§ The Prime MinisterI will, with permission, make a statement on Question No. 13 about the case of Mr. Sanders and other matters.
The Hungarian Government have repeatedly refused permission for Her Majesty's Consul at Budapest to visit Mr. Sanders. The last occasion on which representations on the subject were made to the Hungarian Government was 6th December, 1952. The Hungarian Government replied that permission would not be given because Mr. Sanders had been convicted of espionage.
Her Majesty's Government have made repeated efforts, as did their predecessors, to secure Mr. Sanders' release. As the House will recall, in December, 1949, they broke off negotiations for a trade and financial agreement with Hungary because of the Hungarian Government's refusal to allow the British Consul to visit Mr. Sanders in prison. Negotiations were never resumed and Hungarian imports into the United Kingdom have, as a result, been virtually excluded. Meanwhile, the Hungarian Government has proposed that Mr. Sanders should be exchanged for Lee Meng, a Chinese woman bandit, whose death sentence is still under review in Malaya.
There can be no question of bartering a human life or deflecting the course of justice or mercy in Malaya for the sake of securing the release of a British subject unjustly imprisoned in Hungary. Every effort will continue to be made by Her Majesty's Government to induce the Hungarian Communist Government to release Mr. Sanders, with whose family and friends we express our deepest sympathy.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesWhilst appreciating the reasons why the offer could not be accepted, could the Prime Minister state how long ago this offer was made, because I understand it was made some weeks ago? Could not unnecessary distress to the family have been avoided had a decision been more quickly reached?
§ The Prime MinisterI am afraid I cannot give all the dates on the spur of the moment. I gave a great deal of consideration to the answer I have just given. It does not, of course, exclude further consideration of the matter once the 37 question of the capital sentence has been resolved by the authorities responsible. But I do not wish to say anything more than that at the present time.
§ Mr. BellengerIs the Minister laying down a principle in his answer about bartering one life against another? Does he not recollect that in the case of Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart an exchange was made and, therefore, although the House may understand what the Prime Minister has said, surely he should not depart from a method merely because the individual at stake may not be so important?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is matter upon which every hon. Member can judge upon his conscience, and no doubt he can also refer to precedents. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman, it was in January that leave to appeal to the Privy Council was sought in respect of the sentence. It is only a few days ago that leave to appeal to the Privy Council was refused by the Privy Council. Therefore, there has been no needless delay in dealing with this serious and painful subject.
§ Mr. DaviesSurely, if the principle that there should be no bartering of human lives governs the decision which has been made, whether an appeal from Malaya to the Privy Council was made or not would not be relevant to this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of the delay in reaching a decision the Sanders family learned of the offer through the Press, which naturally must have caused them far more distress than if they had learned of it after a decision had been reached
§ Several Hon. Members rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must get on.