§ 2.52 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the answer which they gave in this House on February 20, 1952, that the Government had no intention whatever of intervening in the Chinese civil war, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to possible eventualities arising out of the recently-announced policy of the Government of the United States in relation to Formosa, they will consider the advisability of issuing a statement that no interference will be permitted with any legitimate trade which is being, or which will be, conducted by the United Kingdom with Hong Kong and continental China.]
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to the answer which I gave in this House a year ago, which needs no qualification in the circumstances of to-day. Her Majesty's Government do not see the necessity to issue any statement at the present time. There have been cases recently, before President Eisenhower's announcement, of Chinese Nationalist interference with British ships engaged upon their lawful business. Her Majesty's Government have taken appropriate action in each case to defend legitimate British interests. The noble Viscount can rest assured that we shall not fail in this duty in the future.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, beg to thank Her Majesty's Government and the noble Marquess for the very satisfactory answer that he has given me.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, arising out of the answer of the noble Marquess, when "appropriate action" is spoken of, may I ask whether we have secured the release of the vessels and of their cargoes, and compensation from people who have no belligerent status at all?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I think it is right to say that release has been secured. As to the question of 298 the confiscation of cargo, in the most recent case of interference the cargo was not interfered with.
LORD STRABOLGIThen are we in these cases demanding compensation for the delay and loss occasioned to our merchants?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, unfortunately, the last case was a serious one, in which the master of the ship was killed; and in that case certainly a claim for compensation has been put forward. The other cases are dealt with in the normal way.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether his answer is to be understood to mean that British shipping, and I assume Commonwealth shipping, for instance from Ceylon, will be protected from interference from any quarter?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, the quarter with which I was dealing was the Chinese Nationalist quarter. That is the only quarter from which we should anticipate any interference.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThen the noble Marquess discounts the rather grave news which we have received—namely, that it is contemplated to establish a blockade of the China coast.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I imagine that what the noble Viscount is referring to is the statement by Admiral Radford which has been reproduced in the Press. It was evidence given before a Committee of the Senate the proceedings of which are, I believe, secret, so we have only such Press reports as have been published. Exactly what the Admiral said is therefore not entirely plain. But the idea of a naval blockade of the China coast is not new; it has been considered in America for some considerable time past, and it is not unnatural that it should be reconsidered in the present circumstances of a new Administration. But no proposals for the carrying out of such a blockade have been submitted to Her Majesty's Government, who would view with concern any proposal to institute such a naval blockade. It would not, in our view, contribute to the early conclusion of hostilities in Korea.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am grateful to the noble Marquess. There is one other small point about which I should like to ask him. Has he observed that the Government of Ceylon are embarrassed about a contract that they have made with China for rice and rubber? Would their ships, receive, say from Formosa attack, the same protection as British ships?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I am answering this offhand. I imagine that that would be so. I do not think that Ceylon has a Navy of her own which would be capable of undertaking that task. I imagine that the same principle would apply.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question in relation to the answer which he has just given to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate? I concluded from his answer to me, which I termed as satisfactory, that no interference from any quarter would be permitted with any legitimate trade between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong and China. But now has not the noble Marquess limited that answer by his reply to the noble Viscount, that it is only if that interference comes from Formosa that British shipping will be protected?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGNot only if it came from Formosa; presumably if it came from the mainland of China as well. I do not think that was quite what the noble Viscount had in mind.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy question was intended in the widest sense. It may well be that there are the gravest reasons for not answering it. But it is very important that we should protect our shipping from the blockade which has been talked about in authoritative quarters in America.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I think in effect I have answered that by saying that we should be opposed to any such blockade. I do not think we need take it further.