deal with certain specific points he put forward.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. As I listened, I made a certain comparison in my mind between his speech and that of the noble Earl. I thought that the noble Earl's speech was hot-rolled strip—rolled while the metal is hot. And I thought the noble Lord's speech was cold-reduced strip, obtained by further rolling of hot-strip in cold conditions. Certainly the speech was very reasonable. I gathered that the noble Lord is against nationalization of the iron and steel industry. I take comfort to myself by remembering that twenty years ago the Liberal Party was against nationalization of the coal mining industry, but recanted last week and supported the Government measure to that end. We shall no doubt hear a similar recantation in the course of time—
LORD RENNELL: Without enthusiasm, as the noble Lord said last week.
LORD WINSTER: Without exuberance, the noble Marquess said. But as I remarked, I do not think that any of us have ever seen the Liberal Party exuberant about anything. I listened to the quotation from my speech. It sounded very well, and I was astonished to discover how well I had spoken on that occasion. The noble Lord asked if all my

729
colleagues shared the view that I expressed on the subject of nationalization. Certainly they do. I know of no subject on which my Party is more solidly united or more solidly behind the Government than this matter of the nationalization of the iron and steel industry. Some noble Lords laugh. I shall be very glad to hear that noble Lords know more about my Party than I do myself. But what I have said is most certainly true, as the vote taken in the other place the other day clearly indicates.
To come to the three questions which were addressed to me by the noble Lord as to what is the motive at the back of the proposals, I would say that the motive is twofold: it is the national interest and the welfare of the workers engaged in the industry. Those certainly are two of the leading motives which actuated the Government in their decision:
LORD RENNELL: My actual question, if the noble Lord will forgive me, was whether the motive was solely that of efficiency or whether there were doctrinaire and dogmatic motives.
LORD WINSTER: No. They were not doctrinaire or dogmatic motives. Efficiency is the motive, and that is bound up with what I said—that the primary motive was the national interest, which of course involves the efficiency of the industry. I was asked whether the advice which the Government received was for or against the policy of nationalization? I do not imagine that the Government asked advice on the subject of whether to nationalize or not. I imagine that what they asked for was the facts about the industry. Having got at the facts, it is then the function of the Government to decide what policy they will pursue in the light of the facts which have been put before them.
I would like to answer in some detail the third question which was addressed to me. The noble Lord asked what is meant by public ownership in the iron and steel industry, and how far it is intended to go. That question has been answered in full detail by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Supply, in another place. He said there that the Government would take over iron ore, coke ovens omitted from the coal scheme (because they were associated with steel works), the manufacture of pig-iron, the manufacture of steel from pig-iron or scrap, and primary
730
or heavy rolling sections of the industry because smelting and primary rolling are essentially one industry. Beyond this were various other finishing operations, so closely integrated with iron and steel as to be virtually one process. In these cases the Government would take over the whole plant. Where finishing processes are more distinct and carried on in separate independent works, the Government will examine the set-out before deciding on the exact lines of demarcation. As regards the tinplate industries, where these are completely integrated industries they will be taken in. Where the rolling processes are separate, there must be consideration firm by firm. The same considerations apply to tubes. Spun-pipe factories are linked up with blast furnaces, and will therefore come under public ownership. The manufacture by iron foundries of iron castings, which in this industry is linked up with engineering, will be left to private enterprise; and jobbing foundries with local connections will also remain under private enterprise. That is what was said by my right honourable friend, and I hope that the noble Lord will take it as a full and detailed reply as to how far it is intended to go.
To come to the general current of the debate, I must emphasize at the outset of my remarks that the decision to transfer to public ownership certain sections of the iron and steel industry is no snap decision. It represents the fulfilment of a decision taken after long and intensive research, and fairly and squarely put before the electorate at the General Election. Speaker after speaker on the Labour side made the iron and steel industry the constant subject of his remarks.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, did he not say rather earlier that the decision was taken for no political reasons?
LORD WINSTER: It was not taken for political reasons. The two remarks are not incongruous. Because a policy is put before the electorate, that does not mean that a decision to follow that policy has been taken for political reasons. Contrary to the idea which has been put abroad this afternoon, the Labour Party does not put forward half-baked ideas. It is not a case of somebody waking up in the morning and saying, "It is a fine day. Let us nationalize something."The Labour Research Organization is very good and very

731
thorough. We know that our proposals are right, and we put them forward with a full sense of responsibility, and we intend to put them through. It was admitted last week that we had a clear mandate for the nationalization of the mining industry, and equally, we have a perfectly clear mandate from the people for our proposals about iron and steel. Really noble Lords opposite must learn to respect the verdict of the umpire and not sulk when they are sent back to the pavilion. I invite them to deny two propositions. First of all, the industry cannot be left to itself. They cannot deny that, because even the industry admits that it cannot be left to itself.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: No.
LORD WINSTER: My second proposition is this, that the industry is not competitive within itself. What becomes of the argument for private enterprise, in the case of an industry whose leaders admit that Government control is necessary, and in which what I have always been told is the mainspring of private enterprise, namely competition, is lacking? Competition disappeared after the Iron and Steel Federation was set up in 1934.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: That was under war-time conditions—
LORD WINSTER: I beg your pardon?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Under present conditions of control—
LORD WINSTER: Well—
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: When everything is controlled.
LORD WINSTER: I say that competition disappeared after the Iron and Steel Federation was set up in 1934, when the industry became a private monopoly. The industry is not competitive within itself; and it is not competitive against its foreign competitors. It is not able to compete against them. Not only is Government control necessary in this industry, and has been shown to be necessary in this industry, but that control must become closer and more direct. Certainly the Government admit that the industry may well take pride in its war record, when it reached perhaps the very peak of its
732
efficiency, and the Government have paid full and generous tribute to the record of the iron and steel industry during the a full sense of responsibility, and we war. But it happened that that state of intend to put them through. It was affairs coincided with the maximum of admitted last week that we had a clear State control that the industry has, ever mandate for the nationalization of the experienced.
As I have said, I do not want to labour the past too much. I am concerned more with the present and the future. But facts and figures incontestably assert that there was a pre-war decline in efficiency, and only State control, applied under the pressure of war conditions, succeeded in converting the industry into a war-winning factor. We have considered the argument, the cons as well as the pros. A decision has been reached in no Party spirit, in no doctrinaire spirit, but with sole regard to the interests of British industry as a whole, that is to say, the national interest. The facts led the Government to the proposals which were put before the country at the General Election, and which are now being put before Parliament. That being our considered opinion, as to what in a matter of supreme national interest will best serve the national interest, we must embody our conclusions in a measure on the Statute Book.
Here is a particular industry, which is the foundation of our whole industrial system. If the Government have reached the conclusion that only by certain measures can the iron and steel industry be kept healthy and improved in health, then it would be the negation of the whole idea of Government not to put our conclusions into action. There are one or two things I would like to say with regard to a statement made in another place by Sir Andrew Duncan. He said that there had been no strikes and no troubles in the industry for forty years. I think that was a tribute to the workers as well as to the management. But in the case of many of those who did not strike, their loyalty and good behaviour did not save them from appalling unemployment, from great hardship and great misery. It did not save them from the sense of being trapped by circumstances which they could not control, the sense of man's hand being against them. If Sir Andrew Duncan could point to forty years of even conditions, of continuous employment, of forty years without booms and slumps, of forty years without periods of wild profits, but during which the industry had progressed steadily

733
along lines of steady, efficient development in the interests a the whole industry, that would be a better picture to be able to point to than forty years without strikes.
EARL DE LA WARR: May I ask the noble Lord a question? He has two or three times mentioned the question of the workers and the question of their welfare. I think the House would be very reassured if he could tell us that at all times, during all discussions with them, all the trade union; concerned with this industry have been in favour of the Government's proposals.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I also ask the noble Lord, before he resumes his speech: Does he insinuate that all these difficulties which he has adumbrated over these forty years were entirely due to the management?
LORD WINSTER: No, no. I implied nothing of the sort at all.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I only want it to be made plain.
LORD WINSTER: The noble Lord is perfectly fair. I quite agree. I merely pointed out that, while there have been no strikes in the industry for forty years, that has not prevented a great deal of hardship, misery and suffering.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: But not due to management.
LORD WINSTER: With regard to the point put to me by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I think I could best answer that by referring to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am afraid I may be out of order, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking on this subject in another place the other day, did make it perfectly clear that the great trade union concerned with this industry has been constantly propagating and advocating the transfer of the industry to national ownership. We have been told that we are embarking on this policy without sufficient inquiry. There have been inquiries galore. What information is it really suggested that we should acquire which is not already available to us? While the doctor argues, the patient dies.
What has been wanting for a long time has been the courage to take action on the diagnosis which has long been available.
734
This Government have had the courage; which its predecessors have lacked, to proceed from diagnosis to treatment. We accept the main lines of the Federation's proposals. They constitute a very sound basis for reconstruction. But we differ from the Federation upon an essential point. The Federation considers that the interests of the industry would be best served by a continuation of the existing monopoly arrangements, plus the existing private ownership, plus Government control. Well, the physicists confirm us in our belief that oil and water will not mix. This industry has a parlous future before it. It be a task of the first magnitude to maintain it as an efficient and effective industry. Opinions inevitably differ as to how that can be best achieved. But we do not believe that it can be done if control and ownership are divorced.
I have said that we largely agree with the Federation's plan. But what does that plan involve? It involves scrapping 30 per cent. of our steel capacity, and scrapping 40 per cent. of our blast furnace capacity. And this only a beginning. Imagine the social upheavals which these figures represent. There must be responsibility to Parliament for the changes involved and for the finance involved. The raising of the great sums of money which are required can best be handled by the Exchequer under a system of public ownership, and only under such a system as we propose can a plan be enforced upon the whole industry. The Federation says that this and that is desirable, but the Federation has no power to enforce its opinions upon the whole industry.
A lot of people who have never thought out anything in their lives, least of all the justification for their own existence, tell us that we have not thought out our proposals; that we are proceeding on the lines of learning to swim by jumping in. Well, that would not be very sensible, but it happens not to be the way the Government proceeds. We see the main outlines of our policy perfectly clearly, but I confess to some surprise when we are reproached because on questions of demarcation we propose to examine the very complex problems involved, and to consult the people concerned before finalizing our decisions. Some noble Lords opposite would. I suppose, finalize first—
LORD LLEWELLIN: Just what you have done.
LORD WINSTER: Or more probably never finalize at all. I do not suppose that the industry likes our proposals. I confess I apprehended certain faint signs of dissent from them during the noble Earl's speech. I do not anticipate or believe for one moment that the industry, either by doing those things they ought not to do or by leaving undone those things they ought to do, will seek to sabotage our proposals. Those concerned will be neither so foolish nor so unpatriotic as to do that. They have a far greater sense of public duty than many who seek to speak in their name. The President of the Federation has gone on record. He has said that the industry will endeavour to improve and continue the contribution that it has been making to the export trade.
Those were statesmanlike words, and I contrast them with the wild and whirling words of Mr. Churchill about the industry being in a purgatory of suspense, bent and blurred by Government policy, and on the road to bankruptcy and economic collapse. That may be how Mr. Churchill sees the industry, but it is certainly not how the industry sees itself or how the Government see the industry. A section of the Conservative Party applauds these aboriginal war-cries of Mr. Churchill, but in doing so they run the risk of being told that the Conservative Party is an extinct volcano, of which the only sign of life is a faint wisp of smoke over the crater, emanating from the dying embers of Mr. Churchill's cigar. Unlike Mr. Churchill, the Iron and Steel Federation can be relied upon to lay aside political and individual prejudices and to be guided by consideration of national interests. There are always a certain number of people who seek to profit by a debate of this sort, to bang the war drums of private enterprise and to take their troupe of circus horses for another shambling trot through the capitalist arena. I must say to them that they are living in a completely obsolete world. In this matter of the iron and steel industry there is no issue between public and private enterprise. In the iron and steel industry we are dealing with a monopoly, and not with competitive private enterprise.
736
None of my friends on these Benches would, for one moment, assert that the policy of public ownership is infallible or inevitably bound to be a one hundred per cent. success in every detail, but we do say that in one direction after another the old system has demonstrably failed, and to revert to that system now as a solution of present difficulties would be a bankruptcy of statesmanship. We cannot retrace our steps, we cannot even stand still where we are, where our basic industries are concerned. We have to be on the march. Our proposals in regard to iron and steel have been carefully thought out over many years. We have reached the conclusion that to leave this industry to carry on under private ownership, even under some measure of Government control, would be attended by many drawbacks, and with your Lordships' permission I will enumerate them, since we are asked so particularly for the motives which have actuated us.
First, there is the danger of control both by the Federation and the Government being negative and irritating, instead of getting that freedom and positive action which will come from public ownership. Secondly, the Federation is really dependent upon retaining the good will of a great number of individual firms which constitute its membership. There can be no guarantee that control by the Federation can, in times of stress and strain, be fully effective. There are bound to be many occasions when the division between control and management would not work but would create divided loyalties between the Federation and the company shareholders to whom their directors, as has been said this afternoon, stand in a position of trust. Thirdly, in the operation and development of the industry there would have to be compromise as between firms, which might often not be in the national interest. Fourthly, there are many social implications in the development of the industry involving important questions of location of plants, the shifting of population and the effect on amenities, all of which are, in the Government's view, far better controlled in the national interests when an industry of this size is under unified public ownership.
It is common ground that this industry must be under control of some sort. The industry itself recognizes that. The issue is not, therefore, between competitive

737
private enterprise and public ownership, because the steel industry abandoned competition many years ago. The real issue is whether the working and development of the industry is to be left in private hands with a central controlling body—the Federation—together with some Government control over its activities, or whether it should be brought under public ownership. Those were the alternatives which lay before the Government. After the most careful consideration, the Government has come to the conclusion that it is only by public ownership that this vital industry can be efficiently organized and run to further the national interests in supplying the various consuming industries with steel which they require in the proper quantity, of the proper quality and at the proper price. Those are the motives, those are the reasons, which have actuated the Government in coming to their decision; and in spite of what the noble Earl has said, I invite your Lordships to endorse the bold plans of the Government in regard to iron and steel, because in those plans alone can the road to the salvation of the industry be found.
4.49 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, for twenty-eight years I was a director of one of the largest steel foundries in Scotland, probably the second largest in the United Kingdom. That is my reason for saying a few words on this subject now. I understood the noble Lord to say that he had a mandate at the Election for the nationalization of the iron and steel industry. I do not remember in Scotland any mandate or any mention of the nationalization of iron and steel. I do not believe that the working men of Glasgow or of the Clyde have ever called out for the nationalization of a private industry like the iron and steel industry. I believe you can look at nationalization in two ways. There is, first of all, the nationalization of what might be regarded more as public services than as actual industries or manufacturing enterprises. I believe there probably is some desire for the nationalization of public services like electricity, gas and water, because those are public services rather than actual industries. Much as I dislike the idea of nationalization, in my mind some of the advantages to be gained from the nationalization of public services outweigh my
738
dislike of the principle of nationalization. As an instance of that, I may say that in my part of the world we used to have our electricity generated by private industry. Owing to the small consumption in that area, the charge for electricity was one shilling per unit, which was a pretty high charge. Now we are to be nationalized, and an arrangement is being made whereby that company will be taken over. The bait that is held out is that we shall be charged 5d. or 6d. a urn and that therefore many more people will be able to take advantage of supplies of electricity who hitherto have had to put up with the inconvenience of oil lamps and candles. Undoubtedly in this case the advantages to the public outweigh my opposition to nationalization in principle.
We are informed, however, that as a result of this nationalization, there is expected to be a loss of—20,000 annually to the Government, and that that—20,000 loss will be covered by putting it on to other areas which are more prosperous. For how long, I wonder, will urban areas tolerate bearing the burden of the losses in rural areas? But a at is another question, To nationalize a public service is one question, but to nationalize a purely manufacturing enterprise, especially one that is progressive, efficient and paying a profit, is another question. I cannot see any reason for disturbing the present position and for nationalizing that industry because of purely political ideologies. I think the time chosen for bringing this question forward is most unfortunate, and most unwise on the part of the Government. In the iron and steel trade we are facing many difficulties in turning over from war-time to peace-time conditions. We are doing all we can to recapture our export trade, but there is no doubt that this talk of nationalization has caused a great deal of disturbance and depression.
In the case of the company with which I was associated, we required great quantities of selected coal to work up special lines of steel for rails, railway wheels, boiler plates and other things. We took an interest in a colliery to assure our supplies, and our supplies were, until recently, coming forward regularly, but to-day, now that nationalization has taken place, we are not getting our coal, and one quarter of our furnaces are not working. That never would have happened if

739
nationalization was a good form of administration. The other company with which we were associated, knowing there was going to be a great drive for export, planned to put down a new range of blast furnaces of the most modern kind and to re-arrange its shops. The whole cost of that rehabilitation scheme was to be £3,000,000, and that was mentioned in the report of the Iron and Steel Trade Federation. We naturally expected that when the Government read it, they would ask to confer with us. We have not, however, heard a single word; we have never been called to attend any conference whatever, but out of the blue has shot this red meteorite of nationalization, for no reason that we know of. This firm is not inefficient; it is most progressive, and is one of the largest steel firms in the country. We cannot see why it should be nationalized in any degree whatever.
This policy of nationalization must affect employment. On the one hand, you have a quarter of the blast furnaces shut down by one company, and, on the other hand, the Government have told the other company not to go on with its scheme until they have made up their minds what they are going to do. I gathered from the noble Lord just now that it would be six months before they could definitely state the whole of their scheme and say which part of the industry was going to be nationalized and which part was not. That period of six months will be a period of uncertainty, and will cause great confusion. Three months ago our unemployment figures in Scotland were 32,000, but to-day they are 70,000. That should not be the case, and it is causing serious concern. I think I heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say, when he was speaking on the nationalization of the coal mining industry the other day, that one of the reasons for nationalizing the coal mines was that further amalgamation to any great extent was impossible under private enterprise. I do not like the word "impossible". In connection with our steel works, our ship works and our coal mines, I know that there were a number of schemes for amalgamation in contemplation. After the 1914–18 war, there was great amalgamation in the railways and in shipping, and we anticipated that there would be great amalgamation schemes
740
brought forward after this war. We were planning to do so, and had we had the time to think out these questions and to bring forward this scheme for extended amalgamation, I am confident that it would have been a success. All the great amalgamations of industry in Great Britain, in coal, in iron and steel, in shipping, or in railways, have held their own in comparison with the amalgamation of industries anywhere else in the world, whether Government or private.
5.9 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, may I, before I forget, reply to a point made by the noble Duke about the time? He said, "This is not the right time." There was a charming book written on Cambridge University politics which included a list of reasons for not doing things, and one of them was called "the rightness of the time." The book remarked:
"Time is like a medlar; it is always rotten before it is ripe."
Surely what we know about the present time is that we have a certain number of years, during which we can sell practically anything, before we are faced with the real difficulty of how we are going to face the problem of unemployment and to solve that problem when the storm really comes. I should have thought it was the plain duty of the Government to try and use these few years to see that when that time does come the structure of industry is so arranged that it can meet the problems of full employment. That it cannot possibly do without some changes in the structure. Noble Lords may think that these proposals are ill-advised for that purpose, but I do not think they can possibly maintain that it is not the type of thing which ought to be done. It seems to me above all that it ought to be done.
May I, after trying to answer the noble Duke upon that point, make this comment on the debate. This is the third we have recently had on nationalization, and how different it is from the last. In the last debate noble Lords opposite seemed to me to have been dimly aware—not always dimly—that they were defending what was an indefensible position. Nobody really defends the coal trade. Like the woman in the Scriptures who had suffered much from many physicians and was no better, but rather the worse, the coal trade has suffered for many years

741
from doctors of all kinds. Nobody thought that conditions between employers and employed were anything but awful. I think noble Lords opposite were prepared to acquiesce in the proposition that desperate diseases called for desperate remedies. Indeed their attitude to nationalization seemed to be like that of the cynical doctor who said: "When you are pretty sure your patients are going to die, pack them into the hospital, and then you will not get the blame." In other words, when you think industry is going to pieces, then it may be nationalized but not before.
Nobody on either side of the House can say that the situation is the same with regard to iron and steel. Nobody can say that the relations between employers and employed in the iron and steel industry are anything but good. Nobody does—and If should have thought nobody could—say that the iron and steel trade is at the moment an inefficient trade or, for that matter, is likely so to become. I do not think that we on this side could possibly defend the proposals of the Government on the grounds of the inefficiency of the industry and on no other ground. A point might be made, I understand, about the necessity of controlling and running the industry as a whole, and the difficulty of doing that under control instead of under ownership. That seems to me, with respect, looking at the debates, not proven.
I think everybody on both sides has to admit the masterly, account of the industry given by Sir Andrew Duncan whom everybody respects, whose ability everybody admires, who is acknowledged to be completely free from Party politics in the bad sense. I should say the same impression was made on me by the speech of the noble Earl. Is the conclusion therefore that the reasons for doing this are political? The noble Earl said they were purely political, but a long life of correcting undergraduates' essays has made me suspect the adverb "purely" before any adjective. It all depends what you mean by "political." The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said that we ought not to do things for political reasons. I have not got his exact words, but I think he said we should do things for the welfare of the community as a whole. I, in my innocence, thought that that was politics. Is it not? The noble Lord seemed to think that "political" means "doctrinaire."
742
Is there only one kind of doctrinaire politics? The noble Lord, Lord Winster, accepted that view, that by saying a thing is political you mean it is done for Party reasons or for Party politics or abstract politics or doctrinaire politics. I should have thought myself that if you are considering the welfare of the community and the position of an industry in the community you are considering, as you ought to consider, political questions. Those are political questions. I do think this is important because it does scorn to me a pity that your Lordships' House should think that the adjective "political" is a bad adjective, and that when people do things for political reasons they do there for bad reasons. I wish we could find some words to distinguish between the doing of things for political reasons which is wrong, and doing things for political reasons which are not only not wrong but are incumbent upon us to do.
I was amused yesterday to read an account of the speech made by Mr. Eden at Leamington on Sunday where he began admirably by saying that in regard to nationalization we ought to realize that sometimes nationalization was good and sometimes nationalization was bad and we should look at the facts of the case. Then suddenly to my surprise he went on and said that the treatment which the Government proposed to mete out to the iron and steel industry was ill-considered and a costly gesture of political prejudice, and at the best the results would only be confusion and at the worst it might entail a national disaster. It was a clear example of doctrine run riot. I wondered to myself how anybody as reasonable as Mr. Eden could talk what I might be excused for calling such rhetorical non sense. I wondered if he had been rereading his political leader's first broadcast.
Then as I read on, I found what happened, because he began talking about the evils of materialism and Marxism and how we were on our way to the slave State. Then I saw where it all came from. It is clearly the voice of -Professor Hayek, that able Continental professor who combines an extraordinary command of English with a complete ignorance of England. I said to myself: "Who is being led away by abstract continental theories now?" I say this really with all seriousness. It will be an evil day if this

743
country were divided between the disciples of two continental theorists, one called Karl Marx and the other Professor Hayek, because both seem to me to be tarred with the same brush. They have no sense of reality. They are abstract and they are doctrinaire in the worst sense.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I hope the noble Lord will repeat that part about Karl Marx to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I am quite ready that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should hear what I have to say on this—I am quite unrepentant, but I don't think he would dissent. It will be an evil day—and I repeat that—if we are divided between the disciples of these two. I am told that Professor Hayek's book has been sent to all Conservative Members of Parliament. It has sold 9,000,000 copies in America, and that alone should be a warning. I do pray noble Lords to avoid those continental wines which the Englishman cannot stand. There is the heavy Rhenish wine of Marx, or the sparkling Viennese wine you get from Professor Hayek.
My countrymen, trained on the more rigid logic of the Shorter Catechism and innoculated at an early age with Calvinism, are immunized against such abstract theories. I do not think that the English are. Professor Hayek is much more dangerous than Karl Marx. Karl Marx was obscure. Indeed he wrote so abominably that almost nobody has read his work. But Professor Hayek writes in a charming style, and if you do not take care he will go to the heads of the Conservative party, and when that happens it will be a very bad day for this country. If that is what politics mean let us avoid it.
You may do things for reasons of political theory and all you mean is that you have an abstract and simple conception of how the country ought to be run. No-one should have that. Any country is far too complex, elaborate and intricate for that sort of stuff. It is true that there is a temptation, on both sides, to apply political theory in that sense to the practical concrete problems with which you are confronted. But it is evil and bad just as much on one side as on another. I freely admit that my Party suffers from that disease as well as the other Party,
744
and it is perhaps because I have felt my Party suffering from it so much that I am really concerned when I see this blight in another form, in the form set out by this Viennese professor, affecting noble Lords on the other side, because the results will be dreadful and much more dangerous. This professor writes so well that you read his work and then you are lost unless you have a properly critical mind.
Now may I say why I think there are reasons—whether you call them political or not—which lie behind the proposals of the Government. I propose to do that, if I may, by quoting a pamphlet (I wonder if any noble Lord has read it?) which was published in 1943 under the auspices of Nuffield College. May I hasten to add that Nuffield College has no responsibility for what the pamphlet said, and that the only concern of Nuffield College was to bring together people of all kinds, of all Parties and of all views to try to see whether they could come to some sort of common mind as to how they should deal with problems of unemployment. That was the concern, as it has been the concern of us all. We quarrel and shall go on quarrelling as to what was before the country at the last Election. I shall be bold and give my own version. I think that in the minds of the people as a whole there were two things, one of which it would be bad manners to put emphasis upon and so I shall not do it. I think many people of the country wanted to make it perfectly clear that they did not really believe that God meant the Conservative Party to go on ruling the country for ever and ever. But that is Party politics.
What I think they really were concerned about was that they felt we were not going to stand for a repetition of the wholesale unemployment with which we were cursed between the wars. I think it is true also that they held—though we did not always formulate it to ourselves like this—that no theories of any kind should stand in the way of making a recurrence of that kind of unemployment impossible. I think that the public would have condemned as severely an attempt on the part of the Labour Party to say that we will not (I hope that I am using my "shall nots" and "will nots" correctly, but it is difficult for me) have the cure of unemployment stopped because people say it must only be done by nationalization.

745
But they were perfectly determined that people should not stop the cure of unemployment or the bringing about of full employment because there were people who said: "You must not do it if it involves nationalization."
I think that anybody who had read carefully either Sir William Beveridge's book on Full Employment or this pamphlet by these various people who met at Nuffield College and compared them with what seem the extraordinarily jejune proposals of the White Paper would have said that the White Paper was based on the principle that it is not proper to cure unemployment if the cure involves any nationalization at all. In these days—that is in 1943—this pamphlet (it is called Unemployment Policy and Organisation of Industry After the War) set forward a hope of curing unemployment as a possiblility which emerged in this conference. The conference consisted of employers, employed industrialists, trade unionists, academics, practical men, representatives of all political Parties, and for one happy moment it seemed that they were determined to look at this question as a practical question and see what ought to be done. And they produced a picture of the structure of British industry with which they were all roughly in agreement.
They thought that British industry ought to fall roughly into three divisions. There was the section of industry first of all which should be nationalized, and by that they meant run by a public corporation—not like the Post Office—which should give the utmost freedom of initiative and decision to the people running it, only guided by public policy. They thought that that referred to certain divisions of industry, especially industry in which there was a monopoly. Secondly they thought that there were certain industries which by their nature were not quite monopolies, but tended to be dominated by a few firms, and therefore to become what is called quasi monopolistic. They thought that these should be controlled in various ways. They they thought that there was a third part which ought to be left entirely to private enterprise. The reasons given for that it seems to me are very simple, very familiar and very old—namely that when you consider the nature of the industry you see there are certain parts of industry where the general advantages of wholesale
746
structural organization outweigh those of individual initiative, and other parts where the advantages of individual initiative outweigh those of large scale organization.
That is an old consideration, and applies to all sorts of questions about Government interference. This Conference supposed that there were those three types of industry and held that you could not deal with the problem on unemployment just by having separately efficient industries. It was necessary to have something to deal with the trade cycle. You might have a lot of industries, each efficient in itself, and yet still not be able to tackle the trade cycle. It was also held that you could not deal with the trade cycle without giving the Government power over a considerable amount of investment, especially in the capital goods industries. They thought that the old means of trying to deal with the trade cycle by what were called public works were quite inadequate and did not cut nearly enough ice. For that purpose, it was held, the Government must be able to offer a public policy of preserving full employment and dealing with the trade cycle. To do that the Government must have great control over a largish section of industry, with wide powers over capital investment in that section of industry.
It seems to me that the Government must have read this admirable paper, because they have followed that suggestions made, both in regard to coal and in what they say about iron and steel, so far as what they call public corporations are concerned. The writers of this paper lay down that it is very important that you should not have the old-style nationalization, but that you should try and invent a corporation, by which you will get practically the same thing as you now get in a large organized industry.
I do not know how many noble lords have read a book, more widely advertised than it deserves, called The Managerial Revolution, by Mr. James Burnham. I thought him a conceited young man when he was at Balliol, and I think him a conceited middle-aged man now. I think it is much over-praised, but that something of what he says is true, that industry is governed not by the people who own it—that is, shareholders—but by the managers, by the directors. People might be given just as

747
much freedom and scope under a properly devised Government scheme of the kind described in this pamphlet as they have now under the control of shareholders. They thought that you could only deal with unemployment if you allowed the Government sufficient control in order to be able quickly and efficiently to deal with investments in the heavy industries.
In the whole of the pamphlet, nobody says which industries ought to be nationalized. I rather think myself that they all think it should be other people's industries, but not their own. I looked at this on rather a high line, until I suddenly realized that the one thing I could not bear to be nationalized was University education. I think it is probably common, therefore, to take the view that other people should be nationalized, but not oneself. I think that is because you take a natural pride in your own job, especially if you have done it well, and tend to say, "I do not like these new conditions." That is natural, and I do not think it is at all surprising that managers and directors of the iron and steel industry, whom no one could accuse of doing a thing badly, look with distrust on this new proposal, and say, "No, we do not want it." If it is true that you can only deal with the prospects of unemployment which face us, and that you can only put through a policy of full employment by much more public ownership in certain selected industries than you have now, then it is not political—in the bad sense—to say that you will do that, even though the industry is efficient.
5.36 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I do not intend to be political at all but I would like to ask the noble Lord who has just sat down whether he really contemplates that this policy of nationalization will do away with all the ups and downs of trade and world slumps and booms, because as sure as we are here this afternoon they will recur. Does the noble Lord suggest that by this control the Government will in some way get over the difficulty of finding buyers? In the future as in the past, that will be our difficulty, since whether an industry is nationalized or not, whether it is run by the Government or by private enterprise, you must find a market for your goods. If you do not sell there must, as a result, be unemployment.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: The noble Lord began by asking me a question, although he got rather away from it, if I may say so. Of course, I do not suppose that there will not be ups and downs. If the noble Lord will not think me pedantic, Plato says somewhere that "Storms may overwhelm any ship, but it is better, nevertheless, to know how to steer."
LORD TEVIOT: Steering by nationalization in other parts of the world has ended in disaster. The noble Lord has referred to the G.P.O. and the B.B.C., but I do not consider them very good examples. There is another question here which I would like to ask. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Winster, if he was coming back, he told me that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, would reply. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, instanced the question of what part of the industry was going to be nationalized. So far as I could gather, he did not deal with the case where the whole of a business from the iron ore, the coal, to the finished article, is in the hands of one firm. In such a case, would that firm be nationalized? There are quite a number of firms in that position. Perhaps it is too much to ask for an immediate answer, so perhaps the noble Lord will bear it in mind.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am replying to the debate to-morrow, but I am ready to deal with it now.
LORD TEVIOT: I was horrified by one of the reasons which the noble Lord gave for his belief that nationalization was aging to be a success. The noble Lord referred to the question of the location of industry and of the happier feeling that would exist between the employer and the employee because of the fact that the Government were to be the employer. With regard to Stevenage and the question of the location of industry, there does not seem to be any very happy feeling there. There was undoubtedly an upheaval there. I do not think that there will be that happy feeling. Another thing of which I am quite certain is that I do not think that there is a likelihood of happier relations between the employers and the employees when the workers are told that they are not to be allowed to go on working at a factory at which in the pre-war days they may have been employed, but are going to be shifted to somewhere else.

749
Then there is a very important question in respect of which I do very strongly urge consideration. At the moment there is a period of appalling uncertainty. I was having lunch to-day with a foreigner who is desirous of doing business on a very considerable scale with large firms in this country. The one thing that worries him is that he cannot get delivery. He cannot get any firm dealing with the particular commodities which he is desirous of obtaining, some of which are in the iron and steel industry, to give any definite information with regard to delivery. Those firms say: "We really do not know where we are. We cannot say that we can deliver by any reasonable date." I know quite well where this man intends to go. He is going abroad again to do business with foreigners. If that is going to continue, then we are going to lose customers. As I mentioned in the argument which I put forward on the last occasion when I addressed your Lordships, I have yet to hear from any member of the Government any real, sound, cogent reason why it should be thought that this system of nationalization is going to be a success. We hear pious opinions to the effect, "Oh yes, this is going to happen and that is going to happen." I. am not now talking in a political sense at all. As a business man, I wish to know why it should be considered that, where there have been difficulties in the past, the general conduct of business is going to be so improved that the troubles which have occurred before will not happen again with a different employer. I do not know if the noble Lord quite got what I was saying, because he was talking to his noble friend, Has the noble Lord got that?
LORD PAKENHAM: In so far as I have not got it, I shall have a chance of reading Hansard before I come to reply to the noble Lord.
LORD TEVIOT: It is a very simple question. Let me repeat it. I may not have been quite clear, What I want to hear from the noble Lord is an answer to, this very simple question. I would like him to give us some really sound and very cogent reasons why the Government consider that this alteration from private enterprise to national ownership is going to result in a great success. I have heard pious opinions to the effect, "It is going to do this, and it is going to do that."
750
But I have never received any reason why it is going to dc those things. That is what I am so anxious to get. I did not get it during the debate on the Bill dealing with the nationalization of the coal industry.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can set the mind of the noble Load, at rest. Reasons will be forthcoming in my reply.
LORD TEVIOT: Thank you. That is good. I will be delighted to hear those reasons, because I did not get them on the previous occasion. I do not wish to go over ground that has already been covered. I come now to this question of monopoly. It has been said that the iron and steel industry is now a monopoly. Yet it is proposed to change from one monopoly to another monopoly. Is it likely that this new organization or this new monopoly, managed by a totally different set of people (of course, a certain number are sure to drop out) is going to be a success? This new monopoly is going to be, to a very considerable extent, managed by people who, I think it is only reasonable to suppose, cannot have the experience or the knowledge of the ups and downs of trade which the people who are running the industry at present possess. I am sure that if the noble Lord in his reply could show reasons why this new monopoly is likely to be a success, it would relieve the minds of a great many of us.
I now come to this question. I have asked this question before, and I have got no answer to it. Would the noble Lord just listen? This is the third time I have asked this question. Perhaps the third time will be lucky. Suppose that a firm, which is not nationalized, finds out some particular way of producing, at a cheaper cost and of a better quality, articles which the nationalized industry is producing, is that firm going to be allowed to do it? I have asked that question twice and have received no answer to it. If it is not going to be allowed to do it, then undoubtedly progress will be hindered. There is no question about that. If any such firm, which is not nationalized, is allowed to continue doing business, it will become a competitor of this new monopoly, or not quite a monopoly, because according to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, it is not quite a monopoly, in so far as it does, from what I can gather, allow of certain people carrying on. Supposing those firms, which

751
are not nationalized, by their efficient management are able to compete—as is very likely to happen—efficiently and well against the Government business—is that to be allowed? I have no doubt whatever that I shall again be accused of being gloomy. But undoubtedly the outlook is extremely gloomy. We are all aware of that fact. We are all extremely anxious to know a great deal more than we do at the present time of the reasons why the Government are in this extraordinarily confident mood about the future of this policy which they are putting forward so quickly. And really, when those ideas are put forward to Parliament, no thought-out scheme is presented. As far as I can see, no thought-out scheme has been presented in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is going to reply for the Government, has stated that he is going to tell your Lordships some of the reasons why he considers that this scheme will be a success. It will be the first time that we have heard those reasons in this House. That is all I am going to say. I am aware of the fact that there are many who wish to speak, but I wanted to ask those questions because I had asked them before and had not received an answer.
5.39 p.m.
LORD PERRY: My Lords, I am intervening in this debate to-day because I have been distinctly asked to do so. I have to say the same thing to your Lordships as the noble Earl who moved the Motion said with regard to himself, that I certainly am an interested party. I cannot plead, as he was able to do, that I have had a great deal of national service or group service. I am my own altruist in this particular matter. In listening to the debate to-day, with my ordinary common sense, not having had much experience of politics or Parliament, I am a little lost in the maze of words which are used, particularly by the members of the present Government. It was emphasized by the noble Lord—and in another place by the Minister of Supply—that his Party had a mandate for the nationalization of the iron and steel industry. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord called attention to the Labour Party Manifesto, but, much to my astonishment, he described the Labour Party as the Socialist Party. I have never felt that they were synonymous terms or recognized as such.
752
It is true, of course, as has happened before, that certain ideologists have walked away with the practical people in the Labour Party, and are doing the talking and shouting for them. But that they are the Socialist Party, I learned with great astonishment. I learned with even greater astonishment that they possess a mandate in this matter, because it is a fact that in the General Election there were more votes cast against those people who wanted nationalization than there were in their favour. According to my ordinary, common-sense understanding of the meaning of the word, that does not give a mandate. My noble friend Lord Winster to-day has talked a great deal about getting capital control. That is ownership. Capital control, to the ordinary common or garden man's mind, means ownership. Well, bless my soul, the iron and steel trade to-day is owned by tens of thousands of our fellow citizens.
It is a matter of opinion whether it is more desirable that capital should be found voluntarily by tens of thousands of people out of their own savings, and employed at their own risk, or whether it should be taxed out of them in the form of a Government contribution. I personally would prefer to make my own investment rather than have a tax-collector put it on my Income Tax form and say, "That is so much for acquiring the iron and steel industry." That is the only other way. Generally speaking, I cannot conceive of nationalization being in the country's interest, because to buy out an industry by giving national money raised in such a manner is to put the investor really and truly into a better position than he occupied before. He has a kind of debenture; he has the nation behind him as security for his investments, once he is bought out in this manner and is no longer risking his money and adventuring his savings.
Then the word "control" was used. We have had Government control for many decades. Every intelligent citizen expects it. We expect an intelligent Government to exercise control, through Factory Acts and other legislation necessary in the conduct of industry, in the same manner as our grandfathers evolved such legislation in the centuries that have passed. That is control as any ordinary man with common sense understands it. Then we come to nationalization. That

753
reminds me of the dear old traditional lady who found very great comfort indeed in the blessed word "Mesopotamia." She had no notion what it meant but she loved the sound of it. It was a blessed word and she liked to hear it spoken by her spiritual advisers.
The noble Lord who recently spoke wanted to know what nationalization really meant, and I make the same inquiry. What does nationalization mean? It probably means giving a shareholder a Government security instead of a risky one. It means removing from their appointments your well-trained factory inspectors and other Government servants who have been looking after the public interest in factories and other places of employment. It means also, as I see it, getting rid of the experts who have the knowledge and experience to manage our intricate business affairs, and replacing them by a totally inexperienced Minister in pursuit of patronage and power—I am afraid that is how I have to describe his motives—and supported by a financially irresponsible bureaucracy. Certainly in my business, and I think in most businesses, one does not like financially irresponsible servants; they are no asset. We know that, up to a point, in the increase in the number of civil servants whose services we now enjoy, through the way in which the country is now governed.
I wish now to come to a more personal matter. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer, but I was asked to put in a word on behalf of the industry of which I am a member, namely, the motor industry. The members of that industry were talked about in another place, and a noble Lord was quoted as being entirely and intensely dissatisfied with the iron and steel people. I think that criticism in another place was unfair, and I was asked by my colleagues to go on record as saving that it gave an entirely erroneous impression. In the motor industry we have had negotiations over the years with the iron and steel people. I am not here to do any special pleading for them—personally I do not like such bodies at all—but, having had experience of them, I think I speak for myself and for colleagues in my industry when I say that we view with horror any possibility of getting out of the frying-pan of the Iron and Steel Federation into the fire of Whitehall.
754
My noble friend addressed a somewhat personal question concerning specific details to one noble Lord opposite in particular. In the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, the Government emphasized strongly that they knew what they were doing and that they had spent months in studying the problems of this proposed nationalization. I happen to be chairman of a company, and Lord Winster gave most specific details as to the people in the iron and steel industry who are going to be nationalized and those who are not. I have the document here and I would quote it to your Lordships but for the fact that the noble Lord has already done so. He gave a very careful definition, as indeed did the Minister of Supply in another place. He started by saying, "Yes, we are going to nationalize iron ore." I have here the report of what the Minister said. The noble Lord read it almost word for word, but I would like to bring it home a little more. I am quoting from Column 853 of Hansard of Monday last:
"I propose to tell the House which sections it is proposed should be brought under public ownership, subject, of course, to the possibility of excluding some special individual plants where conditions are exceptional. We think it right to start with the iron ore and with those coke ovens which were omitted from coal scheme as being associated with steel works. We should also take over the manufacture of pig-iron, and the manufacture of steel ingots from pig-iron or scrap we must include the primary or heavy rolling sections of the industry, since steel smelting and primary rolling are essentially one industry.…Beyond this, there are various other finishing operations, some of which are so closely integrated with the actual iron and steel making as to be virtually one process. We intend, in such cases, to include the whole plant."
That is very categorical, and I think it was endorsed by the Minister here this afternoon.
Now the company to which I am referring certainly does not mine ore but it possesses every other qualification for being nationalized. It has a blast furnace, and it makes pig-iron; it has coke ovens making coke for its blast furnaces, and it has rolling mills. So it possesses every qualification, and if the Government have Studied the question with such care and made up their mind with such firmness as to what is to be done, then there is no question whatever but that this company is going to be nationalized. Its essential business is making motor-cars.

755
Some people view with some concern—and very properly so—the question of whether this is or is not a threat to nationalize the whole motor industry. Presuming that it is not, because I suppose there must be some limit to the ignorant grasping of even these nationalizers, and granting that they do not intend to nationalize the whole of the motor industry, what is going to happen? We cannot imagine for one moment that one motor-car company, enjoying the blessings of this super-excellent Government management, will ever permit the Government to buy motor-cars from anywhere other than that particular firm. They must obviously acquire a monopoly in the business of supplying motor transport to the Government. Of course, being a monopolist, I do not so much object to that—or being a potential monopolist; please do not misunderstand me.
Then I look at the other side of the picture. What do my people tell me then? They say, "Please do not send me abroad to sell national motor-cars. I shall have to be a politician if I go abroad to sell motor-cars made by a Government institution." The ordinary economic considerations will be swept away, I assure you. It may be that the Government officials know very little about these problems, but that does not hinder the noble Lord telling us that they know all about them. I would like him carefully to consider what it means, and to consider how he would like to go abroad in this export drive that he himself and his Government are thrusting upon us, and urging us to undertake, and to sell to another Government or to a person biased in favour of another country a thing that was obviously manufactured by our country. Business has never been done in that way, but the Government hope to do it. I admire their hopes, but I have no faith in them.
I think that to make any discrimination, or to nationalize, as it is called, the iron and steel trade, will be a national disaster. It cannot fail to be, because the organization which is so light-heartedly undertaking this particular task really and truly knows nothing whatever about it. If you examine for one
756
moment the present Government, you can count on one hand the members of it who have had any experience, except under conditions of war, of the administration of Government matters. They are all learners. They have my respect, and they have my good wishes, but when they come along, because they are ideologists, and say, "We are going to give you a new Heaven and a new earth, the old things are going to be swept away—behold, I make all things new," the only advice I can give to your Lordships is, do not believe them.
VISCOUNT GREENWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Greenwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I have permission to say that after consultations through the usual channels it is proposed to take the remaining stages of this Bill to-morrow.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment considered and agreed to.
LONG EATON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the Bill. Same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ROYAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, ROYAL WESTMINSTER OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, AND CENTRAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL (AMALGAMATION, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.