§ 2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To call attention to the statement in the Sunday Times of 18th January, 1953, by its Diplomatic Correspondent, that British businessmen who have been allowed to leave China in recent months have reported that the Communist régime is growing noticeably less hostile towards British commercial and industrial enterprises in Shanghai and Tientsin, and that only a relatively small proportion of the firms still operating in China have applied for permission to wind up their affairs…and are "keeping their end up"; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, whilst giving support to any approaches made to them by firms wishing to wind up their businesses in China, they will at the same time continue the encouragement they have been giving to the active promotion of trade relations between the United Kingdom and China, assuming reciprocal encouragement on the part of the Pekin Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)My Lords, I have seen the article to which the noble Viscount refers and regret that it does not correspond to the facts as they are known to Her Majesty's Government. I have observed no improvement in the attitude of the Chinese Government towards British business firms in China; and, according to my information, it is not true that only a relatively small proportion of the firms have applied for permission to close. For Her Majesty's Government's view on the present position, I draw the noble 669 Viscount's attention to the Written Answer given by my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on January 27, which concludes with an assurance of Her Majesty's Government's desire for trade between China and this country. The noble Viscount will, however, realise that the extent of this trade is necessarily limited by the embargo on the supply of strategic materials recommended by the United Nations in May, 1951.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess, but may I ask him what was contained in the Written Answer given by the Under-Secretary in another place? I have not the slightest knowledge of it. Are we in this House supposed to know what was said in another place in answer to a Question?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, it was a statement of Government policy. Being a Written Answer, it was at some length, and having given the noble Viscount the reference I thought that perhaps it was not asking too much to suggest that it was more convenient for him to peruse it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place than for me to take up the time of this House in re-reading it here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKWell, I do not know if that is the proper procedure. I have not been long in this House. I would, however, put this point to the noble Marquess: that if this is to constitute a precedent, it will place some noble Lords in a most inconvenient position.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to answer that. When a full statement of Government policy has been made, whether in this House or in another place (I have known it done in both Houses) it is not unreasonable to refer to it. It is convenient, also, from the point of view of making a certain economy in printing.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMay I, with great respect, ask this question? Why, then, is it necessary in many cases simultaneously to make a statement of policy in the one House and in the other?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI can answer that at once: first, because that is simultaneous; and secondly, out of courtesy to both Houses.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, is it not also the fact that a statement is made in this House in order that noble Lords may have an opportunity of cross-examining Her Majesty's Government on it?
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, reverting to the original Question, may I say that it is perhaps true to say that the attitude of Chinese officials towards British businessmen has improved during the last few months; but that is not to say, as is quoted in the Question, that the Communist régime is growing less hostile towards British commercial and industrial undertakings. On the contrary, the régime continues to harass them and to impose intolerable conditions on all those firms who are wishing to close down.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I say that in putting my Question on the Order Paper, all I wished to do was to arrive at the true facts of the situation, and the noble Marquess has very kindly obliged me in that relation?
§ LORD VANSITTARTMy Lords, in regard to the latter part of this Question, would it not be as well to remember that the Americans have suffered 130,000 casualties?