§ 8. Mr. ALBERYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the declarations excluding the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State from the operation of Articles 4 and 6 of the temporary commercial agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whether he can state what the position is as regards any of the other Dominions?
§ Mr. DALTONThe position of the other Dominions is as stated in Article 4 of the agreement, which reads:
The provisions of the present agreement may, by mutual agreement, be extended with any modification agreed upon to any of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions (including any mandated territories administered by the Governments of such Dominions) or to India, by means of an exchange of notes between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of any such Dominion or India.
§ Mr. ALBERYAre any negotiations at present proceeding with the other Dominions for trade delegations to be located in those Dominions, and do the Russian Government demand diplomatic immunity for such trade delegations?
§ Mr. DALTONAs far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of the question 937 is in the negative, but, of course, these will be negotiations between Dominion Governments, and possibly conducted through our own Government to some extent, but I am not able to make any statement as to the view Dominion Governments may put forward in the matter.
§ 13. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the privilege of diplomatic immunity granted to the offices of the Soviet trade delegation is a new privilege not granted under the trade agreement of 1921?
§ Mr. DALTONThe Trade Agreement of 1921 did not specifically refer to the premises occupied by the official agents appointed thereunder, but provided in Article 5 that such agents should enjoy immunity from arrest and search. It is understood that the late Government took the view that the effect of this Article was to confer immunity front search upon the official premises of the official agent, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to dissent from this view of the effect of the Agreement.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIs the hon. Member aware that the late Government took the opposite view; that it only conferred in the words of the Agreement itself, "personal immunity."
§ Mr. DALTONThat is not in accordance with the advice we have received.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONMay I ask whether the Government, when they conferred this very exceptional privilege on the Soviet Government, got in return a pledge that the Third International should henceforth cease their hostile propaganda against this country?
Mr. MACLEANMay I ask whether any special privileges are being given to the Russian Government beyond what have been given to every other Government with which this country has diplomatic relations?
§ Mr. DALTONThe question put by the right hon. Member opposite has no relation to the question on the Paper, and that is why I did not rise to answer it. The answer to the question put by my hon. Friend behind me is that the Russian Government's monopoly of 938 foreign trade leads to a difference of treatment as between that State and other States where foreign trade is not a State monopoly. It has already been explained by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in answer to questions in the House that the line pursued by His Majesty's Government in this matter in relation to the Soviet Union is the same as that pursued by other Governments who have entered into trade agreements and commercial treaties with Russia.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONMay I put another question to the hon. Member? May I ask whether, before this exceptional privilege takes effect, he will get a pledge from the Soviet Government that hostile action on the part of the Third International will cease against this country?