§ 3. Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries are in arrears at the present time, and to what extent, in their contributions towards the expenses of the Non-Intervention Board; and whether any countries have given notice of their intention to cease contributing?
§ Viscount CranborneI understand that it is contrary to the practice of the Non-Intervention Committee to furnish to any Government detailed particulars regarding the payments into the fund made by the. various participating countries. But I am informed that, as regards the majority of the countries, there are substantially no arrears due. As regards the second part of the question, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has, I understand, intimated that it does not propose to make the payment due on 8th October last or further payments until agreement has been reached for restoring and strengthening the observation scheme.
§ Mr. ManderIs it really worth while any country paying this contribution? Can the Noble Lord say which countries are covered by the first part of his statement?
§ Viscount CranborneI will repeat what I have said in the answer. It is contrary to the practice of the Non-Intervention Committee to furnish any Government with detailed particulars. As to the payments into the fund, I can give the hon. Member the assurance that as regards the majority of the countries, there are substantially no arrears due.
§ 5. Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is demanding compensation from the administration of 1747 General Franco for the detention of British ships conducting legitimate trade with Government Spain?
§ 8. Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total amount of claims outstanding against General Franco in respect of compensation for attacks on or damage to British ships; and what is the present state of the negotiations regarding these claims?
§ Viscount CranborneA considerable number of ships have been seized and unlawfully detained, and a few have been damaged or sunk, as the result of attacks by the Salamanca authorities. In addition, various British-owned cargoes carried in foreign ships have been unlawfully seized and detained. In all these cases His Majesty's Government have protested against the action of the Salamanca authorities and have reserved the right to claim damages, but have not yet presented any claims in detail, and His Majesty's Government are not at present in a position to state what the amount of these claims is.
§ Mr. GallacherHas the Under-Secretary made is clear that these are acts of piracy and that the fullest compensation will be demanded from the Salamanca authorities?
§ Viscount CranborneI have already said that we reserve the right to demand compensation, and by compensation I mean full compensation.
§ Mr. GallacherBut has it been made clear that we regard them as acts of piracy?
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs it the case that the Foreign Office has before it at the present moment a claim of £61,000 from one firm of shipowners alone, and can the Noble Lord say what is being done in respect of that claim?
§ Viscount CranborneI should like to have notice of the details of a claim. I understand the general practice in the case of hostilities is that arrangements are made for a settlement at the end of the conflict. I understand that has been the universal practice in the past.
§ Mr. ThorneWhat will happen if General Franco files his petition?
§ Mr. H. G. WilliamsCan the Noble Lord say by what method compensation is exacted from a Government which you do not recognise?
§ 6. Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the number of Italian troops that have reached or left Spain since 1st October of this year?
§ Viscount CranborneI have been in touch with the Non-Intervention Board, and I understand that certain reports alleging that Italian troops have reached or left Spain since 1st October have been investigated, but that the Board has no confirmation.
§ Mr. StraussDoes that mean that no troops have arrived in Spain?
§ Viscount Cranborneit means exactly what it says. It means that the Board have no confirmation of such rumours.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs it not the case that the Board have never had any confirmation of the arrival of Italian troops in Spain, which we know are there?
§ Viscount CranborneThat appears to be an extension of the previous question.
§ 7. Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the course of his inquiries into the case of the "Jean Weems," he has ascertained whether the attack on the vessel was deliberate or accidental?
§ Viscount CranborneThere can be no doubt that the attack was deliberate in the sense that the dropping of bombs on the ship was a deliberate action. From my information it was, however, undertaken under the impression that the vessel was carrying armaments.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerDo the Government accept as a legitimate explanation that an aeroplane believes that a ship is carrying arms; and even if it were, is it a justification for sinking a ship on the high seas?
§ Viscount CranborneNo, we do not regard it as legitimate.
§ 9. Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the captain of the British steamer "Jean Weems," sunk by bombs from an aeroplane when 60 miles off the coast of Spain, has stated that the Union Jack was prominently displayed on the 1749 deck of his vessel at the time of the attack; and what steps he proposes to take to protect British ships in the future?
§ Viscount CranborneAccording to my information the "Jean Weems" was 15 miles from the coast when the attack took place. Reports received by my right hon. Friend do not specify that the Union Jack was displayed on deck at the time. With regard to the last part of the question, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question put to him on 1st November by the right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in which my right hon. Friend referred to the consideration of future arrangements for strengthening the measures against air attack now in force under the Nyon Agreement. This consideration is being urgently pursued with the French Government. His Majesty's Government have also, as the House is aware, required assurances from the Salamanca authorities regarding the future.
§ Mr. JenkinsIs the Noble Lord aware that the captain of the "Jean Weems" has now arrived in this country and has made a statement with regard to the sinking of that ship, in which he says; "We were flying the Red Ensign and the non—intervention emblem, and we had the Union jack painted on the poop and the deck house. When the aeroplane first flew over the ship she saw the whole of that, but despite that she returned and sunk the ship when she was 53 miles from Barcelona"?
§ Viscount CranborneI am not disputing the statement about the Union Jack. I am merely saying the the reports we have received do not specify that particular fact. As regards the distance, we have been carefully investigating it. Our report says 15 miles from the shore. That is not a point of principle, although it is a point of fact. It makes no real difference.
§ Mr. JenkinsWill the Noble Lord consult the captain as to the exact position of the ship when she was sunk and take definite steps to protect British seamen in such circumstances?
§ Viscount CranborneYes, but I am pointing out that whether it is 15 or 60 miles from the coast, it is outside territorial waters.
§ Mr. ThurtleCan the Noble Lord explain why there has been a change in the phraseology of the Foreign Office, which now refers to the Salamanca authorities, whereas formerly it referred to the insurgent authorities?
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs it not very dangerous for our ships to fly the Union Jack, in view of the fact that it is the one flag which pirates seem to think they can attack with impunity?