§ 4. Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House exactly what privileges are accorded to the Soviet trade representative under the recently concluded modus vivendi; in particular, whether they include freedom from rates and, if so, for what premises; and whether they include freedom from customs examinations and duties and, if so, within what limits?
§ Mr. DALTONAs a member of the staff of the Soviet Embassy, the Soviet Trade Representative will enjoy the usual exemptions and reliefs which are accorded to members of the Diplomatic Body generally, with the nature of which the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, familiar. No special arrangements with the Soviet Government having yet been concluded, on the lines of those which His Majesty's Government is in the habit of concluding with other foreign Governments, the above mentioned privileges do not include any customs exemptions or any relief from local rates. As regards the latter, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on the 5th May.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKSWould a breach of contract by one of these gentlemen he subject to diplomatic representations?
§ Mr. DALTONThat would appear to be a question to put on the Paper.
§ 6. Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as a result of the Russian trade agreement, any form of diplomatic immunity will extend to the premises of Arcos; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to see that the offices of Arcos will be kept separate from those of the Russian trade commissioner?
§ Mr. DALTONThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement defines the offices of the Soviet Trade Delegation to which immunity attaches, and my right hon. Friend has been furnished with details of the rooms in Bush House actually to be occupied by the delegation.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKIs it true, as stated in the papers, that there are 25 rooms?
§ Mr. DALTONNo, Sir, that statement, like many others that appear in the "Morning Post," is false.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYCan the hon. Gentleman assure me that Bush House is not going to be the subject of a raid?
§ Sir K. WOODAre you going to put them through the third degree?
§ 9. Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic privileges, including rate rebate, given to the Soviet trade delegation will extend to any other buildings or offices occupied or rented for trade purposes other than the head administrative offices at Bush House?
§ Mr. DALTONThe answer is in the negative.
§ 10. Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic privileges extended to the Soviet trade delegation cover the entry of goods imported into this country only for the personal use of the personnel or extend to all goods invoiced to the trade delegation?
§ Mr. DALTONThe Soviet Ambassador, or in his absence the Chargé d'Affaires, alone enjoys free entry of goods, for his personal use only.
§ Captain CAZALETWill the diplomatic privileges extend only to the administrative offices, or to all the rooms rented in Bush House?
§ Mr. DALTONI am not quite clear whether my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the question of immunity of 1848 premises or to the freedom of entry of goods, but there is a later question on the Paper, which I think will answer more fully the point that he has in mind, and perhaps he will care to put a supplementary question on that.
§ 14. Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many foreign countries have trade representatives in this country; and how many enjoy diplomatic immunity for their representatives and for their premises?
§ Mr. DALTONExcept in the case of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, no foreign Government maintains in this country a trade representative regulating and carrying on trade generally on behalf of his Government. Other foreign Governments from time to time establish official agencies in this country in connection with various commercial transactions, but, without longer notice, I am not in a position to give particulars. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the only country whose trade representative enjoys diplomatic privileges.
§ Mr. SMITHERSDoes not the hon. Gentleman think that it is rather unfair that the trade delegation—
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not a question of what the hon. Gentleman thinks. Question 15.
§ 19. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the grant of diplomatic immunity for the offices of the Soviet trade delegation was first made on the initiative of His Majesty's Government or whether the Soviet Government made a request for it?
§ Mr. DALTONI am not prepared to disclose details of the negotiations which resulted in the Temporary Commercial Agreement of the 16th of April.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONCan the hon. Gentleman say whether, when this exceptional privilege was given to the Soviet Government, His Majesty's Government demanded a pledge from the Soviet Government that the Third International would discontinue their hostile activities against this country?
§ Mr. DALTONThat has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. HAYCOCKMay I ask whether the agreement as to propaganda was mutual and whether we agreed not to carry on hostile propaganda?
§ Mr. DALTONYes, Sir, the undertaking was mutual.
§ 20. Captain EDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the provisions governing diplomatic immunity laid down in the 1921 Trade Agreement were not embodied in the Temporary Commercial Agreement recently negotiated?
§ Mr. DALTONI would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to a question by him on this subject the day before yesterday. The 1921 Agreement, providing for the grant of certain immunities for the British and Soviet official agents appointed there-under, was made at a time when there were no diplomatic relations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government. An arrangement which may have been appropriate in the conditions of 1921 requires to be reconsidered and more precisely defined now that diplomatic relations have been formally resumed.
§ Captain EDENWhy did the hon. Gentleman say then, that there was no departure from the proposal of 1921, as he has now admitted that there was a departure? May I ask why the departure was made?
§ Mr. DALTONIf the hon. and gallant Member will look up the answer which I gave the day before yesterday he will see that I said:
I am not aware that there has been any departure from the principle inherent in the 1921 agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1920; col. 1436, Vol. 13.]To that statement I adhere.
§ Captain EDENDoes the hon. Gentleman still maintain that there is no difference at all between immunity for buildings and immunity for persons? If not, there must have been a departure.
§ Mr. DALTONI said that I did not admit that there had been any departure in principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the hon. and gallant Member's Friends will allow me to give a fuller answer to this question perhaps I may add that, now that we have a Soviet Ambassador 1850 in this country, the immunity of buildings follows as a consequence from the establishment of that Ambassador as the head of the Diplomatic Mission. The definition of the actual buildings to enjoy immunity under the Trade Agreement is of a limiting character, because if that provision had not been inserted it might have been possible for the Soviet Ambassador to claim immunity for all buildings he had hired or claimed that he was using. In fact, the limitation to clearly defined premises in Bush House is a limiting condition which I should have thought would have been welcome to the hon. and gallant Member rather than otherwise.