HC Deb 13 June 1968 vol 766 cc571-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity of raising the case of George Watt and others and of drawing the attention of the House to the plight of this gentleman and at least 12 other British citizens and some of their families who have been detained by the Chinese. Mr. Watt is an engineer who was employed by Vickers-Zimmer, a British company which has been engaged since 1966 in the erection of a polypropylene plant in Lanchow in China. The plant was commissioned by Techimport, a Chinese trading organisation. Mr. Watt, a Belfast man, was employed by the company as an engineer and along with one or two other engineers was at the site in Lanchow supervising the construction of this plant.

His wife joined him in China in July last year and they spent two months together there. She left in September and shortly after leaving Peking she was searched on her way through Shanghai and some family photographs were taken from her luggage. She was fully searched, she told me. The photographs were ordinary family ones, all of which had been taken in China in the presence of the Chinese interpreter who accompanied them, and none of which were in any way of a nature that might have infringed security or military secrecy.

However, following the searching of Mrs. Watt, Mr. Watt was placed under house arrest in his hotel in Peking. Later, I believe, he was taken back to the hotel in Lanchow where he had stayed when he was working with Vickers-Zimmer and kept under arrest in his room in that hotel. I am told by members of the company that none of his colleagues or friends in the company were permitted to see him or speak to him. The only communication they received was when he sent bills for his food to the company asking that they should be paid by the company and when he asked that his effects should be sent back to Britain. Except for those notes, no other communication was received and none of his friends in Lanchow working for Vickers-Zimmer or other British companies there were allowed to see or to talk to him, nor was he able to write to his wife or family in this country.

The British Mission in Peking, which was informed of the situation, made attempts to get in touch with him but it also was unsuccessful. The Chinese authorities did not allow any access to Mr. Watt between the middle of September, when he was placed under arrest, and March this year when the world was informed by the New China News Agency that he had been charged and tried for espionage convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment. No other information about the trial was given to the British Mission in spite of the representations it made to the Chinese. No British consular official was able to attend the trial. No note of the evidence against Mr. Watt was forwarded to the British Mission in Peking. Neither Mr. Watt's friends in the company nor the British Foreign Office know anything about the proceedings at the trial. All that we know—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. McBride.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. McMaster

All that we know is that there were two releases from the New China News Agency, one on 12th March of this year which reported Mr. Watt's address and the later one which reported his trial. This is all the information which anyone has had about Mr. Watt since September last. Since his trial and his reported conviction by the New China News Agency, no diplomatic access has been granted to him. So far as we know, no letters from his wife have reached him. His wife tells me that she has written to him but that the letters have been returned through the firm. None has been received by Mr. Watt. No letters from Mr. Watt have reached his wife or his family. They are in complete ignorance as to his state of health. They arc unable to send him any food parcels or find out anything about him.

These circumstances merit the attention of the House. The company has made strenuous efforts to contact Mr. Watt and to secure his release. The managing director of the company, Mr. David Cockburn, visited Peking at the invitation of Tech. Import in March to discuss the case of Mr. Watt and the contract. In spite of several meetings with the Chinese authorities, Mr. Cockburn was unable to make any progress. He was unable to meet Mr. Watt or find out any of the facts of the case. His own return to Britain was delayed by the Chinese in circumstances that caused him grave apprehension.

The company has done all that can reasonably be expected of it to contact Mr. Watt. This places ordinary business relations with the Chinese under considerable strain. The erection of the plant in Lanchow was interrupted by the Cultural Revolution last year. I believe that most of the plant has now been finished. Nevertheless, the affair of George Watt remains a case which calls for the most strenous efforts on the part of the Foreign Office to ensure that he is released as soon as possible and return to his family.

The charges which the Chinese have made against Mr. Watt are of the flimsiest possible nature. The Press release from the New China News Agency says, among other things, that he took a large number of prohibited photographs and that he stole by means of spying important intelligence ". It refers to China's … political and economic affairs and the great proletarian cultural revolution. It says: In this way, he has committed grave crimes seriously endangering the security and undermining the Socialist construction of China "— whatever that may mean.

This is an unusually serious case for Britain. According to the definition of that news release, anyone who brought back any type of information of a cultural nature might be accused of espionage.

In these circumstances, the attention not only of the House but of the British public should be drawn to the case of George Watt. He is not alone. In a Written Answer on 29th May the Undersecretary of State listed 10 British subjects detained by the Chinese. In addition, the list mentions the families of two, Mr. Eric Gordon and Mr. David Crook. The list includes the master of a British ship, the " Fortune Wind", a Captain Pope, and two journalists, a Mr. Grey and a Mr. Barrymaine.

What are the Government doing about the case of Mr. Watt? The actions of the Chinese in the affair are completely beyond the bounds of ordinary international protocol. They seem to neglect the terms of the Vienna Convention, which allows ordinary diplomatic access to persons charged with offences in another country. The fact that Mr. Watt's wife and mother, who is still living in my constituency and with whom I have been in touch, are unable to hear anything of him is more than discourteous. It is positively uncivilised. The Government should consider what retaliation is appropriate to bring the Chinese to their senses and make them realise that they cannot behave in this way towards British citizens.

What freedom of movement is now allowed to members of the Chinese Mission in London? Are members of our Mission still being restricted in Peking, or do they have equal freedom of movement in China? What steps are the Government taking to inform any other companies thinking of erecting a plant in China of the risks involved both to them and their personnel?

How do the actions of the Chinese compare with those which are normal under ordinary diplomatic practice and custom? What would the Minister normally expect from any other country, particularly as regards the right of access to a British citizen who has been accused of an offence in that country, the right of the British consul on the spot to see that he is properly represented and to attend the trial, and the right of communication between such a person and his family?

What representations are the Government making to the Chinese that they should show leniency? Mr. Watt is not a spy, has never been a spy and has not attempted to spy. It is totally wrong that he should be imprisoned for three years by the Chinese in this way. Are the Government taking steps to show that they would welcome any form of clemency which would lead to a reduction in his sentence and his early release so that he may be returned to his wife and family?

Cannot something be done along the lines of the release of Philip Dobson, who received a longer sentence for apparently a more serious offence? I was very pleased to read of the Foreign Secretary's success in securing his release and his return today to this country. Cannot something like that also be done by the Foreign Office in this case?

10.10 p.m.

Mr.Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on introducing a debate on a subject of great importance which has had insufficient airing in the House over the past year—the ever-increasing number of British subjects being detained by the People's Republic of China. He has mentioned Mr. Watt in particular and other British subjects detained at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, briefly to mention some of those other people detained.

I want to mention the case of Mr. Anthony Grey, Reuter's correspondent in Peking, which the hon. Gentleman knows I have raised on countless occasions over the past 12 months. Mr. Grey was originally detained on 21st July, 1967, and for nearly 12 months this young man has been isolated on his own in his house in Peking. He is not even allowed freedom of movement around the whole house. He is restricted to one or two rooms. During this period, on only one occasion, and that in the last couple of months, has access been gained to him by one of our consular representatives. He has received cables and letters but that one recent visit has been the only break which this young Englishman has had all this time sitting in his house in Peking.

What has Mr. Grey done? Has he been spying? Has he shot at Mao Tse-Tung? Has he done anything dreadful? Not at all. No charges have been preferred. Mr. Grey was Reuter's correspondent in Peking and no reason for his detention has been given. The time has come when this miserable and inhuman story should be brought to an end and Mr. Grey allowed to come home.

I know the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office have faced over his case and some of the other cases. I recognise that retaliation at an earlier stage might not have been very effective and might not be effective now. But it should be reconsidered.

I recognise, too, that, at various times over the past few months, it has been thought unwise perhaps to publicise this case too much in order to avoid the risk of damage being done to Mr. Grey's position by too much publicity. But I confess that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, mentions the strenuous efforts made by Vickers-Zimmer to try to get Mr. Watt out, I should like to feel that Reuter's has made similar efforts to get Mr. Grey out. After all, Reuter's is a worldwide news service and yet there seems to me to have been little effort over the last 11 months by this organisation to help its employee obtain his release from incarceration in Peking. It may be that it has received advice from the hon. Gentleman that it should not do this. I do not know the reasons for it but it seems sad that Mr. Grey, after 11 months, is still incarcerated in one or two rooms in his house in Peking.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulties and the troubles he faces. I recognise the difficulties of retaliation against a country whose diplomatic manners are different from our own. But I beg him to give some hope tonight to this young man who is still, after 11 months, incarcerated by himself in Peking.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I do not wish to take up the Under-Secretary of State's time and I put to him four very brief points. The problem we face is what to do about these cruel and senseless acts which the Chinese have perpetrated on British subjects. First, can the hon. Gentleman say in what way we can help the individuals concerned? If our own Mission is not able to gain access—and one understands its difficulties—what steps are we taking to ask other missions, particularly those of Australia and Canada and possibly Pakistan, to act on our behalf?

We have protested. The Foreign Secretary has done his utmost, but protests in the case of China seem to make very little difference. My second question therefore is whether it is possible for us somehow to arrange for those nations which trade and have relations with China to make a common demarche to the Chinese Government to indicate to them what damage they are doing to their reputation in the world. I think that collective action may make some sense here.

Thirdly, retaliation. This is very difficult but easy for people to suggest. It is terribly difficult for any responsible Government to take retaliatory action. But, for all that, there are in this country a number of Chinese, particularly at the China News Agency. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is right that our correspondents, businessmen and seamen in Peking should be put into this difficult situation and Chinese nationals here suffer no difficulty whatever.

Fourthly, could the Minister give some indication—I am sure that he will if he is able—about the up-to-date picture concerning seamen? We, as a great shipping nation interested in export, must, above all, resist the seizing of our seamen and masters from their vessels in Chinese ports.

10.16 p.m.

The Undcr-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers)

During the last year hon. Members on both sides of the House have been deeply concerned about the detention of British subjects in China. There have been Questions at frequent intervals, as the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) said, and we had a brief opportunity to look more closely at the matter on the Consular Relations Bill. In addition I have tried personally to keep informed those Members particularly affected in their constituency capacity.

This evening the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has provided a further occasion on which to express our continuing anger and distress at the detentions. May I say how much I appreciate the thoughtful and constructive way in which he has raised the issue? I think that our short discussion has been marked both by com- passion and by a shrewd awareness of reality.

On 29th May, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I gave the most reliable information then available on British subjects detained in China. The only information we have had since then has come from the Crook family in this country, who have told us that they have received letters recently from Mrs. Crook and the children which indicate that they are well, but do not mention Mr. Crook himself.

All these British citizens are in one way or another victims of the Cultural Revolution. I cannot on this occasion— though I wish it were otherwise—discuss the fascinating course of the Cultural Revolution or reflect upon its consequences. Hon. Members will, however, recall that it began in the latter part of 1966 and reached its height in the summer of last year. It led to divisions in the Chinese leadership with consequences for public order in many parts of the country. It seems, too—and this is particularly relevant to our present discussion—to have brought about a hardening of Chinese attitudes towards foreigners—all foreigners, not only towards the British—and a general mood of militancy. For us, its overspill into Hong Kong created special problems.

Throughout May and June, 1967, there were disturbances in Hong Kong which were handled with firmness and discretion by the Governor and his staff, who justifiably earned widespread praise.

Then on 20th August the Chinese delivered an ultimatum in Peking concerning events in Hong Kong, particularly measures taken against the Communist Press. There followed demonstrations on two successive days against our Mission, and on the 22nd August a mob sacked the office—setting it on fire—and also the Residence of the Chargé d'Affaires. Members of the staff were roughly treated, although there were fortunately no serious injuries. We immediately imposed certain restrictions on the movements of staff of the Chinese Mission in London, in particular to prevent them leaving the country without an exit permit. Our staff in Peking were even more narrowly restricted, being unable to leave the compound in which they live.

Although the restrictions on movements both in London and Peking were later modified, the Chinese continued, with very few exceptions, to make difficulties over the departure of our staff from Peking. May I take this opportunity—I am sure it is the wish of the House I should do so—to pay a special tribute to our people in Peking. We are aware of the harshness of their experience and know that they have throughout behaved admirably under the most trying circumstances.

Since 5th April of this year, however, when I informed the Chinese Charge d'Affaires in London of the final lifting of all the restrictions placed on his staff, things have been a little better. The Chinese have given exit visas from Peking for six junior members of the British staff, and have given a number of entry visas for other staff to go to Peking. One member of the senior staff has also been informed that he may leave. Nevertheless, we continue to regard the situation, as surely we must, as far from satisfactory. I have told the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires that we expect full reciprocity in the lifting of restrictions and the rapid issue of outstanding visas for our staff to leave China.

I have said this about the position of our Mission both because I think it is of interest to the House and as a background to the rest of the story. I now turn specifically to those who have been detained—or we believe to have been detained—in custody.

First, there is Mr. Anthony Grey, the Reuter's correspondent in Peking. Even before our Mission was attacked he was called, on 21st July, to the Foreign Ministry, and then put under house arrest. He has remained there since and as the hon. Member for Richmond said, had no contact with the outside world until the 23rd April of this year, when Sir Donald Hopson and another member of the Mission were allowed to visit him. It is not for me to speak for Reuter's, but I think it is only fair to say that they have kept in the closest touch with us, and I know that they are deeply concerned about the plight of this unfortunate young man, wholly innocent as of course he is.

Then there is a group of British subjects who have been detained in the period since February, but about whom we have received no information concerning charges, if any. These are Mr. Norman Barrymaine, a journalist, Mr. D. V. Jones, Mr. P. D. Crouch and Captain Pope.

There is a third distinct group about whom we also know little. They include Mr. Eric Gordon and his family, Mrs. Epstein, Mr. Michael Shapiro and Mr. David Crook and his family, whom I have already mentioned. All these have been employed at one time or another by the Chinese authorities. The majority of them lived together in the Friendship Hostel and had little contact with our Mission. In fact there were reports last year that some of them had demonstrated outside it shortly before it was destroyed.

I have left to the end and put in a separate category Mr. George Watt, about whom the hon. Member for Belfast, East has been principally concerned tonight. The facts as far as we know them have been described. Mr. Watt, an engineer employed by Vickers-Zimmer, was detained in Lanchow on 26th September of last year, and we are told that on 15th March he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for alleged spying. There has been no contact with him since his arrest, and the Chinese authorities have refused to allow Consular access, saying that this was not "appropriate" in his case.

We have made frequent representations on behalf of all these British subjects. As I explained to the House in the debate on the Consular Relations Bill on 28th March, we have in the past generally found it better to communicate with the Chinese authorities through our Mission in Peking, despite the difficulties with which it has had to contend. Representations have been made on behalf of one or all of the British subjects detained on a great many separate occasions. For example, in the period since 1st March alone, our Mission has made at least 20 formal approaches to the Chinese authorities, and has followed these up with numerous reminders by telephone.

I have also thought it right to see the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires in London. I first saw him on 21st July last year, the date of Mr. Grey's detention, about the detention of Mr. Grey. This meeting ended on a stormy note due to the total unwillingness of the Charge to accept the representations and his insistence on conducting nauseating propaganda related principally to Hong Kong. I have since seen him on 5th April and 24th May and gone right through the list of all British subjects detained, especially making clear the intolerable situation of Mr. Watt. The interviews took place in a more temperate atmosphere, but I greatly regret that the Charge was unable to supply me with the information for which I asked.

What is the position then as it now stands? First, in the case of the Mission we are making some slow progress though not at a rate that can be regarded as satisfactory. Second, in the case of Anthony Grey, we have had one consular visit. We hope to obtain others—but progress remains slow. Third, on the three ships' officers and Mr. Norman Barrymaine, we are still awaiting information. The position is very unsatisfactory indeed, and I cannot forecast the outcome. Fourth, on those British subjects formerly employed by the Chinese authorities, we are seeking to discover their whereabouts though there is no evidence that charges are being brought against them. Fifth, in the case of Mr. Watt, we have received no further information and there appears no present prospect of personal contact with him. We shall continue to press very hard indeed for, at the very least, access and, much better, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, clemency and release, and return to this country. But again it would be misleading to assume early success.

I have been asked how we can help, and the question of retaliation has been raised. We have, of course, considered frequently and with the very greatest care whether there were measures we might take which would bring effective pressure to bear on the Chinese authorities. We have discussed fully a number of suggestions which have been made in the House. The question of trade relations, for example, has clearly been in our minds. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen will not press me on our precise conclusions. We are prepared, however, to take any measure which we believe will really help those detained in China, while remaining wary of striking attitudes which, frankly would yield no results. We must remember that China today is a unique case where none of the normal rules appear to apply. Comparisons with other countries—and what it is possible to do for British subjects held elsewhere— simply do not make sense. Meanwhile I am sure—and I think this answers another point the hon. Gentleman made—that those who trade with China, either carrying out industrial contracts or visiting her ports, will have noted the events we are now discussing and taken them fully into account.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman when he says the Chinese are guilty of actions completely beyond the bounds of international protocol. That is absolutely true.

It is a continuing disgrace that British subjects should be held in this way. We deplore such uncivilised behaviour, especially when we in Britain—and I know this applies to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his views quite plain— are anxious to restore normal relations with China and are prepared at all times to discuss genuine issues of common concern. We shall continue to make our views known to the Chinese authorities, directly or indirectly, if this proves possible and likely to produce results, and to speak firmly and clearly on behalf of those whose own voices are silenced. We must hope that in due course the Chinese will come to see the folly of their present shameful attitudes and will take steps to release those that they now so wrongly hold.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

As there is a moment or two left, will the hon. Gentleman try to answer a point about some collective demarche to China and what steps might be taken by the Canadian and Australian Missions?

Mr. Rodgers

I thought I had in passing touched on this point. I thought I said that a number of countries are affected by the present attitude of the Chinese authorities. We have reason to believe that people of other nationalities are held, but I think that probably we are placed in a somewhat more difficult position, particularly, of course, because of Hong Kong and the particular importance which the Chinese attach to it. Certainly, if collective action were possible and would produce results we would be prepared to take an initiative, though, of course, it would succeed only if others saw fit to work in the same way and it is not only what they might be willing to do but are able to do. Everybody knows that conditions in Peking are extremely difficult. We are anxious about taking further steps which might—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.