HC Deb 07 December 1938 vol 342 cc1321-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

I desire to bring to the notice of the House certain developments which have recently taken place in connection with the Spanish civil war. The House is well aware that almost every Government associated with the Non-Intervention Committee has refused to grant belligerent rights to the Spanish insurgent authorities until all foreign combatants have been withdrawn from both sides in the Spanish war. Although the whole of the foreign volunteers have been withdrawn from the side of the Spanish Government, large numbers of Germans and Italian troops are still in the service of General Franco, and consequently belligerent rights have not yet been granted as provided for in the agreement of July, 1937. The position, therefore, to-day is that General Franco has no right under international law to inter- fere with non-Spanish shipping and any attempted blockade on the part of General Franco and his associates would be quite contrary to international law.

What is happening to-day? A very serious position has arisen in the Mediterranean. The freedom of the seas is, for the second time, being menaced. Merchant shipping can no longer carry on its lawful occasions without being subjected to seizure and eventually confiscation, in complete violation of international law. General Franco's warships are patrolling the Mediterranean. They are seizing, and have seized, a large number of non-Spanish ships, taken them into port and solemnly established prize courts to deal with them. I have in my possession a record of the trial of the captain and first officer of a Greek ship. Both the captain and the first officer were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, and both the ship and the cargo were ordered by the court to be confiscated. Incidentally, reference is made in the proceedings to the "First Admiral of the Mediterranean Blockade Forces." That is an astonishing state of affairs, having regard to the fact that belligerent rights have not yet been granted.

The "Times" of 6th December, reports that a Norwegian ship, the "Norseman," plying from the Black Sea to Oslo, has been captured, taken to Palma, and there condemned by this so-called prize court; and the Foreign Minister of Norway has stated that it is a very serious matter. Of foreign ships with British cargoes, we know that nine have been seized and released following representations by His Majesty's Government. I must confess that I find no reluctance on the part of His Majesty's Government to make either protests or representations, but that seems to be as far as they are prepared to go. It has been stated that 15 ships still remain in General Franco's hands. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that 15 foreign ships in which British interests are affected, either by way of insurance or British cargoes, are still in the hands of General Franco? I believe it is true to say, incidentally, that since the civil war began more than 7o neutral merchant ships have been illegally seized by General Franco's war vessels.

We were informed two days ago, by a statement issued from the Foreign Office, that an agreement had been made between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish insurgent authorities whereby the insurgent authorities undertook not to interfere with any ship, foreign or British, carrying a British cargo from the Black Sea to this country. I take it that the ships in question are those which are carrying the wheat recently purchased in Rumania. It was also stated that a further list was to be prepared. I understand—I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has received the same information—that what takes place at Palma is this. The ships that are seized by the rebel cruisers are taken into this port and then the owners of the ships are subjected to a form of blackmail by the Spanish insurgent authorities. If they will sign an undertaking not to trade with the Spanish Government in future, their ships are released, and if they refuse to sign that undertaking, their ships are confiscated. That is a very extraordinary state of affairs to allow in these days.

But this arrangement apparently has been made between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish insurgent authorities. We send in our list of ships and General Franco graciously agrees not to interfere. What is the effect of this arrangement? First, it tacitly accepts the position that General Franco is, de facto exercising belligerent rights and that His Majesty's Government are not interested, so long as British ships and British property are not interfered with. I suggest that that arrangement is absolutely contrary to the spirit of Nyon, and the collective reply there of nine Governments to acts of piracy in the Mediterranean which to quote the Preamble of the Agreement "constituted a violation of the rules of international law." The arrangement at Nyon provided for collective measures being taken in defence of international law and morality. To-day His Majesty's Government do a deal with an insurgent authority, which is equally guilty of violating international law. In effect, His Majesty's Government say, "Leave our ships and our property alone, and you will have no trouble with us."

Is this the thin end of the wedge to enable belligerent rights to be exercised de jure by General Franco? Gone, it seems, is our traditional faith in the freedom of the seas. "Greece, Norway, Sweden, Holland," we say, "Let them look after their own interests, we are no longer interested in international law and morality. "But I would like to remind the House of the great services rendered to this country during the Great War by the shipping of those small neutral countries bringing in supplies that were vitally necessary to our welfare in those years. The French Government have sent a warship to the Straits of Gibraltar to protect their shipping interests. His Majesty's Government send protests. What a humiliating position. But, of course, behind General Franco is the shadow of Mussolini, and so Britain gives way. May I appeal to the Under-Secretary, in spite of the arrangement which has been made with General Franco to protect our own shipping apart altogether from what may happen to the shipping of other countries and apart altogether from this fundamental principle of the rule of international law and morality, not to sacrifice the freedom of action of His Majesty's Government to co-operate with other governments, if necessary to protect our shipping and to combat this unlawful interference with the merchant shipping of the world? Finally, I would urge upon him that this country is not without moral and material power. I suggest that if we were merely dealing with General Franco as a typical revolutionary we should have treated him very differently. It may be that we have to realise that behind him is the power of Germany and Italy. If so, let the Under-Secretary be frank with the House and say so. If, on the other hand, His Majesty's Government are not to be blackmailed by General Franco or any other dictator, I hope they will take steps, in co-operation with other interested governments, to see that it will be made possible for the merchant seamen of our own country and all other countries to carry on their voyages, according to law, without molestation by those who may well be called the pirates of to-day.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts

As I understand the position, the Nyon Agreement does protect neutral shipping in the Mediterranean against being sunk, either by aircraft, by submarines or by surface vessels, that agreement being carried out by the naval Powers of Great Britain and France between them. Why cannot that agreement, which was the only successful arrangement that the British Government and the other Government concerned have ever made as regards Spain, be extended so that the neutral shipping of the smaller countries can be protected from this illegal seizure? The seizure of ships may not be as spectacular as their sinking without warning, but it is just as illegal, and it is a further extension of General Franco's illegal acts on the sea. The question, therefore, that I want to ask is: What is the objection to British ships—a British naval patrol—being authorised or instructed to go to the assistance of neutral ships, which would be carrying non-intervention officers if going to Spain, or which could easily be found, by examination of their papers, not to be going to Spain? What is the objection to extending the Nyon Agreement so as to prevent these illegal seizures?

11.17 p.m.

Commander Marsden

We hear so much about belligerent rights being granted to General Franco that I would like to have it made clear whether belligerent rights already exist for the Spanish Government—HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Therefore, if we granted belligerent rights to General Franco, conceivably we should also grant them to the Spanish Government. It is true that they would not be of much use to the Spanish Government, because earlier in the proceedings, when the Spanish Government had a preponderating navy, they executed some 300 of their officers, so that we do not hear so much about their navy now. The other point is this: If I take the hon. Member's figures as correct—I am not disputing them—as to the ships stopped, searched or seized, those, I understand, were not English. So I should like to know whether any protest has gone to General Franco, let us say, from the Greek Government, who, I may remind the House, have a navy of their own to protect their own shipping.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler)

The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) gave me notice on 5th December that he was dissatisfied with the action taken by His Majesty's Government to protect British property in the circumstances which he has described. It is my case to show that in fact the action of His Majesty's Government has been very effective in one particular category of ships and that we have had a great deal of success in another category, and I think it would be well to describe to the House the two different categories. The first was the case, which the hon. Member mentioned, of the grain ships chartered to bring grain from Rumania, the cargoes being owned by His Majesty's Government. The action taken by the Government resulted in the release of two ships which had been detained, the "Mount Cynthos" and the "Nitsa," which were released on 1st December and sailed on 2nd December. This was due to the energetic representations made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the British Agent. These particular ships have a special character. They were under British charter; their cargoes were the property of the British Government; they were bringing grain from Rumania to this country.

Special instructions were, therefore, given to the British Agent at Burgos and he has since given a list to General Franco's administration of the various ships involved in this trade, of which there are nine British, 14 Greek and one Yugoslav. They are all carrying cargoes similar to the "Mount Cynthos" and the "Nitsa." In response to these energetic representations and the action taken we have received assurances from General Franco's administration that these ships will not be molested. There will, therefore, be no further trouble with these particular ships. I think that it is satisfactory, in view of the representations made from the other side of the House, that we should have ensured that this particular problem will not trouble us again. The Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean has been informed of these assurances, and has been given a list of the ships in respect of which they were given.

Mr. Noel-Baker

How many days were these ships detained?

Mr. Butler

One of them was detained on 23rd November, and the other on 26th November. As I have informed the House, action was taken at the Foreign Office directly the nature of the cargo was ascertained and clear to us, and there was no avoidable delay in the action, which was successful, in releasing these ships. So much for the cases in which the British Government have a clear and direct interest in the cargo.

There are certain outstanding cases about which the hon. Member asked. There are now 14 foreign ships detained in which there is a private British interest. The House will realise that there is some difficulty in the British Government knowing, at any rate ahead, what particular private interest there may be in certain of these ships. It may be an interest solely in the insurance, or in the charter, or in the cargo. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the seamen!"] In most cases the seamen are foreign, as the ships are foreign ships. Of these cases, the interest in nine was solely in the insurance, in five in the cargo or part of the cargo, and in one in the charter. In all these cases representations have been made by the British Government. We have, of course, as they are foreign ships—and the House must have this quite clear—supported the action taken by the Government concerned—the Government of the flag. The hon. Member asked whether we have been in touch with foreign Governments. In the process we have supported representations made by the Greek, Norwegian, Latvian, Estonian and Netherlands Governments. We have been in touch also with the American and French Governments.

We have not only been in touch with foreign Governments, therefore, but have supported the representations which they have made in respect of their own ships. As the result of those representations, made over a certain period, nine ships have been released, and I am glad to state that two more—the "Norseman" and the "Garoufalla"—have also been released, according to the latest information I have received this evening. In both categories we are achieving success in liberating these vessels, and I am assured by our Agent, though I do not want to give categorical information as to particular vessels, that there are others which he hopes will be released in the near future.

If the House examines the case of the "Garoufalla" they will see the difficulty of this matter and that we have had some success in a complicated situation. This is a Greek ship, carrying a Dutch-owned cargo to Rotterdam, and the only British interest is that the cargo is insured in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we have secured the release of this particular vessel, just as we have also secured very recently the release of the "Norseman." These are the types of cases in which British interests are involved. In all such cases we put the facts clearly to General Franco and backed up those facts by energetic and immediate representations. We would not and we could not intervene when purely foreign interests are concerned, but we have always intervened when there has been any sort of British interest in the cargo, charter or insurance. This does not mean that we regard this interference by General Franco's forces as legal. The very opposite is the case. It is, as the hon. Gentleman declared, illegal, and by receiving from General Franco's Administration the assurance about the particular grain ships which fall into the first category we do not tacitly or in any other way concede belligerent rights to General Franco. The position as regards belligerent rights is, as I have so often stated to the House, that we accept the Non-Intervention Committee's plan and the position as to belligerent rights taken in that plan. They would be granted only if a substantial withdrawal of foreign nationals had been attained. At this stage I must answer my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden), who asked whether belligerent rights had been granted and whether they were in fact granted to the Spanish Government. The answer is "No," and if we do grant them, they will, of course, be granted to both sides. He also asked whether the Greek Government had made representations. I have answered that by saying that they have made representations and that we have backed the representations of the Greek Government. I think that in my reference to belligerent rights I have answered the point of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), and I am just coming to his point in relation to the Nyon Conference.

I have said that we do not regard this interference as legal but, in the peculiar circumstances of the Spanish war, we regard the steps that we have taken as the most appropriate. These latest cases must in our view be regarded as falling within a different category from those which led up to the Nyon Conference. Then ships were being violently attacked and sunk, there was a risk to human life and in the words of lawyers, always dear to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), these acts were contradictory to the dictates of humanity. I have no wish to minimise the seriousness of the present cases, but here the same measures do not appear to us to be called for as in the case of Nyon. But that does not mean that we propose to sit back. The position is being closely watched. Sir Robert Hodgson is pursuing negotiations upon the whole matter, and I hope the House will feel reassured by the comparative success we have had in the various categories.

Let me repeat that in the first category the ships are on their way and we have assurances about them—that is the grain ships from Rumania. In the second category several of the ships in which there was considerable British interest have been released. We think that those measures are the most appropriate in the present difficult circumstances. We are not leaving the matter there, but propose to pursue it energetically.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.