HC Deb 30 November 1955 vol 546 cc2289-93
22. Mr. Swingler

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had recently with other member States who are parties to the United Nations Resolution on trade with the Communist bloc about the reduction of strategic controls.

34. Mr. Donnelly

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the discussions taking place on the revision of the list of goods which it is permissible to export to China.

Mr. H. Macmillan

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 7th November.

Mr. Swingler

Can the Minister say when this question will be brought forward? Is it not a fact that the basic reason for these controls has now disappeared because that was the existence of hostilities in Korea; and that, therefore, there is now a widespread disregard of these controls by many countries? That being so, would it not be a useful initiative on the part of the Foreign Secretary to bring this matter forward in order that there can be some rationale about the policy of the Western Powers?

Mr. Macmillan

All these matters are in our minds, and I am grateful for the relevant arguments which the hon. Gentleman has given me.

Mr. H. Wilson

All these arguments seem to have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and in the minds of his colleagues for two and a half years now, but we have still had no answer to it at Question Time. Will the Minister say whether, as a result of prolonged lucubrations and the arguments which my hon. Friend has just given to him—which are not new—he is yet in a position to take the initiative in this matter at the United Nations?

Mr. Macmillan

I will answer that question. I am not yet in a position to do so.

Sir R. Boothby

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that this seems to be the only hopeful line of advance towards improved relations between East and West, he can give an assurance that the question is being actively studied by Her Majesty's Government with the Government of the United States?

Mr. Macmillan

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman has just said, in answer to a supplementary question, that he is not in a position to raise the matter at the United Nations. Will he say why not?

Mr. Macmillan

Because I do not think it would be timely.

36. Mr. de Freitas

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United Nations resolution of 18th May, 1951, on the embargo of exports to China related to arms and implements of war, and, in view of this, whether he will now seek to amend the list of embargoed goods so that we may export to China marine engines for craft engaged in river and coastal trading.

Lord John Hope

The United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, refers not only to arms and implements of war, but also to transportation materials of strategic value.

Mr. de Freitas

Has the President of the Board of Trade told the Foreign Secretary that the firm in Lincoln which has been shipping such goods to China for decades was prevented from selling over £500,000 worth of marine engines? Surely that is perfectly absurd today. Will the hon. Gentleman not press for a revision of the list?

Lord John Hope

The hon. Gentleman mentioned this, I believe, a day or two ago in the House. I have tried to help him today by explaining that these particular articles are on the list. They do come within the Resolution which he mentioned, but out of which he left a material part.

Mr. H. Wilson

Since the Foreign Secretary has just said why he will not raise this matter at the United Nations—that it is not timely—can the hon. Gentleman inform the House—or, if he cannot, will he ask his right hon. Friend to inform the House—why it is not timely to raise the question? Can we have a clear answer to a question about which Ministers have been evasive for two and a half years?

Lord John Hope

There is nothing about timing in this Question.

Mr. de Freitas

On a point of order. In view of the continually evasive answers of Ministers to the question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

42. Mr. John Hall

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what changes have been made in Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards the British Council for the Promotion of International Trade; and what advice is now being given to British firms wishing to develop East-West trade regarding the use of the services of this organisation.

Lord John Hope

There has been no change. The British Council for the Promotion of International Trade is a Communist-front organisation. Firms have been consistently advised in this sense, and Her Majesty's Government have recommended that they should not associate themselves with this organisation. The decision whether to use its services must be left to the patriotic judgment of each firm or individual, but I am confident that those concerned will prefer to use the alternative and reputable channels which exist for the conduct of legitimate trade with the Soviet bloc countries.

Mr. Hall

If my hon. Friend considers that the continued use of this Council's services is detrimental to British interests, would he say what are the alternative reputable channels through which British firms can develop East-West trade?

Lord John Hope

As regards trade with China, there is the Sino-British Trade Committee, known as S.B.T.C. That has the full approval and support of Her Majesty's Government. As regards trade with Russia and the European satellites, there are many long-established commercial organisations, trade bodies and chambers of commerce and so on, which can give expert advice. These do not include the London Export Corporation.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this answer, which is even a strengthening of the answer given by the Prime Minister two years ago, is completely at variance with the facts; and that this organisation includes some of the most distinguished businessmen and professors in this country who have no Communist affiliations whatsoever? Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that such improvement as has occurred in trade with China in peaceful commodities, on which some Ministers at any rate pride themselves, owes far more to the activities of this organisation than to all the activities of Her Majesty's Government, which have been designed to prevent rather than encourage trade with China?

Lord John Hope

The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary could hardly be more misleading. His assertions about this organisation are quite wrong, and for their own sakes the sooner his respectable friends get out of it the better.

Mr. S. O. Davies

Will the hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence and give the least evidence to justify the sweeping and incorrect statement that he has just made?