§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD VANSITTARTMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how many members of British firms are still detained in China against their will, and how much these firms have paid to protect them (a) in 1951, (b) in 1952.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)My Lords, Her Majesty's ChargéďAffaires in Pekin has been notified of eleven specific cases of businessmen who have applied for exit visas but whose departure is being delayed. It is, however, the general policy of the Chinese Government to hold local representatives responsible for the affairs of their principals. Thus the local manager of a firm would not normally be allowed to leave China until his firm's affairs were wound up. Many firms who wish to close are precluded from doing so because official permission is withheld, and to this extent their senior staff can be considered to be detained in China against their wishes, even though many of them have probably not yet formally applied for exit permits.
Regarding the second part of the noble Lord's Question, very few firms took the decision to withdraw from China before April, 1952. In the earlier period of the 508 present Chinese régime, the firms who operated at a loss did so in the hope that conditions would improve. Although remittances to China have in some cases since been continued while arrangements for closing down are being negotiated, these have decreased considerably. I am unable to say that any specific amounts have been remitted to China to protect British staff rather than in fulfilment of conditions which Chinese law imposes on firms operating there—however unreasonable some of these conditions may appear to us to be.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, is not the treatment of these British subjects and missionaries a gross abuse of normal international practice?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, the granting of exit permits is a matter for the Chinese law. We may not approve of the Chinese law, but there it is. We have to accept the situation, subject always to such representations as Her Majesty's representative in Pekin is able to make for their assistance.
§ LORD VANSITTARTMy Lords, whilst thanking the noble Marquess for his full reply, I should like to ask, is this not really a rather harsh return for our recognition of the Chinese Government?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, we accorded recognition to the Chinese Government, and, in our view, the presence of a representative in Pekin is still of value.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is not extraordinary that in the second part of the Question the noble Lord should be asking Her Majesty's Government to disclose what are items in the trading accounts of these firms. That question does not require an answer, and the noble Marquess need not be troubled.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, that being what I was brought up to call a rhetorical question, I think that perhaps it is better left to the two noble Lords to discuss the matter between themselves.