HL Deb 04 May 1949 vol 162 cc234-6

2.40 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask His Majesty's Government why it is that a British Ambassador is appointed to Lisbon, Moscow and not to Madrid; whether the continuance of such a policy is calculated to strengthen the Atlantic Pact, and if not, whether they intend to take steps to bring such an unrealistic policy to an end.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON)

My Lords, His Majesty's Government normally accredit a Head of Mission to every Government with which they are in diplomatic relations, except where there are special reasons against doing so. In the case of Spain there is such a reason—namely, the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on December 12, 1946, part of which recommended that member States should withdraw their Heads of Missions from Madrid. So long as this recommendation remains in force, His Majesty's Government will abide by it. Since Spain is not a signatory to the Atlantic Pact, the absence of a British Ambassador from Madrid can hardly affect the Pact. In answer to the third part of the noble Earl's Question, I must refer him to the answer which I gave on April 6 to the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I cannot understand from the noble Lord's answer why it is, apart from the general question of the United Nations, that we are able to have an Ambassador in Moscow and yet not to have one in Madrid. I quite understand the international difficulties, but surely the policy is rather unrealistic. Cannot the noble Lord tell us that His Majesty's Government are, in fact, going to modify their attitude towards Spain, especially in view of the official announcement of the American Government which appears in to-day's Press?

LORD HENDERSON

I am not able to give any such assurance. I have indicated the basis of His Majesty's Government's present policy. That basis still remains.

LORD AILWYN

My Lords, would His Majesty's Government not agree that the inclusion of Spain in the Atlantic Pact would, by reason of her strategic position, enable her to make a very considerable contribution? Would His Majesty's Government not agree further that dislike of a nation's form of government is no valid reason for a diplomatic boycott, the continuation of which, surely, far from weakening the position of that government, must serve to strengthen and consolidate General Franco's régime in the hearts and minds of the proud Spanish people?

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord on April 6, there are more than strategic considerations to be borne in mind. As regards the second part of his question, there is no diplomatic boycott. Although there is no British Ambassador in Madrid at present there is a British Chargé d'Affaires.