HC Deb 05 May 1930 vol 238 cc608-12
25. Sir A. KNOX

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the Governments of South Africa and the Irish Free State are excluded from the commercial agreement lately signed with the representative in London of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

28. Mr. SMITHERS

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons South Africa and the Irish Free State are excluded from the provisions of the temporary commercial agreement with Russia; did these two countries give any reasons; and, if so, will he publish them in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. A. HENDERSON

Hon. Members will observe, from Command Paper No. 3552, that the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State were excluded from the operation of the Temporary Trade Agreement at the express request of the respective Governments. The reasons which led His Majesty's Governments in the two Dominions to desire such exclusion are a matter for those Governments, and not for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Sir A. KNOX

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reason for that policy was that these two Governments like the Bolshevik Government less than he does?

Mr. SMITHERS

Did His Majesty's Governments in these two Dominions give any reasons for not coming into the commercial agreement?

Mr. HENDERSON

I have nothing to add to the answer that I have already given.

33. Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the clauses relating to hostile and subversive propaganda which were contained in the previous trade agreement with Russia have been omitted from the agreement which has just been signed; and whether he can assure the House that the pledge in the above respect given by the Soviet Ambassador on the resumption of diplomatic relations in December last has been carried out both in this country and in India and the Dominions?

Mr. HENDERSON

As regards the first part of the question, the exchange of Notes which was laid before this House in Command Paper No. 3467 obviated the necessity for any propaganda clause in the Temporary Commercial Agreement of 16th April last. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not had occasion, either on their own behalf or at the instance of any Dominion or India, to make any formal representation to the Soviet Government. The attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter remains as stated by me to the House in a reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on 10th March.

Sir W. DAVISON

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the case at Manchester last week of a notorious member of the Third International, who was specially sent to this country for the purpose of fomenting strikes and raising difficulties? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? It is very important.

Mr. HENDERSON

It is a question of judgment as to whether it is important. I have seen the statement in the Press and that is all I know about it.

Earl WINTERTON

When the right hon. Gentleman says the Government have no occasion to make representations on behalf of the Government of India, do I understand him to say the pledge has been carried out by the Union of Soviet Republics in regard to India, and that Bolshevist propaganda in that country has ceased since December last?

Mr. HENDERSON

I want the Noble Lord to understand what I say. I have received no representations on the point.

34. Sir W. DAVISON

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in recognising the right of the Russian Soviet Government to succeed to certain properties of the former Tsarist Government under the new trade agreement, he has obtained similar recognition from the Soviet Government as to their responsibility for the debts incurred by their predecessors?

Mr. HENDERSON

If the hon. Member is referring to the declaration by the Soviet Ambassador appended to the Temporary Commercial Agreement of 16th April, I would observe that this is simply a declaration by the Soviet Government of their claim to the ownership of certain property, and does not connote any recognition of this claim on the part of His Majesty's Government. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir W. DAVISON

Why is this special notification put on the White Paper giving the terms of the agreement when, at the same time, no equivalent statement is made to the British Government as to the debts of the previous Tsarist Government?

Mr. HENDERSON

I have nothing to add. I say it does not connote that we accept responsibility.

35. Sir W. DAVISON

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the official Soviet trade representative is to be exempted, under Article 2 (4) of the new trading agreement, from responsibility for the acts of State economic organisations, except in cases where such responsibility has been clearly accepted by the trade representative acting for and on behalf of the Soviet Government?

Mr. HENDERSON

Under Article 2 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement the Soviet Government accept responsibility for all transactions lawfully concluded in the United Kingdom by the Trade Delegation. But, owing to the existence in the Soviet Union of certain economic organisations and syndicates which are not directly responsible in the first instance to the Soviet Government for transactions into which they enter, it is possible that British traders might, in the absence of some such Clause as that contained in Paragraph 4 of Article 2, make contracts with these organisations and syndicates under the impression that the Soviet Government were, at the time when the transaction was concluded, a party to its details. The paragraph in question has, therefore, been inserted purely in order to protect the British trader, by defining clearly the legal liability of the Soviet Government.

Sir W. DAVISON

Is it not a fact that all trade with Russia is Government trade and, for that reason, it is receiving diplomatic immunity? Why should this special reservation be made in the agreement, which will be most misleading and difficult for traders to observe?

Mr. HENDERSON

I am not satisfied that all trade is Government trade.

36. Captain CAZALET

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic privileges accorded to the Russian Trade Delegation include the relief of rates on buildings usually accorded to Embassies and Legations?

Mr. HENDERSON

The agreement with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the subject of rates on the diplomatic premises of the two parties lapsed when diplomatic relations were broken off and has not yet been put into force again. When this has been done, the premises of the Trade Delegation will be exempted from the payment of the usual proportion of rates, in accordance with the terms of the Trade Agreement, whereby the Trade Delegation forms part of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Similar relief from local taxation will, no doubt, be granted to all the premises occupied by His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow. I may remind the House that, up to the rupture of relations in 1927, the premises of the Trade Delegation enjoyed a corresponding measure of relief from rates.

Captain CAZA LET

To how many buildings will this apply? If representatives of the commercial delegation take up other buildings, will this immunity apply?

Mr. HENDERSON

I have put the position before the House that there have to be two officials under a chief, and their offices have to be immune. Those offices will be in one building.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Do any of the offices include show rooms?

Mr. HENDERSON

I must have notice of that question.

53. Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the trade representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and his two deputies to whom are accorded diplomatic privileges and immunities?

Mr. HENDERSON

I have not yet been officially notified of the names of the officials who will occupy these positions.

26. Sir A. KNOX

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for granting diplomatic privileges and immunities not only to the Soviet trade representative and his two deputies, but also to the offices they occupy, in view of the fact that no other foreign traders in London enjoy such privileges?

Mr. A. HENDERSON

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery).

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON

Is not diplomatic immunity for commercial officials an entirely new principle, which has never been granted before?

Mr. HENDERSON

The right hon. Gentleman put that question to me last Tuesday, when I said that I did not know that it was new. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes for further information, he must put down a question.

Mr. THURTLE

Is not the existence of a State which does its trading on a national scale an entirely new fact?

Back to