DEFENCE (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

§ Mr. Speaker

Before I call upon the hon. Member who has the ear of the House, I would like to say that I have knowledge that there are something like 87 hon. Members who wish to take part in the Debate today. I can only hope to satisfy—if I am lucky—one-tenth of that number. I am keeping no list; as the spirit moves me and as I think they may contribute to the Debate, I shall call upon hon. Members to speak, but there can be no promise in advance that any particular hon. Member will be called until I make the choice.

§ Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)

A three days' Debate is always something of a long-distance endurance test. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday looked as if it rather killed the Debate, but the House of Commons yesterday did much better than the Leader of the Opposition the day before, and I think it would be useful to start today by discussing some of the interesting speeches made from different points of view in yesterday's Debate.

I will start with that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), and his demand for national unity. I think the little altercation we have just heard shows that despite his optimism, there are one or two major issues which divide the country. One cannot anticipate the Debate next week, but I would say this: In 1940, when things were very dangerous for this country, the Labour Party and Labour movement, at the demand of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), put their Socialism into cold storage for the duration of the 1258 crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members can shout, but that is a fact.

All I am saying is this. Since 1940, a great many changes have taken place in this country. Part of a peaceful revolution has taken place, and those who talk of national unity from the benches opposite should realise that ideological anti-Socialism has got to be put into cold storage this time if we are to retain the unity of the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, in his new position as an Independent, instead of talking about nationalising slums before steel, will recognise the truth that the completion of the programme of 1945 is no new advance, but is the logical completion of what has already been begun to be built up in this country, and that those who seek to frustrate the decisions duly made in Parliament, and twice voted upon by the electorate, are those who precipitate party strife.

I now want to turn to two other important points which were made yesterday. It seemed to me that of the two main criticisms of the Government's rearmament programme one came from the benches round about where I am now standing and the second from the other side of the House. First, there were the pacifists who said that all rearmament was ruinous and would lead to disaster, and then there were the Conservative critics whose theme was "too little and too late."

I want to deal with both those points very seriously because they both deserve serious treatment. First, I would like to turn to my friends around me. I noticed an interesting sentence in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies). He said we need not have any rearmament for the following reason: A Socialist Government has no reason at all to fear Communism, as long as that Government is Socialist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1216.] I say to him that he had better say that in Berlin. If there were no Western troops in Berlin today, every German Socialist would, if alive, be in Siberia. Then, when he has been to Berlin, I suggest that he should go to Helsinki and tell a Finnish Socialist, after 10 years of experience, that if he is truly a Socialist he can live side by side with 1259 the Russian Communists. Let him tell the Finnish Socialist in Helsinki that and see what response he gets. That is all I have to say to my pacifist friends.

I can respect a pacifist who, like Dr. Soper, says perfectly consistently, "I am prepared to accept, in the spirit of Christianity, even the domination of the Communists in Britain. I am prepared to accept it because I believe God will have ordained it." I do not believe it is a true religion, but it is consistent, and no pacifist who does not go as far as that, has the right to tell anybody in the modern world that if he is a Socialist he can live safely side by side with Communists.

I shall never forget going to Prague in February, 1948. I would recall to the House that there is not a single Socialist who stayed in Czechoslovakia, hoping to collaborate with the Communists, who is not gaoled in Siberia or dead. I would also add that it is a responsibility of everybody in this House that those men died because all of us, including the right hon. Member for Woodford suggested that they should go back to Czechoslovakia and seek to collaborate with the Communists, with the result that this is the fate they have now suffered. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I agree that there were one or two exceptions on the back benches, but, by and large, it was the policy of this country and of all parties. I am glad it was, and that we tried to work with the Soviet Union as long as we could.

All I am saying is that they have paid the price and we have not. We all agreed above all, the right hon. Member for Woodford agreed, that there should be an attempt to co-operate, and that those people should go back to Central Europe and try to work with the Communists. Well, they are dead, and we bear the responsibility to see that no others die for the same reason.

§ Mr. Sorensen (Leyton)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) is not a pacifist?

§ Mr. Crossman

I admit variations of technique, but I still address my remarks to the pacifists and ask what is the answer to my question. It is not true that a 1260 Socialist, unarmed, can work alongside Communists without the threat of what happened to the people of Prague happening to them.

I will now turn to the more serious argument. We have been told throughout this Debate that we are doing too little and too late. I noticed in the brilliant speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) the passage where we have the words "frustration," "despair," "deterioration," "inertia "and "indecision," with the conclusion that had we taken his advice two years ago everything would now be all right with the Defence Forces. I am wondering about that. After all, a good deal later than two years ago the hon. and gallant Gentleman fought an election. He had a great opportunity last February to tell the people of this country that they needed an extension of National Service and that taxation should be enormously increased for the purpose of rearmament.

If the hon. and gallant Member knew all this two years ago, why did not he go to the people of this country during the election—and why did not his Leader—and say to them that we must have more austerity and not more social services? He says now it was the dentures which ate away our defence, but he also says that he never opposed the dentures, that he was always in favour of the National Health Service. He cannot have it both ways.

§ Brigadier Head (Carshalton)

It might interest the hon. Member to know that the policy for an increase in the pay of Regular soldiers and an extension of National Service appeared in the official Conservative Party document, "The Right Road for Britain."

§ Mr. Crossman

I am not denying that, but I am saying that the Conservative Party did not fight the election on the theme, austerity and rearmament. They said little about rearmament and promised more social services than anybody else. They did not tell the people last February that they thought the National Health Service and the dentures were a disaster for rearmament. That was not what was said.

But let us assume they did say that, and that we had taken their advice three 1261 years ago; let us suppose that we had launched this rearmament programme in 1947. Let us, first, see what would have happened supposing we had taken their advice about exporting goods east of the Iron Curtain and that for the last three years we had imported no coarse grain and timber from Russia, because I do not think they would have been so un-gentlemanly as to take the coarse grain and the timber and then to default on their obligations. Surely, if they are consistent they would have said, "We will not touch the coarse grain and timber because we believe in an embargo on trade with Eastern Europe."

We heard nothing of that. What we heard were constant demands for coarse grain and timber because they have helped us to build up our home-grown cattle and poultry and to build the houses we need. Do they seriously tell us that had they been in power they would have refused a million tons of Russian coarse grain and Russian timber? They were pleading for more houses, and for timber from anywhere with which to build them. Or again, suppose we had gone in for a gigantic rearmament drive instead of mechanising the coal mines, building generating stations and doing the hundred and one jobs we had to do in order to put our economy on its peacetime feet, would we be stronger for war than we are today?

Have we misused those five years even in terms of defence by re-equipping the industries of this country? [HON. MEMbers: "Yes."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Yes," but look at the production figures of this country. One cannot fight modern wars without plant, machinery and basic industries. Even from the point of view of Defence I would suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that five years' re-equipment has been absolutely vital and that re-armament three years ago would have left us in the sad position of the French between the wars, with a gigantic army and a rotten economy.

We had to re-equip, and I can only thank heaven that we were given those five years before Korea came along and the necessity of re-armament came. It is not only grossly unfair of Tories to say that it is "too little and too late"; it is stupid of them as well, because we can only re-arm effectively on the basis of a 1262 sound, expanding economy with new and renovated basic industries.

§ Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)

Does the hon. Member want us to understand that it was events in Korea, and only events in Korea, that created this decision to re-arm at all?

§ Mr. Crossman

We will come next, if the hon. and gallant Member wishes, to this precise question of the basis upon which we are re-arming and the purpose for which we are re-arming. What is the primary purpose of our re-armament today? I get the impression from some of my hon. Friends here below the Gangway that they believe there is an armaments race going on between the Western and Eastern blocs. They started a long time ago, if it did, and at first we refused to race. An overwhelming preponderance of military power has existed in the Eastern bloc for the last five years. Ever since the war ended they have had an overwhelming preponderance of military power.

Anybody who says today that we should aim, in peace-time, to maintain in the Western world armaments greater than or on a level with Soviet Russia is demanding the impossible of democracy. Totalitarian States can always have bigger armaments in peace-time than the democracies. That is one of the risks we run by being democracies. In two world wars we have won because we have had better armaments by starting late, but we have had to sacrifice ground to do it.

If anybody lays it down as a basis of Anglo-American re-armament that we should attempt to maintain as many divisions as Russia, and attempt to outdo them in an armaments race, he is making it certain either that our economies will collapse, or that we shall be driven into preventive war. The democracies could only sustain the Russian burden of armaments for a short time and, after that, the war machine would compel them to go to war. One of the reasons why I believe that this armament programme is so excellently designed is that it does not make war inevitable by completely transforming our industry into a war machine, and yet it gives sufficient indication to the Russians that we would be prepared to do so if the worst came to the worst.

1263 I take that to be the aim of the Government—the strengthening of our diplomacy in order to save the peace by giving an unmistakable sign to the Eastern bloc that we are prepared, in certain eventualities, to go the whole way. But we have not gone the whole way at present. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that in considering the size of the programme they should consider it on that basis—on how far it meets that particular job.

Furthermore, I agree with a very interesting part of the speech by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I do not think the main danger from Russia is an offensive move by the Red Army. I think the main danger from Russia is that she will attempt to destroy the democracies by forcing them to re-arm too highly and taking over as the democracies collapse. We do not want to play into Russian hands by doing precisely what she wants us to do, that is, kill ourselves with rearmament and rot underneath it. Every Government has this appalling responsibility, that it must achieve this balance between what is necessary to deter and what is necessary to defeat, always knowing that, if the worst comes, we shall not be fully prepared. We must face that fact because that is the disadvantage of democracies when up against totalitarian States.

§ Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, Northfield)

While I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has said, will he deal with the fact that it is Soviet policy to get hold of satellite States and twisted dupes for the fulfilment of their purpose.

§ Mr. Crossman

The precise object of this re-armament plan is to meet the situation provided by the precedent of Korea. Up to Korea the Communists in the Kremlin have done everything short of war. In the case of Korea, a secondhand war was started. What we have to do now is, by next summer, to have sufficient strength so that no further experiments of that sort can be undertaken. Even if we cannot have sufficient strength to defeat the Red Army when it attacks, we can have sufficient strength in West Germany and behind Persia to defeat second-hand aggression. We can look round the world at the danger spots where 1264 another Korea might happen and can have, between us, sufficient forces to crush it if it happens and hope to deter them from trying to do that at all.

The Opposition has never been statesmanlike, because they have never tried to assess this armament programme, as aimed not at preparing for inevitable war against Russia but at militarily deterring Russia from further Korean experiments.

The most obvious place where a Korean experiment might occur is Germany. In Germany there is the greatest danger of a second Korea. I know there is confusion in the House as to how we should meet that problem. There are those who believe that the way to meet the German danger is to have a German army as a contingent of Western Defence. I agree here with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, who put forward a more prudent, sensible and realistic policy. To begin with, he completely understands that what is really dangerous in Germany, the same as in France and Italy, is the indifference of the people and their hopelessness. There is their indifference to the danger of occupation.

I met a Frenchman in France and asked him what he would do. He said, "I will join the Resistance." That is heroism a bit late in the day. It is defeatist to think that one's job would be limited to joining the Resistance. The job is to deter people from creating a situation where one has to resist or go to Siberia. That is our problem—the morale of Western Europe; and I believe that even more important than the number of troops is the need to maintain a spirit of resistance.

I ask whether, in fact, the morale of people worth having in France will be improved by the creation, five years after a Second World War, of a German army headed by men condemned as war criminals four years ago. One cannot create a Germany army without officers and generals, and the only ones one can get are the ones of last time. To do that must demoralise decent people. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton. The first step is to distinguish between the defence of Germans against aggression from the East, and the suppression of insurrection in Germany. The defence of Germany from aggression by the Eastern bloc must remain the responsibility of the Occupying Powers. But the Germans must be given the power 1265 to suppress insurrection if East Germans try a Korea in Germany. What we should say to the Russians, and be open on it, is, "Whatever you give the Eastern Germans we shall give rather more to the Western Germans, slightly more men, slightly more arms."

§ Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

How are we to give them?

§ Mr. Crossman

There will be no difficulty in regard to a police force in Germany. We could allow Germany to have a police force slightly stronger than in the Eastern zone. This is one of the few cases where we and the Russians have something near common interest.

Both of us dislike the idea of arming Germany. If we show ourselves prepared to go as far as they do, then there is some possibility that they will be deterred from going any further, for they have Slav allies who dislike the idea of arming Germany as much as do our Western European allies. I hope, therefore, that the Government will maintain their rigid opposition to a German army, or a German contingent in an Atlantic Defence. It could only demoralise those who believe in social democracy in Germany and it would demoralise the democrats in France.

§ Mr. Boothby (Aberdeenshire, East)

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that this country should accept indefinitely the sole responsibility and burden of defending Germany from aggression in the East? How long does he think the Germans will submit to being told how many policemen they can have?

§ Mr. Crossman

I want to give the answer to that. The responsibility is not that of this country, of course, but of the whole Atlantic Pact group. As long as Germany is divided we shall have to have an occupation there. One cannot talk about a Western German nation, as one hon. Member wanted to talk; there is not a Western German nation. There is a nation divided, and divided deeply, unjustly, between West and East. That nation will seek to unify itself either on one side or the other. This, therefore, is a second best that we have. Grant the Germans the police force and say that in the short-term we, the Atlantic Union, have to "carry the can" in the defence of Western Europe.

§ Mr. Churchill

Am I right in thinking that at one time the hon. Member was in favour of a policy of neutrality for Germany?

§ Mr. Crossman

Of course, if we are looking at the long run, we all hope that there will not be a war between ourselves and Russia. In the long run there is only one solution—for Germany to be united. But if Germany is ever united, I want to see it neutralised; I should never trust it with arms if it was united. I am in favour in the long run of saying to the Germans, "We believe in your unity, but even then we shall have to neutralise you." In the short run and in the long run I believe we shall have to give the Germans the police and nothing else.

§ Mr. Churchill

I am not interrupting: unhelpfully at all, because I follow the hon. Gentleman's modes of thought with as much mental agility as I possibly can. I recognise his contributions to our discussions but, as I understood it, his idea originally was that there ought not to be a German national army. I was very glad, therefore, to find out recently that the Germans, or their representatives, did not want that and were willing, on the other hand, to make a contribution towards a European army or grouping of the different forces. Now, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is against that, too, but is in favour of a large armed police with an army inside it, which is what the Russians have in the Eastern zone. If we add to that, facilities for making weapons, and so on, are we not developing a German armed force which may conceivably be far less in harmony with our general interests than the one we have ventured to suggest?

§ Mr. Crossman

I accept the seriousness of the argument. I was about to add a concluding remark on the subject of Germany. In the long run, one cannot keep Germans from carrying arms for ever, and I agree with the German Social Democrats on this subject. They say they are prepared to permit a German army if it is a genuine European army serving a European super-State, and I believe, if I may say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as British people, we ought now to accept the need for a Western European State consisting of all those who want to-federate, because that would enable us to have a European army in which Germans 1267 can serve. We ought to be firmly outside it ourselves but allied to it. I think that is a solution which the right hon. Gentleman might think over. If, instead of going to Strasbourg and always giving the impression that Britain might be in a European federation, the right hon. Gentleman had gone to Strasbourg from the start and said, "We can never be in it; we will certainly help you all we can but hurry up yourselves and do the job "—then we might have gone a great deal further in uniting Europe than we have today.

I want to deal with one other problem which is outside Europe, for I do not think we ought to put all our eggs in one basket. It might be a very dangerous thing to agree that we should put everything into Western European defence, as some hon. Members are asking. It is quite clear to me that the danger point in the world is the Middle East and that those who press for us to undertake obligations in Western Europe which prevent us from maintaining defences in the Middle East, may be precipitating war. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), thought that the policy for the Middle East was that we should send West Africans to defend it. I would only say to him that some time must have passed since he was in the Middle East if he thinks that the peoples in the area would appreciate that compliment.

I suggest that it would be more sensible in the Middle East to arm the people who are ready to fight for their own freedom—and there is only one nation in the Middle East today which is ready to stand up for itself and fight—Israel; and that is the only nation not being armed by the British. We are arming the Egyptians, and it is no good hon. Members opposite complaining about that, because they urged the arming of the Egyptians against the Israelis. It was not until the Israelis were winning that the Opposition changed sides. I should have thought that the common-sense thing to do was that we should provide arms to Israel and Jordan and stop providing them to the Egyptians, who will always be neutral on the winning side.

Now I want to say a word about a peace policy. There has been a very legitimate demand from this side of the House, though not from the other side 1268 of the House, for a peace policy. Of course, it is a bit depressing for the Opposition. We hear them saying that everything in this country is terrible, that the country is going to pieces, that the Empire is collapsing; and, of course, if they believe all that, then life must be very depressing and the prospect must be dreary.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton)

It is dreary.

§ Mr. Crossman

But it is not nearly as dreary as the Opposition happen to believe—and if the hon. Member wants to interrupt let him make an open interruption.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

I was merely saying that this is drearier even than I had feared.

§ Mr. Crossman

I realise very well that the hon. Gentleman's dislike of common sense makes him dislike what I am saying.

Let us look at the peace policy, the chances of preventing war by this rearmament. If we are to prevent war by this re-armament one thing is essential—that Asia should be on our side. If the peoples of Asia go on to the other side there will be a war and we shall lose it. The key to the whole defence of democracy, therefore, is retaining the peoples of Asia on our side.

I would suggest to the Opposition that they ask themselves this question: if they had had the misfortune to be in power under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, would a single Asiatic be on our side today? Would India be in the Commonwealth and on our side over Korea? Would the Burmese be fighting on our side or on the other if he had done what he wanted? Would there be any chance of keeping Communist China out of the war if he had had his way? Let us realise, when talking about a peace policy, that the Socialist policy of a Labour Government has kept India in the Commonwealth, co-operating with us. By keeping India in the Commonwealth and co-operating with us, we have made it possible that we may succeed in dividing the Communist forces and keep Communist China serving her own interest and not that of the Soviet Union.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should reflect on the last six 1269 weeks. Consider the subject of Formosa. I remember, in the Debate in July, speech after speech from the Opposition demanding all-out toughness to Communist China. We were all just Socialist cranks when we said, "Korea is O.K. but Formosa is not." But what has happened in the last six weeks? The American Government have adopted the Labour Government's attitude more and more. [Laughter. Would those hon. Gentlemen opposite who laugh please read President Truman's last statement on Formosa? Would they notice the appointment of Mr. Marshall, a notorious supporter of an intelligent policy in respect of China—a policy which has been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman as well as by the China "lobby" in Washington.

That is the diplomatic job we have been doing with the Armed Forces. We are building them up, because there is one thing which is clear: if we want to influence American policy we have to contribute to the defence of the West sufficiently to make Britain a power for good.

In my view, nothing has been done more effectively to avert this danger of war than the job we did in Washington. We helped to prevent MacArthur from having his way and frustrating a sensible American policy. [Interruption.] Yes, there are dangerous people in America. There are people who preach preventive war. But there are strong forces against them. We have got President Truman and Mr. Acheson and the Fair Dealers. What is the thing that is saving peace today? It is the collaboration between a loyal Labour Government here and an American Administration which shares the same ideals, which wants the same sort of world, the fair shares we want in our Commonwealth. [Laughter.] New ideas are always laughed at by the Tories—until they adopt them in a few years' time. They will get used to these ideas in the end.

§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)

rose—

§ Mr. Crossman

I am sorry; I cannot give way.

I want to conclude by summing up very briefly. The reasons for our rearmament and the reasons for the scale on which we have done it are these. We do not want to make war inevitable by total 1270 rearmament, but we want to make it unmistakably clear to the Russians that if they try another Korea in Germany or anywhere else we shall not only want to stop it but shall have the power to stop it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite said we shall not, and that brings me to the point where the Opposition have been most disingenuous.

That country, both in the peacetime fight against Communism—by pouring millions into India, for instance—and in preparation for war has taken the lead—not in speeches but in deeds. We have done more than any other country in the world, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what the Government already propose is beyond the economic capacity of this country. We have gone ahead confident that America will help us, but with no assurance of the precise extent of the help she will offer. We have gone ahead in the belief that if we give more than we can afford our friends will follow; but we have no assurance. This has taken us far beyond the present level of our resources, while the Americans have made no firm commitment about the men they are to have in Europe or the dollars they will provide.

It would be more useful if the Opposition, who berate this Government for doing too little too late were, instead, to get the Republicans—their allies—in America to bring pressure on the other side of the Atlantic. What we can do does not depend on us alone. It depends on collaboration between the free peoples. We have gone far ahead of the French. We have gone far ahead of the Americans. I think we were right to do so. It re-moralised the Western world. But we cannot go beyond a certain limit. We cannot produce double the divisions in Germany, though the French might like it, without actual help from America.

Instead of always berating the Government about too little and too late, the Opposition might recognise the fact—and be proud of it—that this country and this Government have done more for economic reconstruction and for military defence than any other country in the world. This country has gone far beyond its resources, and the Tory Party, instead of yapping, might be praising the Government and giving it their support in achieving the things we require.

§ Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edg-baston)

The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) will scarcely expect me to follow him in the survey which he has made, because he knows it would be beyond my capacity. It is not my line of country. There are plenty of others here who would like to cross swords with him, and will no doubt do so, if they have the opportunity. You, Sir, have referred to the fact that there are some 85 more Members of the "band of hope" in the building, and I shall not try to waste the short time you expect me to occupy by talking about matters which I do not understand as well as others. I will stick to my last, and what I want to talk about is what has largely been left unsaid in this three-day Debate. We have heard a great deal about men and pay, military formations and political repercussions, but to my mind there has been singularly little said about what the men are going to fight with. That is the point to which I intend to apply my remarks.

The Prime Minister gave us certain information for which I, for one, was very grateful. He put the ball on the ground, and I should like to kick it along a bit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) made certain remarks, and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs touched on the subject, but they did not get down to it in the detail in which I should like to refer to it. I know that the Minister of State has had contacts with industrialists. I was out of town at the time, and they did not fetch me back; and since I have been here I have taken good care not to see them in view of this Debate, so that the Minister can be quite certain that I am not going to give away anything that he said to them. I am not going to let them down, I am not going to let him down, and I am not going to let myself down, because I do not know what he did say to them. This is entirely off my own bat.

The Army has a lot of equipment. The Minister of Defence mentioned it on the previous occasion. Very good stuff, no doubt, a lot of it. It has been put into cold storage, and is very valuable. However, old equipment in any war is not always good enough. We must always have new machines. It is vital that our people should be armed in an up-to-date 1272 manner. We have been spending money—and very rightly, I think—on research, so that when we get into production we shall have the right material that we should have—the very latest possible. Up to a point that is always a right policy, but I have spent my life dealing with research people, and I can assure Ministers that there comes a time when one has to lock them up and tell them to stop—tell them, "Go on with your work, but do not expect us to take notice of what you are doing today. We will do that at the next stage."

Now is the time to put what we can—what has been evolved by research so far—into production. That is the stage we are in today—only I think we should have been in it a bit of time ago. We have to start with the latest designs that we have. It is no earthly good listening to the research people saying, "In three months' time we shall have something better." They always will. In the past, hon. Members have come to me and have said such a thing as this, "I have got the very latest motor car." I said, "You have not." Then the Member would say, "Yes, the very latest." I would say, "It is an out-of-date model." He would say, "What do you mean?" I would reply, "Do you realise that the model you have bought was designed two years ago, and that a year ago it was put into production, and that there is a better one on the stocks now? But if you wait for it you will have to wait for ever, because there is always a better one coming along." That is exactly the position that the Government are in. They must insist upon going into production, and must not let the research people put them off by saying that they will have something better yet in such and such a time. There is no finality in anything.

There is another point I should like to make, and it is that we must have a continuous flow of production. We have to give continuous orders. I am trying to help the Minister by giving him advice from practical experience. We have to run risks if we are to get a steady flow. We have to be prepared to order stuff that we are not quite certain we shall want. It is quite impossible ever to get a complete balance. One has either to have an overlap or have a gap in production. One has to weigh up which is the most important, 1273 and I have always found that I would sooner have an overlap than have a gap.

Now, the Minister of State and the Minister of Supply will have to make decisions. I urge them to give extra orders as soon as they can, and not to wait until the last minute. I advise them to run the risk of having products they do not want, and run the risk of having to cancel orders and pay compensation, rather than run the risk of having that gap in production which will cost the nation a great deal more in the long run. I ask my hon. Friends who sit on the Select Committee on Estimates to remember this, so that if the time comes when Ministers have to say to them. "Well, we thought we should want these things but now we do not, and there has been a certain waste," they will remember that business people are doing exactly that, and that it is better policy to have a steady production, because we lose more if production comes to a standstill.

My reason for speaking in this manner is because history has a habit of repeating itself. My mind goes back to 1938, when we were faced with a set of circumstances which were in some ways similar to those that we face today. After Munich, I was in an industrial organisation, and industry was very worried at the position which was then disclosed. We were unable nationally to carry out our undertakings; we were not able to fulfil what we had said we would do; industry was very concerned, and I was asked to see the Prime Minister of the day. I took a deputation to see him and we put it to him—and the position is not dissimilar now—that industry thought they could do a great deal more to help if only they were given the information and called in to assist and if their experience were used.

I do not know what the Minister of State for Economic Affairs said at the meeting he had; he may have taken that line; but I do know that at that time I pressed Mr. Chamberlain, and he agreed. He was being shot at in the House and hauled over the coals, and so he took the opportunity of saying that he was appointing a committee, which I helped him to form, and which we called the Prime Minister's Panel of Industrial Advisers. There may be some hon. Members who remember it. I can assure the present Ministers that it helped. To 1274 start with, no more Questions were shot at the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, when he was able to refer to and get his information from this committee, because the House knew that he had got impartial people investigating these problems. It also helped the Departments who, although they did not like these, as they thought, busybodies coming in to start with, soon found that they were people who wished to help and who were not there to find fault; and we got magnificent co-operation from them.

Some of the preparations made were excellent, and I have no doubt similar investigations now would produce the same result. For instance, there was a splendid organisation for food. It will be remembered that when we had to have rationing, the schemes were prepared and ready. There was also an excellent arrangement for raw materials, and we found that practically every raw material we thought was scarce had been covered in some form or other. But there were ghastly omissions. We found, for example, that it was impossible to clothe the Territorials at their annual camp in August, and we had to suggest that there should be a clothing controller. A gentleman named Sir Frederick Marquis, who may have been heard of in other connections, was put in charge, and the Territorial Army was clothed for the August camp, with the exception of one Scottish regiment which had no trousers. I think they thought they were going to get kilts, but Sir Frederick Marquis was only asked to provide trousers.

Then there was the question of tanks. I had something to do with this, and I can assure the House that in the few months of investigation that we had it was impossible to get that job put right. Some of my hon. Friends will remember that, right through the war, we never got that job really right because we had not started in time. We were trying to overtake an enemy who had started and developed long before us. This time we are in a better position in many ways. In 1939 we had no engines for the tanks; we had to put in two lorry engines because we had not an engine big enough. As can be imagined, that complicated things. We had no guns either. One of the tanks that was in production when I went to the Ministry of Supply was armed only with a machine gun. The best we 1275 could put on were two-pounders; and it took years before we could get the suspension and the armour to take a big gun. We are a little better off now than we were then. We have got a good engine. The engine we did get last time was a revised aero engine, which is now in production. The question worrying us is: Can they make the number required? Again I have no inside information. Perhaps the Minister of Supply will tell us. I know of only one factory making this engine, and if they get their full increase, they will not, in my view, produce anything like enough engines. One factory, to my knowledge, is making modern tanks, but the quantity I understand the Army will want is very much greater than the capacity of any one factory.

If time were on our side, we could no doubt go on with development and build and equip new factories. But several years will be needed to do that. I do not think I am exaggerating, because one of the jobs I did in the last war, after the war had been on a year or so, was to get the Army fitted up with, among other things, rifles. A year after Dunkirk, scarcely a rifle was being made in this country—perhaps a few hundred a month. We lost practically all our rifles at Dunkirk and borrowed from the Americans. It took us two years to get the new factories equipped and rifles made. In the present situation it is no good saying that we shall expand and build. That cannot be done quickly enough.

Today we are short of electric power. Why? Because we had to switch over from making the equipment for the power stations and put those factories on to the job of making tanks and guns, and we are today paying the price, and we shall go on paying. If we are to have, as we need, rapid expansion, we must turn to the heavy engineering industries for these things and to the electrical industries, as we did last time, for radar and such like. There is no need to panic, or to say that we have to close down present production, or anything of that sort, because the demand will take time to work out. My point is that we must have the plans made now; we must now, step by step, get it going and work it up. In the last war we had to do it against time with the enemy on the Channel coast. This time we have 1276 a little more time, we hope. We must make our plans now so that we can expand in an orderly manner.

I have no doubt that the factories exist for making aeroplanes, and that the Ministry of Supply are in touch with the Society of British Aircraft Constructors in the makng of airframes. Last time we found that it was easier to make airframes than to make engines. What about engines this time? We have a new type of engine now. The reason I mention this is to help the Minister of Defence, because I know that people are saying "What you want to do is to go back to the old shadow factories and put them on to the production of engines." Today the jet engine is a totally different thing from the piston engine made in those factories before. Also, those factories have been turned over to civilian and other production, and it would take years to convert them. It is no good relying upon the shadow factories.

My own idea, for what it is worth, is that we should use our engine makers. There are today in this country people who understand jet engine making who are still, in my view, ahead of anyone else in the world in the way in which they handle these problems, because of the way in which the work has been coordinated—and a great deal of the credit for that goes to the Ministry of Supply and their Committees. The only way I can suggest is to use these engine makers, encourage them to go ahead, and get them to, as it were, godfather the whole production round the country and control the sub-contractors. We ought to be able to get the jet engines as fast as we need them, but it would take two years to build and equip new factories de novo.

There is running through military circles the admirable idea of standardising all our front-line equipment. I have spent my life trying to get standardisation in the motor industry, and it has been a hard job. I believe that we have made some progress in standardisation, but I am certain that in the time available we cannot standardise and re-equip the Army when we are talking about having so many divisions in the next few months, or the next year or so. It is a long programme. Let us go ahead with it, but at the same time let us use the existing factories and the existing production. 1277 Again, time is not on our side. We must use the existing models. We can do so, and there are many of them.

While the Army and the authorities are developing something special, let them look at what is already there. I could give details, but I am not going to do so here—I will talk about these things privately—because I am now speaking in a general sense. It is no good worshipping any ideal scheme. In business or national affairs we shall never get an ideal scheme. We have to be prepared, when we have surveyed the problems, to have the second best in schemes rather than to talk about the best and not get it. All this means sacrifice; that is the point to which I am leading. The Prime Minister said so, but the Prime Minister has to be guarded in what he says. I can say what I like, and I am only taken to task by my colleagues here or hauled over the coals by my industrial friends.

I maintain that this is going to mean very great sacrifices—not little ones. The Minister of State for Economic Affairs confirmed this, but, there again, he had to be guarded. We have to make sacrifices, and they are going to be very great—and not only financial. We are, all of us, going to be the poorer. One cannot wage a war or get ready for a war without it costing money. These sacrifices come down to everyone in the nation; everyone has to play his part. I agree that we should let those who can carry the biggest burden carry it. But it is not only money—labour is involved. I agree with the idea of taking all we possibly can to the development areas, but when we have done that, we shall not have solved the problem.

We are not in the position that we were in during the 1930's. We have not a large amount of surplus space, and we have not a large amount of surplus labour. We are already strained to our utmost to keep our economy going. In many cases the only way of getting what we want will be to expand on the spot. That will involve some terrible problems in labour. I was glad to hear an hon. Lady opposite suggest that now is the time to think about hostels and housing before we move the workers. Let the Government get ready for it. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, knows that in Coventry they want more labour. We want more labour in 1278 Birmingham; but we have not the houses or the workers. We could do much more if we had the men and women and the houses. If we are to have these things, let us plan them now. No one wants to leave his home to go somewhere else, but we may all have to do so. I am not up here because I do not like my home; I would much sooner be in the garden.

We are going to have an acute shortage of consumer goods in certain directions. People will not like it. They are already calling out. If we are to meet the Army's requirements, we shall have to go short in other directions. I am terribly frightened that, in spite of all that we can do and in spite of increased production, we shall not have enough of all the things that we need to send overseas and in that case we shall go short of imports. I hope to God that we can avoid a war, with all the sacrifices that it implies.

My friends in the textile world have said to me: "I hope you will mention the question of clothing." The textile people say that they do not know how they are going to clothe all these extra men. We shall have to make our suits last a little longer. We are just getting used to the idea of not having to apologise for the shine on our clothes, but we shall have to go back to doing with fewer clothes now that the Army need them. The boot and shoe people are also worried, and we may have to go short of these and other things. It is going to mean sacrifice.

I should like to give the Government the same advice as I gave to Mr. Chamberlain, that there is a vast amount of experience at the disposal of the authorities. Industry and those associated with it are only too anxious to help in a national emergency; but do not throw it at them that they do it solely for profit, because that is not true. I have heard hon. Members opposite say: "No wonder the steel people"—but perhaps I had better not mention steel today—" want to increase production; they want more profits." But surely they realise that the steel industry is stretched to the utmost and does not want to be upset or to stop what it is doing in order to do something else. This is going to mean less profit. There may be inflation and 1279 everything will go up in price; everyone will be worse off in the long run. Let us try to avoid inflation.

When people come forward to help, do not say that they are just trying to make a bit, and that every industrialist would sell his soul for extra profit. I know some men who want a bit of leisure; I feel like that myself sometimes. They are not trying to make something out of the nation; they are trying to help the nation. Industry is willing to do this, and there is a vast body of willing helpers among all sections of the people of this country. All they ask is leadership. They have to be told what is happening and given the full facts. According to the information which I read, the need is very great and the time is very short. Anything that industry can do to help the Government, I can pledge that they will do, if only they are given the opportunity.

§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) will not expect me to try to follow him into the very interesting mass of industrial and production considerations to which he has treated the House. That, I think, is more a matter for the Minister of Supply to deal with. I want, however, to comment on one point, which may have struck others, as it struck me, as having been said rather rashly, and which might give a misleading impression. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the reason why the country is now short of electric power is because the power stations were raided during the last war in order to provide armaments. That cannot be correct, because the country is now producing much more power than any of the existing power stations at the beginning of, or at any time during, the war. I am sure that he must have made some kind of slip in his statement on that matter.

I should like to turn to what I think is one of the vital points for consideration in this Debate, and which was dealt with fairly thoroughly, but, I think, rather unfortunately, by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I refer to the question of whether or not, and if so, to what degree, Germany should make a 1280 contribution towards the defence of Western civilisation. The reason why I want to intervene on this matter particularly today is because I have been extremely disturbed by the fact that whereas many people on both sides of the House and in all countries have been discussing this question, they seem to have overlooked the fundamental point, to which attention was drawn by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). It is when we are discussing this question we have to consider not how much we are going either to permit, or even instruct, the Germans to do, but how much the Germans are prepared to do themselves.

We have to recognise that on this special recall of Parliament, the Government cannot bring before the country a programme of re-armament or of preparation for national or collective defence without first of all testing and ascertaining the degree of support in the country for what we propose to do, and testing that by open Debate between the various parties in the House of Commons. Neither can Western Germany, or any other democratic Government, decide that they will lead their country into any expenditure of this kind, or sacrifices of this kind, until they have the same opportunity. Until now, these opportunities have been denied to the Western German Government, and, so far as I have heard up to this moment, there has been no suggestion from any side that opportunities for this kind of democratic test should be provided for them.

The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) issued a direct challenge yesterday to whoever dealt with the German question from this side of the House. He wanted an answer to the question of what moral right we have, when we cannot defend Germany ourselves, to refuse to allow Germans to obtain arms. I gladly accept the challenge, and reply that I think we have no right at all. If we are saying to the Germans that their place is with Western civilisation, that they should make some contribution towards the defence of Western civilisation to which they belong, we have no moral right to deny to them the opportunity of making that contribution, particularly when we are not in a position to guarantee them that security ourselves.

If that is accepted, then I suggest it is high time that the whole of the policy 1281 which has been applied to the German problem, not only by this country but by our partners—it has not been a unilateral policy, which is an important fact to bear in mind—should be immediately reviewed and, as far as possible, entirely scrapped. Why is this question of Western European weakness raised at all? Why is Western Europe weak? Western Europe is weak as a result of a world war, for which, I admit, Nazi Germany was responsible. She is weak because of six years of war and destruction, and the necessity to rebuild her economy as speedily and as rapidly as possible. It is universally recognised that the greatest single factor in European economy and prosperity is the great potentialities of Germany.

From the beginning of 1945, the policy that has been applied to Germany has been the policy that was laid down by the Potsdam Agreement. I have no particular objection to the basic principles of the Potsdam Agreement, and I have said so in the House before, when called upon to explain and defend what was a quadru-partite policy at that time. The basic principles of the Potsdam Agreement were that we should first of all secure the disarmament of Germany, which I think was generally agreed as necessary, secondly, the destruction and dispersal of all Nazi institutions and instruments of government, and, thirdly, that what even the Germans recognised to be a tremendous surplus of industrial potentiality created for war purposes should be used as far as possible to contribute towards the rebuilding of the other devastated parts of Europe.

With that programme I have no differences at all. It was not, unfortunately, the basic principles of Potsdam which were able to influence the implementation of the policy, but other factors which were quite external and quite apart from what most of us, I think, accepted as the real approach to the German problem. There was the overhang of the Morgenthau policy, the traces of which are still to be found, even in the modified policy now applied to Germany. At the time that was understandable. We had just emerged from six years of war. France, Belgium and Holland had emerged from years of occupation, and there were tremendous fears in the minds of those people, as well as bitterness and hatred. That was the first factor. The 1282 second factor was Russian intransigence—Russian's long-term policy, as it has now been clearly exposed to be, of trying to bring the whole of Germany under her domination.

There was a third factor which I am sorry to mention here, but we might as well recognise it and that is our Foreign Secretary's obsession with the fact that it was not Russia which was the menace to world peace but Germany, a philosophy or conviction which he expressed as recently as a few months ago. Recognising that, and recognising that even the Foreign Secretary must now surely accept, whatever he might think about the possibility of a future German aggression, that there is the glaring fact of the Russian menace at the present time which affects Germany as well as ourselves, we are entitled to hope that he will approach this problem on a somewhat different basis.

It was as a result of these factors that we had this completely indefensible policy of a long list of prohibitions and restrictions on German industries which were regarded as war potential industries, but which were, nevertheless, recognised as vital to any peace-time industry. Their banning or restriction could only retard—it has been said over and over again on both sides of the House in the last five years—the rebuilding of European economy, from the steel industry and the level of steel production to rubber, oil, clock and watch parts, down even not only to the banning of any merchant shipping activities but to the restrictions on building of fishing vessels of over 200 tons, thereby forcing the German fishing fleet, when Germany was on the point of starvation, to fish in the already overcrowded North Sea fishing grounds.

The argument was that if Germany were able to build larger boats she might one day find them useful auxiliaries for a German navy, although it must surely be clear that by the time Germany had a substantial navy, she would have been long out of our control and that these fishing vessels would not by then be of much importance. That was the philosophy and approach. It has been repeatedly said in the House, and it does not need much argument now, that the only effect of that policy could be to retard and not encourage the possibilities of bringing Western Germany or Germany as a whole 1283 into the family of Western democratic nations. I do not know what the hon. Member is saying.

§ Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

I was only saying that we said it many times when the hon. Member was in office.

§ Mr. Hynd

I have referred to the fact that it has been said again and again in the House, but I would remind the hon. Member that we were, unfortunately, parties to a quadrupartite agreement. Recognising that the tendencies which were influencing the policy of Potsdam were detrimental and deleterious, not only to Germany, but to Europe, surely, as parties to that agreement, our duty and responsibility was to seek to get the most liberal interpretation of the policy and its implementation, and as far as possible to secure modifications, which is precisely what the Government did.

§ Mr. Birch

No doubt the Government tried to ensure its modification with Russian agreement, but surely the point was that the Russians never observed the Agreement from the word "go," particularly in regard to Germany being treated as one economic whole? Therefore, I could not see why we were bound to that Agreement.

§ Mr. Hynd

I was going to deal with that point. Our responsibility was surely to try to get the most liberal implementation of that policy, and as far as possible, its modification. That is precisely what happened, so much so that when the question of the level of industry was being considered—and from it flowed the question of reparations and everything else—while the other parties, Russia, France and America, were trying to retain the German steel capacity at 5½ million tons, or less, this Government insisted that no less than 11½ tons were necessary for German peace-time purposes. They insisted on that so much that eventually the Potsdam Agreement broke down; the quadrupartite control ceased in Berlin, but immediately the other parties came back asking that negotiations should be re-opened, agreeing to our 11½ million tons—in fact, the Russians went further and asked for more.

That was the kind of policy that was in existence, and that was the kind of approach that was sometimes made by 1284 the British Government, though, unfortunately, not always. It is the kind of approach, incidentally, that saved the Ruhr for Germany, because there was no question at all—and Germany and the world should know this—that whatever may be the disadvantages of the Ruhr Control Authority, it was the only alternative to the separation of the Ruhr from Germany, not at the behest of the British Government but at the behest of the other Governments. It is to the credit of the British Government that the Ruhr Control Authority was established as an alternative. There were other things such as the separation of the Saar and so on, over which we could have no control, and in respect of which the most we could do was to try to safeguard the principle in anticipation of the ultimate peace treaty, which has been done.

The point I am trying to make is that with all this pressure and influence upon the original Potsdam Agreement, what we have been doing consciously or unconsciously as a group—America, France and England, if hon. Members want to put it that way, or if they prefer it America, France, Russia and England—is encouraging the Communist Party and the most nationalistic and demagogic elements in Western Germany, and destroying all the prospects of democracy. We have certainly not been encouraging or assisting the Social Democrats. The question now arises whether we are to modify that policy, and whether we are to let Germany have an effective opportunity now of rebuilding her economy, and of making some effective contribution to Western defence.

How is it to be done? I suggest, again, that we are not going to get that cooperation and enthusiasm by simply making concessions when we are forced to do so by events. We have done so in regard to the fishing boats, and the merchant fleet, and we are doing it in regard to some of the prohibited and restricted industries and the gendarmerie. We are considering whether we should allow Germany to form some kind of army to sacrifice their lives and wealth in common defence. That is not the way to do it. I cannot see that kind of policy having any other effect upon Western Germany than to impress them with the fact that the more they demand and the more difficult they make themselves, the more concessions they will get.

1285 It is time we realised that if we are to have Western Germany in the councils of democracy at Strasbourg, in the I.L.O., in the Marshall Plan and eventually, we hope, in the United Nations, we had better make up our minds what we are going to do and do it generously. Are we to allow Germany to come in not as some kind of pariah but as an equal partner? I know the question will be raised: Is it safe? Again, I put the point in reply—there is no assurance, whatever is done, that we shall be guaranteed permanent and ultimate security from anybody whom we now regard as an ally. I remember the "little gentlemen of the East" who were our allies in the 1914–18 war; we changed our minds about them later. History is full of such examples.

What we have to decide is where our interests lie and who have the most common interests with us. We have then to decide on a broad possible basis of unity and alliance with them. The question of what would happen if the Germans had some kind of an army, or if the Germans were part of some European army or an Atlantic force or a United Nations force was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. He said they would bring back the militarists and the general staff. May be, but there have been countries which have managed to build a new army with a new general staff. It may be that the Germans will bring back some of the old general staff. Then what will happen?

Let us assume that there was no Russian attack. There is the whole might of the Atlantic Pact and the fears of Russia and her satellites, and what could the German general staff do against this mighty force ranged against them? Take the alternative. Suppose there was a Russian attack on Germany. What then? Would there be any assurance of help from a German army or from the Germans as individuals if we maintained them in a condition of subjection, and prevent them from having any opportunity of taking any sides at all once their land or part of their land had been overrun by the Russians. In that event is it to be assumed for a moment that they would be left very long by the Russians without arms, or instructions how to use those arms? Would it not be infinitely better that they should be invited to take part in the defence of Western Germany, to 1286 advance and, even, if necessary, roll back with the Western forces, retaining their arms and their commitment to liberate their country from the forces which have overrun it?

We know what happened in the satellite countries. Neutralised people were swept up by Russia into the Russian camp, and were used to build up Russian divisions. The same thing would happen in Germany, and if it is a gamble I say let us have no hesitation in coming down on the side of negotiating with Western Germany now, asking her how much she is prepared to do, giving her an opportunity of consulting her people, asking them how much they will allow their Government to do, and getting her to commit herself to the side to which she rightly belongs—the side of Western civilisation.

As I have said, there are risks. Reference has been made to opinion in France. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, made reference to the fact that Russia, too, has a lot of Slav allies, who no more like the idea of arming the Germans than we do. Does it matter two hoots what the Russian Slav allies think about arming the Germans? If it were the Russians who were proposing such a step, what opportunities would those Slav allies have of protesting against anything of the kind? My hon. Friend knows very well that that argument has no value whatever. So far as France, Belgium and other Western countries are concerned, has my hon. Friend overlooked entirely the fact that within the last 12 months, particularly the last six months, there has been a complete revolution of opinion in France and in these other countries in regard to this?

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

And there have been some revolutions here.

§ Mr. Hynd

So far from being retarded, there is wider recognition of the need of greater freedom for Western Germany. The French, the Belgians and others are setting about building up Franco-German unity both in the industrial and economic field. There is no reason to believe that they would not be prepared to consider further unity in other fields as well. I am not saying that we should say to the German Government, "You can go on now and organise an army, air force and navy." Nor am I suggesting that we say.

1287 "You must be neutral." My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, suggested that we should tell the Germans that they should remain neutral. I am not suggesting that they should do anything of the kind. What I am suggesting is what has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, East, that it is not our business to tell the Germans any longer what to do in these matters.

We have sought in the last five years to build up German democracy, and we have secured local governments, Länder and now a Western German Government. What I am saying is we should tell that Western German Government that we recognise that they are faced with the danger which is common to all of us; that it is for them to make up their minds, having consulted their people, who put them into power, whether or not they are prepared to make a contribution to their own defence; and if they are so prepared to decide for themselves what contribution are they going to make.

If the Western German Government says—as I have been told they will say—that they do not want to be mixed up in any more wars because they have had enough and they do not like it, and that, therefore, they do not want to be re-armed, there is no alternative but to accept that, because we cannot force them to arm and fight for us unless we adopt the totalitarian methods adopted by the Russians. I think that that can be ruled out as a consideration. There should be no question of our telling them what form of contribution it is to be, whether a gendarmerie of this size or that, or a fully fledged army, navy and air force, or ground forces such as have been suggested in America, or a new or an old general staff. If we mean what we have said in Germany, that we wish to assist them to build up democratic institutions, it is now, when the testing time has arrived, for them to decide what they are prepared to do, and it is for us to make it possible for them to come to the decision.

At present, what we ought to do, although it may not be possible and there may be complications, is to invite the German Government to go to Washington and discuss these things with the representatives 1288 who are there now. There may be complications in regard to their coming into the Atlantic Pact. I do not forget, however, that when I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary only a few months ago, whether he was prepared to allow Germany to come into the Marshall Plan, he answered that nothing would be more calculated to destroy the Marshall Plan than any such suggestion; yet within a month they were in. My right hon. Friend might consider how far it is really impossible to invite Germany to participate in these matters, which affect not only her future and security, but ours as well.

If we cannot invite them to Washington, let us at least make it clear to them that we would like to hear from them and would like them to make proposals outlining their plan. If we found it so monstrous and preposterous a plan that we could not possibly accept it, we should have to consider whether we were to maintain, or try to maintain, the controls and the restrictions that have so far bedevilled our German policy. If it is a practical plan that can be fitted into Western defence we shall have come much nearer to the solution of our German problem, to which many people have already addressed their minds, but to which I have not yet heard what I consider to be a satisfactory answer. It is the problem of the place of Germany in the present world situation. I suggest that the solution which would be recognised by all of us as most fitting is the recognition now that Western Germany's place should be on the side of Western civilisation, to which she undoubtedly belongs.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton)

First, as a point of order, may I ask whether the blinds on the upper windows might be shifted?

The House has almost gone back, on this occasion, to the old-fashioned procedure when Bills or changes of policy of first-rate importance were founded upon Resolutions. The Motion that we have before us today, with its reference both to the two White Papers and to the draft amendment of the conscription Acts, is very much like the old-fashioned procedure of passing a Resolution and then introducing a Bill on the basis of that Resolution a day or two later. I 1289 hope I may be forgiven, therefore, if I begin my speech with what might seem to be a small point on so great an occasion. It is about the way in which the conscription Bill is being introduced and the way in which, in my judgment, it would better have been introduced.

I wish to suggest to the House that conscription is not the same sort of thing whether it is only for six months or for six years. You do not simply have more conscription by lengthening the period. The nature and the quality of the tax upon the individual, and of the loss to the State by the withdrawal of individuals from civil life, is altered, and not merely the amount of it, when we shift our conscription period from 12 months to 18 months or from 18 months to 24 months, or whatever it may be. I hope I make my meaning plain so far.

Therefore, I really think it was the duty of the Government to reintroduce the whole of the conscription legislation in order that the whole matter might have been considered in all its details. I have never met anybody who thinks that this matter has been very well managed throughout the last three years. I do not say that that is wholly the Government's fault, but it seems plain that the House of Commons ought to have had an opportunity of debating the whole thing and not merely of debating a Bill which amends by saying "For 18 read 24, and leave everything else as it is."

What I have been saying strengthens very much indeed the argument that the House ought to have been recalled sooner. If it is true that for the National Defence it is necessary that we should have 24 months' conscription by next Tuesday, it must be quite plain that we ought to have had the House called soon enough for the whole policy, and for the whole statutory regulation of conscription, to have been discussed. That is a comparatively small point.

There is another comparatively small point about which I want to say something before I come to the main topic of my speech tonight. It is the question of Communists in our midst. Surely the danger that arises from Communists inside a country depends almost wholly upon the climate of opinion in that country. It is really impossible to legislate confidently against disguised Communists. None of 1290 us would desire that everybody suspected of Communism should be put into a concentration camp, although conceivably in the heat of war that might be necessary; but the real chance of ensuring the safety of our country against Communists from inside depends very largely upon the climate of opinion here.

I venture to suggest to the House, and more especially to the Treasury Bench, that a very heavy duty lies upon all of us to make plain what rights we think Communists have in a human society. I put it very shortly, because I do not think this is matter for full discussion today. For what my view is worth, I would say that Communists have really no rights inside a society which reasonably regards them as dangerous, and that men who, like Communists, avow themselves to hold not only a view of the world which dispenses them from all moral obligations but also to belong to a party which has allegiances outside and above the country, cannot have the right to claim that the ordinary rules shall always be preserved in their case.

It may well be tactically right to stick to the ordinary rules in the case of Communists, but we ought to make plain to ourselves whether we do or do not think that is what we are morally bound to do, and then to make it plain to our countrymen that we decide that we are under no moral or constitutional obligation to continue to treat Communists as if they were inside the rules of the game; even though, so far and on the whole, it has been best to treat them as if they were. We ought to make it plain that that treatment is ex gratia and is not because of any right that the Communists have.

§ Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Is the hon. Member suggesting that the common law of England should not apply to Communists in this country?

§ Mr. Pickthorn

No, I have not suggested that. I thought I was making my meaning plain. I now wish to pass to the next part of my speech, which is about recrimination.

We have been begged to have party unity, in the matter of National Defence. I am sure we should all desire to have the maximum of party unity. We have been told that recrimination is no good; but recrimination is, I think, sometimes useful and sometimes inevitable. If I 1291 might adapt a definition used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during the war—I have forgotten exactly what he said—I would say that recrimination is useful in so far as it helps, if not to avoid, at least to observe past errors. [Interruption.] There has been a good deal of recrimination against the Tory Party. I could hardly find myself outdone in denunciation of the Tory Party were it not that every other party seems to me to be slightly worse.

But at the moment I wish to recriminate against the party opposite. I had rather intended to try to answer the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) but it is rather a long while ago now and he answered himself so often and on sc many different planes that he succeeded in rotating simultaneously on a horizontal and on a vertical axis, and I hardly think it is worth going back to him at length. However, he said that we were charging the Government with the old charge of "too little and too late."

About "too little," I want to say only one thing. We still do not know exactly how long it is considered that the money now threatened or promised will take to spend. In July we had no indication of that, and really it is quite meaningless to say that we mean to spend an extra £100 million unless we indicate by what date this is to be done, and when we may expect to have the armaments. It is like the old nursery joke "How long is a piece of string?" That was all we got in July. Even now we have not had it very clearly indicated to us, and I wonder if it is too late to hope that it may be more clearly indicated to us by what period it is expected that the sums which have been mentioned shall be usefully spent. If we are to argue the matter on the basis selected by the hon. Member for Coventry, East, whether or not this is too little, it is only fair to the House that it should have that information.

Now, on the question of "too late." Why are we doing this now? Does anybody know why we are doing this now?

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dunbartonshire, East)

No doubt the hon. Member will be able to tell us.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

I think I can, but what is much more curious is that the Foreign 1292 Secretary, with whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have better opportunities of consulting than I have, and whose language they may perhaps interpret more easily than I can, could apparently have told them that this necessity—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will wait a moment I will read it to them and then they can tell me what it means. The Foreign Secretary has known about this all along. He told the people in New York that "he did not think conditions in the world"—this is the language to which I was referring—" were any more acute than they were 18 months ago." So why is it that we now have this special Sitting and have to spend these special sums of money? Conditions are in sharper focus now "— he said— and people are more conscious of them. But whose business was it to make people conscious of them any time these five years?

The Minister of Defence told us in July that this Government had three objectives when it came into office. I wonder if he remembers what they were. One was the switch-over from war to peace. Have we done that yet? The right hon. Gentleman does not look very happy. Next, to achieve economic recovery. Have we done that yet?

§ The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell)

rose—

§ Mr. Pickthorn

I have one more and then the right hon. Gentleman can tell us. It was to implement the social service proposals which have for many years found a prominent place in the Labour Party's programme.

§ Mr. Shinwell

As regards the latter objective, we have achieved it.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

Which has been achieved?

§ Mr. Shinwell

The social services objective. That is agreed. There are no complaints about that. As regards achieving economic recovery, in spite of the efforts of the Conservative Party we have gone a long way in that direction.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

That is very interesting. Even now the Minister of Defence thinks that to say that, five years after the greatest strategic success in all history, we 1293 have achieved the social service proposals, is enough. When he talked of the three objectives of his Government he said nothing about Defence. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot any longer go on with the line that it did not matter how much they spent in money, labour, materials and attention on then-party programme—whether it was perfectly good or perfectly bad—that it did not affect our external situation or our capacity to be strong abroad. They used that over and over again in 1946 and 1947 but they had completely to abandon it at the time of devaluation.

§ Mr. Shinwell

I shall not have much time to reply to some of these questions tonight, so perhaps I might point out what I said. Perhaps the hon. Member will read it carefully. It is in HANSARD. I said that in 1945, immediately after our return to power and in the immediate post-war situation, we sought those objectives and, therefore, no one expected us to say anything about Defence. Not even the Conservative Party expected us to do so, and certainly they said nothing about Defence in the General Election of 1945.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

I cannot speak for the whole Conservative Party but I will say—I did not make speeches in 1945—that in my Election address I certainly stressed this. If the right hon. Gentleman studies me as carefully as I study him, he will read the Nottingham newspapers and he will find tha