In raising this matter relating to the 71 aircraft now located at Kai Tak airport, Hong Kong, which have been handed over to the People's Government of China, I do so in the hope that what I have to say will be restrained, because I have no desire to say anything to make the situation, which is already complicated, more difficult than it is at the moment. The only reason I am raising this matter is that a considerable proportion of the equipment has already been shipped away to the People's Government of China.

I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies some two weeks ago about this matter, and I was not satisfied with the reply. The Question and answer were fully reported in the "Hong Kong Telegraph" on 18th March. Had this been a British newspaper in this country, I believe—because I have taken advice—that it might have been a question of breach of privilege. I do not propose to make a point of that, because I think that one should not be over-sensitive about these matters, and that it might be of embarrassment to the Chair. For the sake of record, I will quote what the report says:

"Air-Commodore Harvey may have been the unsuspecting victim of high-pressure lobbying, for it is no secret that strenuous efforts have been made to bring influence to bear on Whitehall to interfere with what the British Constitutions holds most sacred—the rule of law."

I agree that the decisions of the judges of this country and of the British Colonies are final, so far as that goes. I wish to assure the House, however, that I have not been guilty of receiving high-pressure lobbying, and I have no interest in this matter whatever except with regard to the points at issue, although perhaps I should tell the House that I worked in an aviation business in China for a good many years, but that was a long time ago.

On 9th November last year, nine aircraft belonging to the China National Aircraft Corporation and two belonging to the China Air Transport Corporation had cleared the Customs at Hong Kong for Nationalist territory, presumably for the Island of Formosa, but the two managing directors who were part of the crew, or passengers, had a deep-laid plot. They did not go to Formosa but went in the opposite direction to the People's Government at Peking. In fact, they flew to the other side. The aircraft arrived in fact at Peking, but there remained on the ground at Kai Tak 71 modern aircraft—Skymasters and numerous others—which I contend are potential war equipment. It is no good saying that because an airliner is now a passenger aircraft that it is not potential war equipment. It can be modified to carry bombs, or it can be used to drop paratroops, and for many other purposes in war.

Following that incident, on 17th November, the Chinese Nationalist Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Yeh, interviewed the Governor of Hong Kong—I imagine for guidance—and asked for the protection of the assets which he rightly believed belonged to his Government. That was part of the holding owned by General Chennault, the man who flew with the airlift in the Far East during the war, who had bought 20 per cent. of the holding belonging to the Pan American Airways Corporation.

The Nationalist Government Minister of Communications, presumably in Formosa, grounded the 71 remaining aircraft. I presume that they had been grounded because they were not in a condition to fly because of lack of servicing. He informed the Director of Civil Aviation at Hong Kong of his action and the aircraft registrations were suspended. To all intents and purposes, these aircraft ought not to be moved. The Peking Government then, as I understand it, informed the Hong Kong Government that they would hold the local Government in the Colony responsible for the property because it was guarded by their loyal subjects. I never knew that there was any such thing as loyalty in the Communist Party.

We may disagree with them, but they are loyal.

They are loyal when it suits them. The local representatives of C.N.A.C. requested the Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation at Hong Kong to cancel the passes of the defectionists on the airfield. He thought that the right thing to do was to keep these men off the airfield, and that that would simplify the problem enormously. The Director of Civil Aviation said that he had no instructions from higher authority to carry that out, and that it would be difficult to recall the passes because they were not regularly inspected, and he had not sufficient staff to do so. C.N.A.C.'s representative saw a senior official of the Government and requested guidance. They were in some difficulty to know what to do in this matter. They were referred to the Attorney-General, whom they saw in the presence of the Commissioner of Police.

Everyone quite rightly wanted to avoid making the trouble worse than it was. I understand that they were told that if a court order was obtained it would be implemented. It never was. The two Corporations concerned instituted proceedings against certain of the leading defectionists for trespass on and damage to what they considered to be their rightful property. The defendants then obtained an order restraining the plaintiffs from removing the property. There was switching backwards and forwards, with advertisements in the local Press, both sides claiming the property and trying to get the better of the other. The question of the passes at the airport was again taken up, because that was felt to be the crux of the problem, but the assistance asked for was not forthcoming. The Director of Civil Aviation was again interviewed, but he said that he had not the machinery to withdraw the passes.

On 20th December representatives of Civil Air Transport Incorporated—that is the new company formed to take over the assets of the two air corporations in China—informed the C.N.A.C. solicitors that they had purchased the assets of the two companies, and they naturally claimed possession of the property. The officials of C.N.A.C. and C.A.T.C. were appointed by the Nationalist Government and General Chennault and Mr. Willaner, and they were quite willing that the new company should have possession of the assets, to clarify the difficult position. But a body of men who claimed that they owned the company again advertised in the local papers on 1st December that they had severed their connection with C.N.A.C. and C.A.T.C., and that they remained in possession of the assets, with their passes to the airport.

As I see it, the point is that the People's Government of China was recognised by Britain on 6th January, 1950, and then claimed that the defectionists at Hong Kong on the airport, or other persons, were holding assets on their behalf. They claimed that they were immune from the jurisdiction of the courts—which may be right legally. On 15th March, a short time ago—and this is my main point—5,777, cases of aircraft engines and air frame parts, valued at about three million dollars, were shipped from Hong Kong in a British steamer. There were enough parts there to main- tain these aeroplanes for something like two years.

Where were they shipped to?

Tsingtao, in North China. It was reported in a local paper which was sent to me that the ship in question was trailed by a Nationalist destroyer and a British destroyer. Whether it has ever arrived at its destination, I do not know. In the meantime, the new company applied for an injunction and a summons for preservation of the assets, but this was refused by the Chief Justice in Hong Kong last Tuesday. I have no doubt that the Chief Justice was quite right legally, but my contention is that all the procrastination which led up to this refusal to withdraw the passes, and so on, has led to a situation in which a judge has had to make this very important decision. What will happen now that all this equipment has gone out? It seems extraordinary that when we are accepting aid from our friends in the United States we should be handing over equipment in this way.

I would not mind if the People's Government of China had responded to the recognition which this country gave them, but instead of that we are being insulted almost daily; the British people in Shanghai have had heavy fines levied on them week after week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) pointed out in the House this week. It strikes me that this matter has been handled in a most extraordinary way. I feel that the various departments in Hong Kong have carried out their duties in a negative manner.

When I asked that a commission should go out to Hong Kong to investigate this matter, I intended no slight on the legal authorities in the Colony; I only wanted some action taken to see that this valuable equipment did not get into the hands of the Communists because, firstly, I do not think that would be a good thing, and secondly I do not think it belongs to them. Had the equipment been moved in time—it probably could not have been, for various reasons—they would not have got it. It was only because the Communists were recognised by the British Government on 6th January that they are in the fortunate position of holding this equipment.

I do not want to add to the difficulties of the situation, but I should like an assurance from the Minister of State for the Colonies that something will be done to prevent this equipment leaving, because I think it highly dangerous that it should leave, and I hope that action will be taken even at this late hour.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has done well to raise this matter, as he has done with both moderation and restraint. I am sure the Government will appreciate the difficulty of this situation. I want, not exactly to expand on the background of the case, which was largely dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend, but, as the Rules are wide on an Adjournment Debate, to look at the question of these 71 planes and the spare parts and stores against the wider picture of the political and military situation in the Far East.

The latest information that I have been able to obtain about these 71 planes was in the "Daily Telegraph," contained in a report from Hong Kong sent on Wednesday, I feel that it might be useful to hon. Members, who cannot be fully in touch, if I read this short report to show the present situation. It says:

"Mr. E. H. Williams, Acting Chief Justice of Hong Kong, yesterday dismissed an application by the American-registered company Civil Air Transport Inc., seeking an injunction to prevent the Peking-controlled China National Aviation Corporation and the Central Air Transport Corporation from removing 71 grounded planes and other assets from the colony.

"Civil Air Transport is operated by Gen. Chennault, the former commander of the 'Flying Tigers' volunteer air force in China. Control of the 71 aircraft was given to the Peking Government under a recent Supreme Court decision. Gen. Chennault, who claimed them, said he had purchased them from their former Nationalist owners.

"The planes are still intact at Kaitak airfield, on the outskirts of Kowloon, opposite Hong Kong island, and no move has been made to get them ready for flying. The Communists have removed some spare parts and miscellaneous equipment by sea"—

my hon. and gallant Friend told us there were nearly 6,000 crates taken away—

"but there is no indication that they intend to dismantle the aircraft for shipment."

Then it concludes:

"Although Gen. Chennault has indicated that he intends to appeal against the Supreme Court decision, he has not yet taken any legal action."

Therefore the matter is not now sub judice, as he has not made any appeal.

In these circumstances, I should be the last person to criticise the legal decision, as a legal decision, which has recently been taken, and it is no part of my intention to do so. But I do ask the House to look at this question against the broader military and political situation which we see in the Far East. I must add here how much I and most of my hon. Friends hope that an early opportunity will be found to Debate in this House the whole situation in the Far East, and to get some real statement of Government policy—a thing we have not had for five years. I very much hope that that Debate will soon come off, and that we can examine the wider question for a whole day in the House.

The active part that the Far Eastern Cominform is playing in the whole situation in the Far East is not generally recognised, and certainly not by the general public. After all, for five years we have been a major participant in what so many people call the cold war. But in the Far East the war is by no means cold. There is war in Burma, and only today I read in the newspapers that the Communists have achieved startling successes and are now in occupation of Prome, which lies astride the oil pipeline, and that that key town has been lost to the Government. They are apparently achieving considerable military success, and all this time of course the British taxpayers are paying out millions of pounds, as are our Dominions, following on the decision of the Columbo Conference to support the Burmese Government. That is a part of the picture.

Then in Malaya, everybody knows that for two years now very large British forces, Malayan forces and the police have been locked in a deadly battle with the Communists, who of course are inspired and organised by the Far Eastern Cominform. Everyone knows that. Then, of course, the French have had very grave military troubles and are engaged in a war in French Indo-China. Everyone knows how closely connected with the whole military situation in the Far East is that situation in Indo-China.

It is quite absurd, therefore, to suggest that the Chinese situation and the whole situation in the Far East can be looked upon merely as part of the cold war which has been going on for five years. It was in 1920 that Marshal Stalin said:

"England's back will be broken, not on the banks of the Thames, but on the Yangtse, the Ganges and the Nile."

That was the directive laid down by Marshal Stalin in 1920, and that is the directive which is now being so efficiently carried out. In confirmation of that, I saw this report in the "Daily Worker."

"In a statement made on the new Chinese People's Democracy, issued on the 28th anniversary of the Chinese party, Mao Tse-tung says:

'One is either on the side of imperialism or the side of Socialism. Neutrality is a camouflage, and a third road does not exist. The present need is to push forward industrialisation as fast as possible. To this end, capitalism in the New China will not at present be eliminated, but it will be restricted. We want to trade. There has to be trade. We oppose only those domestic and foreign reactionaries who hamper us from doing our business, and we do not oppose any other people. Let us give thanks to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin who gave us the weapons. These weapons are not machine guns, but Marxism-Leninism.'"

As a matter of fact they are machine guns as well, but he did not disclose that.

I do not want to go further afield than is necessary. But this is the background against which this situation must be seen. So far as the trading situation is concerned, about which the Government have had no clear policy since they won the General Election in 1945, it is relevant to underline what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the difficulties foreign merchants are having in China. These difficulties should be seen in the light of the remarks I have just quoted. I see "The Economist" says:

"Foreign merchants in China have been having a very difficult time. Trade has fallen to about a third of a year ago; profits have been cut to below the minimum, so that, in the case of British firms, extra capital has had to be sent to China in order to keep the businesses going; the Peking Government have imposed a number of arbitrary taxes and in one way or another have even made it impossible for those firms who would like to do so to close down their business and leave the country."

The Minister of State knows that we are still running after the Peking Government and arguing with them on the recognition terms, whereas recognition was given on the very eve of the Colombo conference without consulting the Dominions, a most disgraceful act on the part of the Government, which was calculated to start off the conference in the worse possible atmosphere.

In view of the fact that these 6,000 crates of valuable military stores have already left the Island, and in view of the fact that further stores are likely to leave in the near future because of the court decision, I feel that I must ask the Minister whether he thinks;—

I have been listening with interest to the speeches of both hon. and gallant Members, and I am extremely worried to see how they can be in order. The matter concerns certain property in Hong Kong as to which there appear to be three claims, the claimants having brought actions before an established court of the Colony. That would appear to be a matter which is sub judice and, being before a British court, out of order to be discussed here. Assuming that a stage is reached in this case, which has not yet been reached, that a decision is come to, then the successful party will be allowed to execute his judgment and can be prevented from doing so only by legislation. Therefore, on that aspect too, is it not out of order to discuss something over which the Minister has no executive power and which can be dealt with only by legislation?

Surely the question is whether it is desirable that these aeroplanes should go physically to the Communist régime in China, which is the matter we are discussing? It is quite possible under existing legislation for an export prohibition to be imposed. My hon. and gallant Friend was arguing that a commission of inquiry should go out to find out what is the situation, in view of the background my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has brought to the notice of the House, namely, that the Communists are attacking us in the Far East. Surely that must be relevant when discussing whether the 71 aeroplanes should get into their power or not?

How can any of the things suggested be done without legislation?

The hon. and learned Member has suggested that this matter is sub judice. I read an extract from, Wednesday's "Daily Telegraph," since when I understand there has been no new development. The last sentence was that

"General Chennault has indicated that he intends to appeal against the Supreme Court decision, but has not yet taken any legal action."

Therefore it seems perfectly clear that the question is not sub judice, although it may be one day.

The time limit has not yet expired.

I have no knowledge on what has been happening, but if the matter is sub judice, it is out of order to discuss it. If the matter is not sub judice, the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to make a case. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position to the House.

We consider that the matter is sub judice, and I had intended saying so. I was going on to explain the case in some detail, and then to say that it was definitely sub judice and that for that reason we cannot take any action on it. I cannot take a definite decision one way or another, because it is sub judice until 23rd April.

The parties concerned applied for an injunction to restrain the other side taking the equipment away, and that application was refused. Surely, as no further application has been made in the Hong Kong courts, we are entitled to discuss the matter on these lines?

Is a matter technically out of order for discussion on the Adjournment when no appeal has been lodged and it is impossible for us to say whether or not an appeal will be lodged?

If an appeal has been made, the matter is sub judice.

Notice of appeal has not been given.

This needs a little clarification. There are no fewer than three actions arising here. There is an action in which the American companies are plaintiffs, an action in which the Communist authorities are plaintiffs, and an action in which the individuals who I think would be described as the people who were "sitting in" are the plaintiffs. It is true that one of these actions has resulted in what we call interlocutory proceedings for an injunction being taken. That injunction has been granted, and an appeal against it has been lodged. That is the only interlocutory proceeding in the main action which continues.

I have not legal knowledge, nor can I can be expected to know everything that is happening all over the world. The Minister says that the matter is sub judice. He is responsible, and I must accept his statement.

If, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says, the matter is sub judice, why is the equipment leaving Hong Kong almost daily. Surely until the matter of the material is settled it should remain intact there. I would not have raised this delicate matter if the equipment were remaining in Hong Kong pending a final decision, but that is not the case. The equipment is leaving, and I cannot see in those circumstances how the matter can be sub judice.

It is a fact that an appeal has been lodged. As a matter of fact, the appeal has been lodged by the people representing the Chinese Nationalists and the United States. The appeal having been lodged, it will be heard on 28th April, so I submit to the House that it is, in fact, sub judice.

Surely we should clear our minds as to what is sub judice. Let us assume for one moment that someone is claiming the Tower of London. That is sub judice, but it does not prevent us from discussing the future of the Tower of London. There are three claimants to these aeroplanes. It is quite possible to discuss the different questions as to what administrative action the Minister should adopt with regard to these aeroplanes. It is not as if we were considering the question of a man who is appealing to the Privy Council against a death sentence imposed in West Africa. If we discuss whether he should or should not be pardoned or whether some action should be taken to interfere or reverse or bring in legislation to alter the court's decision, we would be discussing something that is sub judice. But the mere fact that one aspect of these aeroplanes is under discussion in the courts, does not preclude a general discussion at this stage of what administrative action the Minister should take with regard to the prevention of the export of what we on this side of the House call war material.

That is, in my submission, a perfectly proper question to discuss, and need not interfere in any way with the decision of the court. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have got to accept that the courts are ready to say that the Communist Government are immune from the Statute and could not be touched in the courts. However, that is not the question. For instance, in America what happened at the beginning of the 1939 war? A lot of actions were pending about war material, but the executive Government prevented the export of the war material from the United States, and it is that administrative action, which the right hon. Gentleman could take under existing legislation, which we think he should take.

No, it cannot be taken under existing legislation. That was the further point mentioned by my hon. Friend. Not only is the case sub judice but no action can be taken without legislation, which is a further reason why it is possible that this whole subject may be out of Order.

The Minister must have been aware all along of these legal inhibitions against this discussion. The discussion has gone very far outside the issue of the legal position in China, and the explanation which has been made to us is that we have not had a Debate on the Far Eastern general situation for the last five years. There has been a considerable opening up of charges this morning, which certainly I should like to hear rebutted, and I should like to take part in rebutting them. The Minister sat quietly in his seat while all these issues were being raised, and then suddenly he informed the House that he was intending to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the legal inhibitions against the progress of the Debate. Now you have accepted that, and all these charges have gone by the board. There is no opportunity afforded to reply to them. Is it not a little unfair that we should be in that position, and could you, Mr. Speaker, not consider that before giving a final Ruling on the matter?

I do not know whether the House is aware that this technical question of the aircraft has developed into a much wider issue. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has gone as far back as to quote to us what Stalin said in 1921. I submit that what Mr. Stalin said in 1921 is not sub judice. It should certainly not go out to the world that some of the views expressed this morning are representative of the opinion of this House.

Would it not be possible to compromise on this by not referring specifically to the aeroplanes, but instead discussing the question of whether equipment of this kind should or should not be allowed to go to Communist China.

It would be possible to keep in Order in that way and refer to administrative action only. Hon. Members cannot refer to anything which is sub judice and if they do, I must rule that they are out of Order.

Surely if this matter had been sub judice, the Government, through one of the Law Officers of the Crown, would have made representations at the beginning of this Debate to the effect that we were out of order, and if they substantiated their case the Debate would not have proceeded. If we could have an assurance that something will be done to retain the equipment in Hong Kong until the courts decide the issue, everybody will be satisfied. That is all we are asking for. If the matter is sub judice, could we have that assurance?

No Sir, because that raises a further point which would require legislation, and I cannot give an assurance that legislation will be introduced on that, nor can the question of legislation, I understand, be discussed on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

If an hon. Member wishes to raise a matter on the Adjournment and it is known beforehand that the Government Department responsible for the matter considers it sub judice and out of order, surely the Adjournment Debate should not be allowed to take place.

It is not officially known what is going to be brought up on the Adjournment, and the Minister is entitled to wait and hear what way the Debate will develop. The Minister is able to accept legal advice from the Law Officers of the Crown, and therefore the responsibility must rest with the Minister.

In the light of that Ruling, I must be careful not to criticise the court's decision, but the latest reports in any of the newspapers, including yesterday's "Daily Telegraph," which I have quoted to the House, show that the application of the American registered Civil Air Transport Incorporated to get an injunction to stop these stores leaving the island was turned down by Mr. E. H. Williams, acting Chief Justice of Hong Kong. Therefore, these stores can continue to leave. The Minister made the point just now that an appeal had actually been made. The latest information which I have here is that no legal action has yet been taken by General Chennault, and if the Minister thinks that some appeal has been made, it would be interesting to know what the action was, and by whom it was made.

There are two points. One is the point about spares and the other is the point dealing with the planes. With regard to the spares, I can only repeat that there are no powers by which those spares can be prevented from leaving the country. As regards the planes, the court ruled on 23rd February that the property was in the possession and control of the Chinese People's Government and that it would be a violation of the rights of a foreign Sovereign Power to make an order directing that the property in its possession and control should be delivered over to a receiver appointed by the court.

An appeal against this decision has been lodged, as I said before, by the side representing Chinese Nationalist and United States interests, and that appeal is due to be heard on 28th April. As regards the question of the spares, we have no administrative powers, and the matter would require legislation. As regards the question of the planes going, it is sub judice until 28th April.

When the right hon. Gentleman says "legislation" I presume that he means an Act of Parliament. Has he no power to issue Orders in Council in regard to export matters?

It would have to be legislation by the Hong Kong Government.

How does the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between spares for aeroplanes and the aircraft themselves? Surely they are part and parcel of the same thing.

No, Sir. The matter in dispute is the question of the registration of the aircraft and not of the spares. That is as I understand the matter. Until that question is settled, the aircraft are in a different position from the spares.

In that case, perhaps I might confine my remarks by speaking only about the aircraft spares, of which about 6,000 crates have already left the Island. I will not ask the Minister to stop those spares going because that would require legislation, but I want to ask him something else. I am assuming that in the Far East—

The spares are quite clearly sub judice, as we have just heard. [HON MEMBERS: "No, they are leaving the island now."] The question of their ownership is sub judice.

If what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says is correct, that the question of the ownership of the spares leaving the island is sub judice, and if it is also correct that to retain them there might require legislation, as the Minister has said, I hope that it would be in Order to point out that 6,000 crates have already gone, and to speculate upon the use to which they might be put by the Communists in the Far East who are now waging a hot war. Would that be in Order, Mr. Speaker?

That seems to be all right.

It was really on those lines that I was arguing earlier. I had appreciated the difficulty of discussing the whereabouts of these 71 planes. I am not going to retrace any of the ground that I had covered before this storm-in-a-teacup arose. All I am now trying to do is to remind the Minister of State that in the Far East at the moment there is an increasingly grave situation which gets graver as the weeks go on and which, so far as the British public are concerned, is very largely out of sight and therefore out of mind. If this Debate serves no more useful purpose than to draw attention to that deteriorating situation in the Far East and to the fact that the Communists in Malaya, Burma, China, Indo-China and throughout the whole of the Far East are centrally controlled and directed by the Far Eastern Cominform, which is, I believe—

On a point of Order. Will it be in order, despite the legal difficulties with which we have just been concerned, for us now to follow in this Debate these references to Indo-China and to the ramifications of Communism in the Far East, and, if necessary, to the philosophies of Lenin, Marx and the rest of them, which have been dragged into this Debate? It is a most interesting field. Sir, and I am putting it to you quite sympathetically in the hope that your Ruling will be as I should like it to be. If it is not going to be so, I would submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman now addressing the House is wandering into a very wide field.

We have been informed, and I think it is clear, that the stoppage of the use of the spares about which the Debate has turned, would involve legislation. How is it possible, since any proposal involving legislation is out of order in Adjournment Debates and the Minister obviously cannot reply, to discuss the uses of these spares which the Minister is not empowered in any way to deal with? How can we discuss them in any reasonable way, since that is the position?

I would point out that the Communists, the 30 of them, would never have been in control of these spares had their passes been withdrawn from the local airport. There would have been no Communists there at all, and the spares would have been in the hands of the other side.

This is rather complicated. I am not quite clear where the authority lies. Where does the legislation come from? This House, or from Hong Kong?

From the colonial Government.

Then it is quite in Order. Legislation by a Colonial Government is in Order.

One of my hon. Friends has gone out to get some of the necessary details in regard to colonial legislation.

It is quite in order. It is our own legislation that we cannot discuss.

rose—

On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the messengers outside the Chamber were heard to call "Who goes home?"?

I heard the messenger being told to say "Count" straight away. I hope that was done.

I must express my great astonishment at the efforts being made by every conceivable means by hon. Gentlemen opposite—although they are perfectly within their rights in using them—to stop this Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very significant."] I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) present. He makes most valuable contributions to these Debates whenever they touch upon military subjects.

May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that some of us have left occupations and engagements with which we were engaged to come into the Chamber and prevent the Adjournment Debate being interrupted.

Some hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this may be a valuable subject to discuss. Everyone will agree that the points of Order have been a little confusing. I hope I am right in saying that it appears now that any legislation that might be involved would be legislation in the Colony of Hong Kong, and that on those grounds there is no question of this discussion being out of order. I think it is also agreed that not only have nearly 6,000 crates of valuable aircraft spares and parts left Hong Kong but that other spares and parts are likely to leave in the future.

I was attempting to deal with the question of the destination of these spares and the use to which they might be put. If I remember, I was in the middle of a sentence when this last rumpus occurred. I think I was drawing attention to the speech which I have tried to make by summing up and by describing the way in which the Far-Eastern Cominform, which is, of course, controlled directly by the Politbureau in the Kremlin, is in charge of these Communist activities which are causing the Atlantic Pact and the Western Union Powers such very great trouble in the Far East. About that there can be no shadow of doubt.

That leads me to take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government to the point that the fact that these spares are leaving the Colony of Hong Kong is only underlining the fact that since 1945, when the Socialists became the masters, there has been no indication at all of any coherent policy regarding East-West trade. The most frightful example of all was when Rolls Royce Nene jet engines were sent to the Soviet Union. That showed a grave lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. I cannot credit that when the Minister of Supply, who I believe was responsible for this, gave instructions and allowed them to go, the Foreign Office had any real knowledge of it. All these Communist countries are increasingly locked together by trade agreements, whether they are in the Far East or in Europe. All agreements between Communist countries contain secret clauses. The last agreement between Czechoslovakia and Russia contained only one sentence simply saying that a trade agreement had been signed.

Against this military and political background, I feel sure that the Minister of State, without commenting on any legal decision that has been taken, can but regret the fact that these valuable military stores are going to Communist China. It is no good saying that these spare parts and stores are only suitable for civil planes. The Minister knows perfectly well that any large modern aircraft, or even a small aircraft, in the conditions of war which exist, for example, in Burma, is invaluable to either side. The use of a Hawker Hart with a bucket full of Mills bombs in it would be invaluable to the Communists who are at present in occupation of the aerodrome at Prome in Burma. It is most unpleasant to have a bucket full of Mills bombs on one's head, no matter how small or ancient the plane may be from which they are dropped. I have not had personal experience of that, and I hope that I never do.

I am sure that the Minister will not indulge in the argument that these spare parts and stores, or indeed the aircraft, are civil equipment. The machines are suitable for parachutists or for carrying airborne troops, or even for carrying bombs in one way or another. I appeal most sincerely to the Minister to consider the whole question against the general and deteriorating military and political background throughout the whole of the Far East. It is obvious that if the Government were looking for a legal loophole through which these stores which are of a military nature could be provided to Communist China, it would not be difficult for them to find one.

I suggest that this is a far wider and more important issue. In view of the fact that what is happening at the moment has been the subject of adverse criticism in the United States and bearing in mind the other reasons which I have outlined, the very least the Minister can do is to assure us that the whole question will be re-examined in the light of the wider picture which I have tried to paint and the most able case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield.

Although every backbencher in the House realises the very great importance of the opportunies we have on Adjournments to raise all kinds of matters for which time is not found in the official programme, I must say that I am sorry that this Debate has developed as it has done. The issues that have now been raised in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) go very far beyond the subject originally stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). What has now been raised is the whole question of the relationship of the Western Powers, and particularly the relationship of the Government of Great Britain, to the Communist Powers throughout the world.

I regret that this much wider issue has been raised in this fashion, because it is of completely fundamental importance not only to Great Britain but to every country in the whole world. It seems unfair that this should be sprung on the Minister when he is obviously in a position where he cannot possibly give any effective reply.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Minister of State has very great responsibilities indeed, for example, regarding the situation in Malaya on which subject he answers Questions in this House—although most inadequately.

Yes, and because he has those responsibilities, surely it would have been fair and wise to warn him in advance that these issues were to be raised, so that he might have come here prepared to say something about them. Obviously the Minister, not having received warning, has prepared himself for the much narrower issue raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. I hope that the Minister will find himself completely unable to venture on the very dangerous ground opened up by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this situation has been brought about entirely as a result of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) was merely exercising his skill to get round a point of Order, and that is something which is frequently done by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As events have turned out, it has been proved that the Minister was wrong on the subject of legislation. It was legislation in the Colony, and not in this country, which was required.

I have always said that it was legislation in the Colony.

I do not think that this touches the point I was making. It is undesirable that a Minister should be asked, without warning, to commit the Government in a statement upon these extremely difficult and dangerous questions. Everybody realises how explosive these questions can be. It is all very well for myself as a back-bencher without Governmental responsibility, or for hon. Members opposite as back-benchers, to express views freely upon matters of this kind, as I hope that we all will, but it is an entirely different matter to expect a Minister to stand up on the spur of the moment and to deal with matters of this quality on an occasion such as this.

I turn to some of the comments of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. It must have been obvious to the House, when he was developing the argument about the military uses of these spares upon which attention has now been pinned, how completely one-sided the presentation of his views was. He said, quite properly, that a civil airplane can, at very short notice and with a minimum of preparation, be turned into an effective weapon for war offensive. Even those of us who have no technical knowledge about aeroplanes know that. It is obvious, therefore, that these spare parts upon which the Debate has been pinned and which have been sent out from Hong Kong to Communist China may play some part in military operations within the territory of that power or within any other territory which the planes may reach.

That is true, but was it not a significant thing that the hon. Member was emphasising in that argument that, while he was so anxious to deprive Communist China of even spare parts that might have potential military uses, he had no word whatever to say about the actions of the Government of Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa in using American bombers and dropping American explosives on the territory and people of Communist China whom he is so anxious to deprive of the effective means of defence. Had he been really concerned for the peace of the world in the Far East, he would surely have shown wisdom by protesting against the use of American planes by General Chiang Kai-shek as well as against the use of spare parts exported from the British Colony of Hong Kong.

I have no doubt that General Chiang Kai-shek will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I doubt if it will have very much effect.

I should very much like to have some effect on General Chiang Kai-shek. Since we are raising this issue in this wide form, it is necessary that we should speak plainly about it. The Government of Chiang Kai-shek is engaged in a series of piratical and destructive raids upon the territory of a Government with which we ourselves are in friendly relations, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, since he raised these issues, he should try to look at them in an objective manner.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite deplore the use of spares from Hong Kong for this Government, with whom we are in friendly relations, and if they deplore their use for military purposes, they ought to be frank and sincere enough also to express their distaste of the use of bombing planes by General Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa, but we have not heard a single word about it. I am not referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, but to the argument which I heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, and I suggest that we have to make up our minds, not only on the question whether it is wise to allow these spares to go from Hong Kong to General Mao, but also on the question of what our attitude is to be to the far more important issue of our relations with Communist powers in the Far East and elsewhere.

The logic of the argument from the other side is not merely that we should disrupt the friendly relations which we have established with General Mao and his Government, but that we should disrupt our friendly relations and contacts with every Communist Government and people throughout the world. Every word uttered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not merely an argument against friendly relations with Communist China but also an argument against friendly relations with Soviet Russia. It was an argument for breaking off all contacts with any Communist Governments anywhere.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow that to be said. I produced no such argument, and never in my life have I suggested breaking off diplomatic relations with any Communist country. I have never suggested that, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me that credit.

I must accept that that might have been the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention, and all that I would ask is that tomorrow he should take a careful look at what he said as it is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am perfectly certain that nobody, reading what he said, could mistake the logic of the argument put forward. Of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say that he wanted to break off relations with all these powers, but what was the meaning of his argument if that was not its purpose and intention? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, after all, cannot possibly come to this House and endorse a full-scale attack being made upon a country with which we are in friendly relations, though it has a Communist Government, just because of the fact that it is a Communist Government—because, after all, that was the reason for his attack—and, at the same time, imagine that he can also advocate, at one and the same time, friendly relations with Communist Governments in the Far East and elsewhere.

I want to make clear what I said. The whole of my argument had led me to this conclusion, which ought to be clear. The Western Powers, the signatories to the Atlantic Pact and Western Union, should in no circumstances trade with the Communist-dominated countries controlled by the Kremlin in such a way as to increase their military potential in relation to our own. I hope that is now clear.

I accept that that was the intention and meaning of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but it seems to me that it does not really alter the logic of it. After all, what is a military supply? The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself knows perfectly well that we are not discussing at the moment anything which can be described technically as military supplies. The subject upon which this discussion has been pinned, by his own choice, is the question of the use of spare parts for civilian aeroplanes which are now in Hong Kong, and these are not, technically, military weapons.

Yes.

Hon. Members will see the logic of the argument. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to do, whether he admits it or not, is to deprive Communist China of any means whatever of helping in its own defence against air attacks from the piratical Government established by General Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa. That is what he has been arguing, and that is the logic and the meaning of it, and we may as well face it.

I do not want to continue to debate this point at any length. I want to finish on another point. I hope, by the way, that this discussion will convince my hon. Friends on this side, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that the time has gone by, and very long gone by, when we should have had a really full-scale Debate on these enormously important issues which affect the whole of the Far East. I hope my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, who has now resumed his seat on the Front Bench, will convey those sentiments to the Leader of the House so that we may have such a Debate before very long.

The subject upon which I wish to conclude is this. In all these important matters, we have to make up our minds on one great central issue. We have to make up our minds whether, in this enormously difficult matter of putting a measure to the advance of Communism in the Far East and elsewhere, it is a wise and statesmanlike thing to meet it everywhere with an opposition that can only be a vain opposition, or whether we should try, as we are trying to do in China, to establish normal friendly relations which will at least—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has now arrived with material to fortify his argument, but I hope that he will not be fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye until I have departed for lunch.

My point was that we have to make up our minds whether it is the wise and statesmanlike thing in the situation, not only in the Far East but throughout the world vis-à-vis Communism and Communist Powers, to try to detach them from the central Communist Power of Soviet Russia by maintaining friendly relations with them so far as that is possible and giving them the friendly help which they are entitled to expect from us, or whether we should maintain towards them an attitude of open or concealed hostility, refusing to have any kind of normal relations with them and refusing them the technical and other assistance which they require from us, therefore forcing them willy-nilly more strongly and more closely into the orbit of Soviet influence.

That is the decision we have to make. I have no hesitation at all about the direction of my choice. I am all for friendly relations, for establishing contact and for co-operating in raising the social and economic conditions of the peoples of the Far East who have now succumbed to the Communist dogma. I believe that to be the only real and effective way in which we can finally erect a barrier against the continuous spread of Communist influence.

I can assure the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) that there was one portion of his speech with which I am in full agreement, namely, that long before now, the Government should have provided time for a full-scale Debate on the whole question of the Far East. It is very unsatisfactory from many points of view that these wide issues should have to be discussed in an Adjournment Debate, for one reason, if for no other, that in an Adjournment Debate of this sort there is no representative on the Front Bench from the Foreign Office, which is very closely concerned with this matter, to hear what hon. Members on both sides of the House have to say.

They were notified.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North, seemed to resent the fact that the matter was raised at all.

No.

I understood his view to be that it was wrong for any hon. Member to raise a matter on the Adjournment which might put the Minister responsible in an awkward position when he came to reply. If that is his view, it is one to which I do not subscribe.

The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood me. What I regretted was the widening of this Debate on to what are really dangerous issues without warning the Minister who was expected to reply.

I understood that he was warned.

I am not complaining.

We do not want to listen to the arguments all over again, but the widening of the Debate was due to a point of Order raised by an hon.. Member opposite as to whether the subject matter involved legislation and whether the matter was sub judice. I thought it a little curious that the Minister of State did not admit until we had had a discussion on these points of Order for about 10 minutes that any legislation which was involved concerned not this House but the Colony of Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Norwich, North, talked a good deal about friendly relations with Communist China, but he seemed to forget the unpleasant fact that friendship means two-way traffic. It is not enough for one side to stretch out the hand of friendship if that hand is not grasped by the other.

But it is worth while stretching it out.

His Majesty's Government have recognised de jure the Communist Government of China, but so far the Communist Government of China have not been able to decide whether they should recognise His Majesty's Government. That is hardly a very good reciprocal gesture of friendship on their part. If the hon. Member will refresh his memory as to the relationship between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union and its satellites during the last four and a half or five years, he will find that the many acts of hostility, both open and covert, which have been committed have not been committed on this side of the Iron Curtain, whether it be here or in the Far East.

I hope that when he replies the Minister of State will so frame his speech as to deal with one or two specific points. This Adjournment Debate should not become a lawyers' field day because, although the legal position is important, much wider points are at issue than these. First of all, if it is necessary for the Colony of Hong Kong to introduce legislation to prohibit the despatch of spare parts or, still more important, the aircraft from the Colony to Communist hands, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman anticipated this position, whether he has been in communication with the Governor of Hong Kong and whether he has given any advice; or has he just sat back and done nothing at all until this extremely difficult situation has arisen?

Secondly, while we all wish to carry out both the letter and the spirit of international agreements and obligations on any legal point, I have not noticed that the Communists, either in Asia or in Europe, have been over-meticulous in carrying out international obligations in relation to British subjects who have been put under arrest and accused of fantastic charges. I have not noticed any legal observance 'of the Soviet obligations in respect of the clauses of various peace treaties, notably those which concern the Balkan countries. We ought, therefore, to be a little careful how widely we interpret our own legal obligations in respect of the Communist-controlled Government of China.

I also hope that the Minister of State will frame his reply against the general background of the cold war, because it is no good denying that there is a cold war which is splitting the world in two. Happily at this end of the world the war is still cold, but in Malaya and elsewhere it is far from cold. To allow these aircraft and the spare parts for them—whether they be civil or military is really splitting hairs at this juncture against the background of the extremely tense situation—to be dispatched without any attempt to hold them up pending further clarification of the legal position, seems to be most unwise.

What sort of effect will this action—or inaction—on the part of the Government have upon the United States, the Dominions, the British troops so gallantly fighting in Malaya and the unfortunate planters and other inhabitants of Malaya who go in daily fear of their lives? What sort of impression is this going to make on the morale of the civilian population in Hong Kong? It is easy enough for us here, thousands of miles away, to talk about friendly relations, but it is quite a different matter for those who are living in close contact with Communist forces, or Communist-controlled forces, and know what banditry and kidnapping mean.

I should like the Minister to address himself to the psychological effect of the inaction of His Majesty's Government. One cannot put a cold war into watertight departments. One cannot separate the plan in Malaya from the plan in China or in Burma or any other theatre. They all fit together. The pieces of the mosaic make one whole pattern. The Only way to combat these tactics is for His Majesty's Government and the United States and the Dominions to get together and work out a similar plan of co-ordination. That is just what His Majesty's Government have not done, otherwise we should not have got into this extremely humiliating position of offering unilateral recognition to Communist China—to the dismay of the United States and the Dominions—without, in turn, receiving recognition ourselves. Will the Minister of State address himself to these points, with particular reference to the release of aircraft and spare parts, because that is part and parcel of the same sorry story?

The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) complained that the Debate had been opened too wide, following upon the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). But before that intervention on the legal question which troubled the House and Mr. Speaker for so long, hon. Friends of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor had indulged fully in a series of arguments of the kind he has referred to.

I did not raise that at all. The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. In the first place, I said it was regrettable that, hitherto, until this Adjournment, there had been no opportunity for a general discussion on the Far East. I said that a general discussion on the Far East was an awkward subject for this Adjournment Debate and only arose because the narrow discussion on the actual handing over of aircraft had been called in question by an hon. Member.

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I claimed from Mr. Speaker, and I think I had his agreement at the time, that so much had been said by Friends of the hon. Gentleman about the general issue of the situation in the Far East that the matter could be referred to from this side of the House. I am intervening because the Debate has run along that course.

I suggest that in all Chinese issues in the last half century this country, for the most part, has been embarking upon policies that very soon after it discovered to be entirely mistaken and it has had to retrace its steps. I became convinced of that truth a good many years ago when I sat on the Committee upstairs that dealt with the Boxer indemnity from China. We had imposed on China conditions of which we became ashamed, and we were very glad to retrace our steps and make available to the Chinese the indemnity that we had sought to extract from them earlier.

I feel that, with the type of argument they have pursued today, hon. Gentlemen opposite are making just the same sort of mistake about China. Later on, some Government will have to undo that mistake. For example, in their desire to condemn the Communists and to call us to a policy that will deal with the Communists as outcasts, hon. Members opposite forget entirely that in their military reactions, not merely in Russia but in China, the Communists are actuated by the conditions from which they them- selves suffer. I am entirely in accord with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) that we ought not to connive at the situation in China for a moment.

The situation is that a Government, which is now an outcast Government on an island off the shores of China, is endeavouring to build up an aerial force to be used in acts of banditry—let us make no mistake about it—against the Government which we have admitted to be responsible for China. I repeat that we should not connive at that for a moment, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, either directly or indirectly, by their constant innuendos against Communism in Asia, fail to recognise that, at its worst, Communism in Asia is the result of a policy that is being pursued in Formosa. On all sides of the House we should make it quite clear that we cannot support that policy for a moment.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between Communism in South-East Asia and Communism in South-Eastern Europe?

It is not necessary for the purpose of my argument. All I know is that what is taking place in Formosa at present is an attempt by a Government, which we no longer admit to be the Government of China, to win the position by force. And they are using that detestable kind of force which our people deeply resented when it was used against this country. It is a kind of force that always will be resented. Because of that attitude in Formosa the people and Government of China take an attitude very different from that expressed today by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I know that it is necessary for us to be very careful what we say when we speak about this matter. I know the Americans are taking a different point of view from the one I am expressing. For example, I know that they look with a greater element of sympathy than I can look upon what I call the bandit government of Formosa. I know that where China is concerned they feel the need to proceed with care in the matter of the future development of international policy. But I still think that it is necessary to protest so vigorously from these Benches—and I had hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have seen it to be necessary—that even Chiang Kai-shek might understand.

Someone said just now that he was not likely to be influenced very much by anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. I think he would be influenced if there were a united expression from all Benches in this House that we cannot approve for a moment an attempt to undermine the Communist Government of China by reverting to war and methods of violence and force. That is all the more important in view of the mistakes and wickedness for which Communism has become responsible in the East. I agree that the Communists have put themselves out of court by many of the actions which they have pursued, but I maintain that they are out of court very largely because of the things from which they have suffered. We have to make an all round approach to this problem if a new situation is to be induced in China and in the East generally.

I realise that I cannot expect right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench to say very much about this, but I do maintain that if we are to get a new situation in China it will not depend very much on what happens in the matter of spare parts for aeroplanes. That is a very small matter. The big issue in China at the moment is: how are the people to be fed? Never mind the spare parts. How are we to get food to the people of China? Any Government in China, whether a Communist Government or the Chiang Kai-shek Government, which could obtain our help in alleviating that situation—and that is the main problem in China today—would be far more likely to be won into friendly and better relations with us than by our insistence on ascertaining what has happened to the spare parts of aeroplanes.

Hon. Members have suggested that we are being watched very carefully by America, by the Malay people and by our Dominions. We are, but I believe that if we could direct our attention along the lines I am suggesting—and, as far as I can make out, the Government intend to do so—we would be far nearer than we are at the moment to a peaceful solution of the problems in the East. I am sure the Government intend to act on those lines if possible. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot say very much about this question I appreciate the limitations of a Debate of this sort. I hope that the time will soon come when we shall be able to debate in full the whole issue of the East, and the policy we ought to adopt towards the Communists if we are to have friendly relations with them.

Does the hon. Gentleman favour the exportation of what may well be munitions of war from this country to another country?

The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer that question with reference to one country only. I object to munitions of war being used by any country.

Hear, hear.

I have been saying that the use of munitions in Formosa is one of the causes of the present situation, in which so many other people want to use those munitions as well. If we want to get rid of the dangers of munitions of war we must do a great deal more than we have done.

I do not think hon. Members need be frightened by the number of books which I have brought with me. I brought them in to show the Minister that this is a matter for legislation in the Colony of Hong Kong. I wish to protest against the position which the Minister has adopted in this Debate. First of all, he attempted to prevent any discussion—

May I intervene? I quite agree with the hon. Member's protest. I quite agree that the Debate ought to continue, but I would point out that the precedent was set a fortnight ago by an hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite.

All I am complaining about is the Minister's attitude in this Debate. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) tried to restrict the scope of this Debate by what we all regard as a lot of legal "falderals." Then the Minister made two propositions. First of all, he said that the matter is sub judice. I think he is wrong. It is not possible to argue that matter now, but I ask him to examine his own conscience after the Debate as to whether he is right or not. Secondly, he had the effrontery to state that the matter is the subject of legislation. When I asked him a specific question, he continued his objection. I went out to get a lot of books, and when I came back I found that he had recanted. I suppose he had heard that I was getting some ammunition from the Library.

Surely he should agree that when he makes a statement which is accepted by the Chair he should be doubly careful. It is monstrous that he should try to restrict the scope of the Debate by saying that the matter is the subject of legislation, when he ought to have known—I do not say he must have known—that that argument was not valid. If he does not apologise to this House for having said that, I shall think very much less of him. He may have apologised when I was away from the Chamber,

I only said that it was the subject of Hong Kong legislation.

The hon. Gentleman still does not apologise. He made an objection to your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. He said that this Debate could not go on because the matter is sub judice, and it is the subject of legislation. That point of order very nearly won the day and he nearly succeeded in his object of depriving the House of the opportunity of discussing this important subject. He still has not apologised for raising a false point of order. I do not expect he will. I think it is monstrous. He has a special duty to the Chair to be very careful when making statements which are accepted by the Chair, and to be quite sure that those statements are correct. He should check his statements and he should be doubly careful. It is only when the matter developed and it became clear that he was going to be exposed that I understand he recanted. I make that protest because Ministers should realise that on points of order they must not be partisan. The Chair and the House expect their statements to be accurate.

We all ought to be indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for raising this matter. The question is whether aircraft and spare parts should be made available to Communist China and, therefore, directly or indirectly to Russia. I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), but this Debate is not concerned with any attempt by Members on either side to support acts of banditry. The question is whether the Minister thinks that the ban which exists in the West against allowing the Russians to obtain materials of war—and I include aeroplanes and spare parts in that category—should be extended to the Far East. Surely that must be so, because if it is logical in the West it is logical in the East.

All that we on this side are doing is to raise the question whether the Minister can prevent this equipment from going to the Russian side. There is no question of taking sides as between Chiang Kai-shek's Government and the Communists. We have recognised the Communist Government, but we must be realistic about the matter. We can make a friendly gesture and assist the millions of starving people in China, but hon. Members opposite must surely agree that it is unwise to allow the Communist China-Russia alliance to benefit from valuable spare parts and aeroplanes.

That is the simple question in this Debate. It is no good the hon. Member for Ealing, North, trying to score a point against hon. Members on this side by suggesting that we are advocating acts of banditry on the part of the government based in Formosa. That is not the question. We are saying that equipment situated in Hong Kong should not be allowed to go to the Russians; that is what it boils down to. Of course, I appreciate what the Minister said about there being very difficult diplomatic matters involved and I think it behoves us not to complicate the task, except for raising the simple question which has already been raised.

The Minister probably knows that in dealing with the Communist règime we have to steer a course between, on the one hand, being firm and, on the other hand, never closing the door completely to some understanding, perhaps on a very high level. It is no good trying to placate Communist règimes by giving way here or there. What they understand is a firm policy with a definite objective, and our objective and our policy with regard to the points which are the subject of this Debate, namely, spare parts and aeroplanes, should be to keep them on British territory so that they do not fall into the hands of the Russians. That is quite plain and it will not exacerbate the feelings of the Russians or of the people in this country—

Or of Chiang Kai-shek.

Or, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, the feelings of Chiang Kai-shek. There is only one thing I think I should add. I think the argument used by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, is a little dangerous. I accept the view that he is unalterably opposed to Communism, but he uses the argument that Communism in China is accounted for by the very low standard of living and the terrible conditions which obtain in that country. That may or may not be true, but it is not an argument which should be used to affect our policy.

Perhaps he can explain historically that the situation which obtained in China, where the social standard of the population was not high enough, was the main reason for the rise of Communism, but that is quite irrelevant when we are deciding whether we shall let them have spare parts and aeroplanes. The Communist règime is there, we know it is allied to the Russians and we know that the Russian règime is a menace to democracy, freedom and the peace of the world. We hope that the Russians will see reason and will ultimately come to some agreement with us; but in the meantime, as long as they do not, it is our job to see that they do not get either materials of war or materials which could be used for war purposes. That is the simple issue which has been raised so usefully by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield.

I am not so sure that the issue is quite as simple as the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has made out. The point which he puts is this, that it is our business to prevent arms likely to be used by Communist Powers from falling into the hands of the enemy. Of all the places in the world about which to discuss this issue, we choose Hong Kong! I can imagine no other place in the world which is less defensible from a military or a strategic point of view, yet to this isolated little outpost in the Far East presumably we have sent quite a substantial amount of military material and, if the policy of hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite is carried to its logical conclusion, we shall send more war material in the future. For what purpose? Inevitably to fall into the hands of the Communist enemy.

One would think that we had never lost Hong Kong. What happened to all the stores of materials which went into Hong Kong during the war with the Japanese? What happened to the British soldiers who were in Hong Kong? Inevitably we found, when it developed into a major war, that they were lost. Some of my constituents were imprisoned in Hong Kong. Scots soldiers were imprisoned as a result of being locked up in Hong Kong and vast amounts of military equipment in the last war fell into the hands of the Japanese. Presumably, indeed, some has even filtered through to Malaya to be used to kill Scots soldiers there.

Surely the hon. Member ought not to make the very defeatist and terrible assumption that there is bound to be war between Communist China and this country. Only on that assumption would Hong Kong fall into their hands.

The only assumption I made is the inevitable logical outcome of the cold war argument which is being adduced in this House, that sooner or later it will develop into a hot war. I hope it will not. I do not say for a moment that the hon. Member for Northwich wants war, but I say that the logical outcome of all this insistent propaganda about East and West will inevitably lead to the possibility of war.

We have heard that American opinion is exercised about this matter, but that, surely, is rather curious because America has already tried the experiment of arming the Nationalist Government of China. I understand that the greater part of the enormous modern military equipment which was used by the Nationalist forces in China was supplied to Chiang Kai-shek by the Americans and was captured by the Chinese Communists. I need only remind hon. and gallant Members opposite that the guns which were used in the shelling of the "Amethyst" were captured by the Chinese Communists from the Chinese Nationalists. I submit that when America has been forced to recognise that it is no longer possible to arm the Chinese Nationalists, we should by no means be taking much account of what reactionary opinion in America may think about this question of Hong Kong.

Is the hon. Member saying that he is prepared that arms should be supplied to the People's Government of China, to the Communists?

Certainly not. I am not arguing that arms should be supplied to anybody. I know from history how stupid it has been for us to send arms to nationalist movements or to reactionary movements, ultimately to be captured by the Communists. If we take the analogy of Russia, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) will remember that after the last War we sent £100 million worth of arms to support the Whites in Soviet Russia and they were immediately captured by the Russian Reds.

The last war?

The counter-revolutionary war. The hon. and gallant Member knows well that the Leader of the Opposition justified that war and that we spent £100 milion of British money on stores and equipment in order to back up the reactionary forces in Soviet Russia.

On a point of Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member in his speech, but we were discussing a matter relating to aircraft and spare parts being supplied from Hong Kong to the Communists.

No.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) cannot have it both ways. Now, however, the Debate is going back to the war in Russia 30 years ago. What are we discussing?

On the Adjournment we can talk about anything that does not require legislation. I think the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is going on to show why his remarks about Russia are linked up with the present position in Hong Kong.

May I say. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it takes one Scotsman to understand another. I have no doubt that the point I was making would have penetrated into the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield at a later stage of my argument, but I am obliged to you. Surely there is nothing far-fetched in that analogy. We are dealing with our attitude towards a Government which has been captured by the Communists, and we now know that in that war we sent a very large amount of military equipment to the Russian Whites which was duly captured by the Russian Reds. I submit that that historical lesson should be very carefully appreciated by the House before it agrees, by silence or argument, to support what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) called "the background." We are not so interested in the technical or the legal question here, and people outside do not appreciate the fine point of Order raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and certainly it will not be appreciated by the Chinese.

What we have to remember is that when the reports of this Debate are read in Hong Kong—there are British newspapers published there—the Communists there will read the arguments adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and suppose that in this House the argument is being used that Hong Kong is a base in the strategy of the cold war, and that it is being used as a base against the Communists in China. That is an exceedingly dangerous assumption. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield quite realises what this means. I, for one, do not believe that we should let it go out to the world that we are arguing that Hong Kong should be used as a base for distributing arms to the people engaged in fighting Communism in China.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point I was trying to make in my speech was that the aircraft and equipment should be withheld from both sides, not only from the Communists but also from the Nationalist Government in Formosa.

Oh, well, now we are getting on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees that we should not supply arms to either side engaged in the cold war. As we appear to be also in the cold war, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is gradually being converted to the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and me. We cannot have a war against Communism without arms. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman now agrees we should not supply arms to either side, and I am hopeful that the arguments that I have been adducing have at last penetrated.

I want to know when we are coming out of Hong Kong. I do not believe that, from a military point of view, Hong Kong can possibly be defended. I look with some alarm, from the point of view of the British taxpayers, at the amount of money being spent in Hong Kong. If it comes within the purview of the reply that the Minister is to make, I should like to ask a question about the aerodrome in Hong Kong. How much money is being spent on it? I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has argued at Question time that we are not spending enough. I should prefer that the money being spent in Hong Kong—as I believe, being wasted in Hong Kong—to be spent more profitably on airfields in this country. I can mention one that is near your constituency, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and mine. I should like to see the money spent on the aerodrome at Prestwick, rather than being invested in a very precarious manner in Hong Kong. Then we have our soldiers in Hong Kong. I have failed to elicit from any Minister exactly the cost of our military preparations in Hong Kong at the present time.

I share the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, that we are not taking up the right attitude towards the Communist Government of China, and that we are not justified in inflicting pinpricks. We have to remember that the Chinese are entitled to patriotic feelings, too. What would the hon. and gallant Mem- ber for Macclesfield say if the Chinese were in the Isle of Wight?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever visited Hong Kong? I lived there for a number of years, and my impression was that the majority of the Chinese were very glad that Hong Kong was in British hands. Moreover, it has been noticeable in the last year that people keep their money there, and that tens of thousands—hundred of thousands—of Chinese come as refugees to Hong Kong and are glad that it is in British hands.

I do not know whether the British colony in Hong Kong is entitled to speak for the great majority of the people in Hong Kong. However, I am trying to get the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put himself in the position of patriotic Chinese. Geographically speaking, Hong Kong is related to China in the same way as the Isle of Wight is related to Britain. The Chinese see in Hong Kong what they regard as a foreign Power.

I quite agree that the Chinese have everything to gain by retaining Hong Kong as a trading centre, and I believe that the Chinese have everything to gain by retaining their commercial association with the people of this country; but from the trading point of view I do suggest that a trade agreement with the Chinese People's Government would be immensely more valuable than trying to pretend that, in the event of a world war, we could possibly hold the Island of Hong Kong against the Chinese, when we could not hold it against the Japanese. That is the reality.

There has been expressed in this Debate a policy of pinpricks. Whether we like Communism in China or not, whether we like Communism in Russia or not, the fact is that it is there. It would be an immense undertaking, which this country could not afford, to let this cold war develop into a hot war. We cannot even contemplate the possibility of using Hong Kong in a war with the People's Government of China. I emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—that we should in every way possible make it clear to the Chinese that we have abandoned the old fashioned policy of imperialism, that we have abandoned it in India, and that we are going to abandon it in China. When the Chinese understand that, a way will be open for peace and understanding between the two peoples, as the people of goodwill in all countries earnestly desire, and as they also desire an end to the cold war and its frightful possibilities.

The Debate seems, as was probably intended, to have gone very wide of the original subject. I do think that what has just been said by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should not go un-contradicted. Purely from the point of view of the Chinese people in Hong Kong, the worst thing that could happen would be for Britain to get out of Hong Kong. The Nationalist forces control an area of sea far around, and they have a fair number of aircraft, and Hong Kong would immediately become a focal point of attack by the Chinese Nationalist forces. There would be chaos. There would also be destruction of great British interests—apart altogether from imperialism—legitimate commercial interests that we have there, which, however they were built up, are of great importance to this country in the economic scheme of things.

But to go back to the main point. I really think that the argument is a little far fetched, that a few cases of aeroplanes and spare parts or something of the kind ought not to be permitted to go through because of their potential value to Russia. This really is carrying the argument to an absurd conclusion. We hear constantly complaints, apparently well founded, about the terrific aircraft industry that Russia has. The implication, that a few cases going through Hong Kong would be of material benefit to Russia, just does not hold water.

What is important is that we have recognised as the de facto Goernment—not the de jure Government—of China the Chinese Communist People's Government. I am satisfied that if we had adopted a different attitude to Russia in 1917, the affairs of Europe might have gone in a different mould. We do not want the same sort of thing to happen again. It is these prejudices that we are worried about. We have recognised the Chinese Government, as we have been obliged to, because it is the only efficient Government, and the best thing to do is to be on the most friendly relations with them that we possibly can. If the Chinese people want it, it is their affair in the last analysis.

It may be argued that the Chinese Communist Government do not want to be friendly with us. We have a lot of sniping going on in Britain and in the House of Commons, and these things are obviously noticed by the Chinese people. It is not much good holding out the hand of friendship, with a fist clenched behind one's back. That is the sort of prejudice created by the type of controversial speeches which we hear against the Chinese People's Government. I think that it is wrong to regard Communist China as being entirely and necessarily within the sphere of influence of Russia. It will be if we continue, while pretending friendship, to act in an unfriendly manner. We have to do the best that we can. It is a pity that an issue which is relatively small has been raised in order to indicate that there is a good deal of prejudice against the present only real and legitimate Government in China.

The hon. Member for Ayrshire South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked "How would we feel if the Isle of Wight was Chinese?" I should say that the answer would entirely depend upon the circumstances. If instead of having good-humoured controversy across the Floor of this House, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party were engaged in shooting each other up all over the country, and we had a number of wars between neighbouring constituencies, then I think that everybody in England would be grateful for an island where law and order was maintained, where people who wanted a little peace could find sanctuary, and where the essential trade of both sides could be provided for.

That is really the position of Hong Kong so far as China is concerned. In circumstances of anarchy, there has been a sanctuary of good order, a place where people whose lives were otherwise forfeit and would be like hunted beasts can live in peace, and where all the various areas of China can find an entry for their trade. I think that the general run of Chinese have every reason to be grateful for our long presence in Hong Kong. Let us remember that this is not any recent thing. In fact my grandfather was a Governor of Hong Kong.

The next point which my hon. Friend made is, I think, an extremely varied one. There is no better way of arming Communists than by attempting to arm weak nationalist or semi-quisling organisations. I remember a good many years ago when we were sending arms to Nationalist China. I was a great deal interested to know how the arms got there. I was told by someone, whose name I shall not mention but of very good authority, that there was no difficulty about that at all—the arms went through the Japanese lines. I said, "Isn't that a little curious?" He said, "Not at all; the Japanese generals fully understand that generals must live, and they know that no Chinese general would be fool enough to use them against them." That was the sort of situation we had, and one which we do not want to repeat.

When was this?

This was about 1940, very shortly before the Japanese entered the war against us, when they were busy fighting the Chinese. I had it on good authority. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes, I will tell him privately where I got it.

With regard to this particular issue of the aeroplanes, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done a service by raising it. It is a very awkward situation indeed. It is awkward diplomatically. One has to weigh the considerations of a good many businesses of ours in China which we hope will survive. We have to weigh the importance of the rule of war. We have to weigh relations with America—all sorts of awkward questions—and I do not think that the situation is in the least improved by it being discussed here. I very much hope that the Minister will decline resolutely to say a word about these aeroplanes, because I do not think that a Government statement in this House on the subject, at this point, when the matter is before the courts in Hong Kong, can do anything but harm.

Finally, there is one thing which I think wants clearing up. It is again a statement by my hon. Friend below the Gang- way which ought not go out unchallenged, and that is the statement that Hong Kong is indefensible; that we lost it to the Japanese and it is only a question of again losing it to the Chinese Communist. That, I am convinced, is quite untrue. The situation in defending Hong Kong when we have command of the sea and air superiority, even if it be a carrier-borne air superiority, is wholly different from an attempt to defend Hong Kong without either sea or air superiority.

Those are almost the same words that the commander who defended the garrison in Hong Kong used about 24 hours before Hong Kong surrendered.

However hopeless it may be to defend a citadel, any man whose duty it is to defend that citadel, has also the duty to say, "It is defensible and we are going to defend it." No serious-minded person the moment that the Pearl Harbour affair happened and sea power was lost in the Pacific, even thought that it was remotely possible to hold Hong Kong. On the other hand, when we have sea and air power there, I can only say that people who are in a very good position to know something about the defence of Hong Kong have told me that they have not the slightest doubt that they can hold it against any forces the Communists can put against it.

We all hope that we shall be able to settle down with the Chinese and that they will not in fact come under Russian domination, that it will be a Chinese Communism which will probably develop on quite different lines to European Communism, and that it will be possible to get decent neighbourly relations. We shall not immediately, but we hope that it will settle down on those lines, and that there will not be any war. But do not let it go out from here that we have any doubt at all that we can hold Hong Kong if there is a war, because all the information I have received is that we can.

I have not the knowledge of or associations with Hong Kong, of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but there is one point which ought to be made very clear, particularly from this side of the House, in respect to the very delicate situation which prevails there at this time. However sincere individuals may be, it is highly undesirable, and indeed untrue, to suggest that the British Government, or for that matter the British people, have imperialistic designs on Hong Kong or any other part of the world. That kind of propaganda, magnified and distorted, as it indeed would be in various parts of the world, would do incalculable harm, not only to this country but also to the future peace of the world.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Communists have imperialistic designs upon Malaya, and that the situation in Malaya cannot in any way be divorced from the situation now under discussion? Does not that affect his whole argument?

I do not want to be drawn into that, because any attempt at this moment to criticise another Power, with whom I hope we may enter into early and protracted negotiations about the peace of the world, might exacerbate the situation—whatever may be our individual thoughts—and might indeed prove unhelpful. The point I want to make is a positive one: that as far as the British in Hong Kong are concerned, it is the policy of our Government, not only to have harmonious relations with the coloured and native peoples all over the world, but also to enter into association with them for the mutual benefit of this country and themselves, on the basis of trade and of improving their general standard of life and conditions. That is reciprocal, and will not only confer good upon them, but will also help our own country.

The policy of the Government in many places—in India for example—has been far-seeing and admirable. At one fell swoop we gave to 400 million Indian people the right to be independent, and at the same time of their own volition to come into the Commonwealth—a stroke which I think history will confirm as one of the grandest and finest gestures any Government could have made, and which will be entirely vindicated with the passage of time.

As to the Chinese people, it is a moot question to what degree a country like China, with perhaps 400 or 500 million people, backward mechanically and scientifically, would be susceptible to Communist propaganda. The fact remains that, this Government, and indeed public opinion in this country outside the Government, have taken a realistic view of the situation, and decided to recognise at any rate the present Communist Government of China, not on the basis of their Communism, but on the basis of the situation—namely, that they are there—J'y suis, j'y reste. We must recognise that.

On the other hand, I have seen in some weekly papers criticisms of our good friends the United States in respect of the help they are alleged to have given to General Chiang Kai-shek, who I understand has his headquarters in Formosa. There were criticisms—I do not know to what extent they were justified—that the General was using American aid or money, or hoped to, for the purpose of bombing helpless Chinese. That is a question upon which we have not a lot of information. Whatever sympathies there may be in this House for General Chiang Kai-shek, he is no longer a potent force; and, whether we like it or not, we must recognise the facts as they are—that almost a quarter of the people of the world, are under a form of Government which has been largely established throughout the whole of China.

I do not often share the opinions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, but for once in a while I agree with him that there seems to be no immediate cause for pessimism because a preponderance of Chinese people have one form of Government, and that jutting out like a peninsula—I am not sure of the exact geographical description of Hong Kong—

It is an island.

Well, it is almost a peninsula. In any case, it is immediately off the shore of China, with two or three crowded millions of people in a very small area. Because there is Communism on the mainland, it does not follow that they will necessarily pounce upon and devour the people of Hong Kong. I do not think that will happen, any more than because we have not seen eye to eye with the Government of Franco the Spanish Government will take over the whole of Gibraltar and claim it, as many of the more ardent and enthusiastic Falangists have suggested.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the whole basis of recognition should be reciprocal? If we recognise de jure the Communist Government of China because it is, as he says, a potent force, is it not time that the Communist Government of China accorded similar recognition to His Majesty's Government as a potent force?

I hope that will come, although it may be a little belated. I am not sure whether at the moment we have accorded them de jure recognition.

Yes, on 6th January.

In that case I share the hon. Gentleman's hope that we shall get from them an equally friendly and practical gesture in return, with this object: that trading interests—let us use the phrase not euphemistically, but in the higher connotation of the term—which are the life-blood of mankind, and good will in the Far East, and in other parts of the world, would be heightened by the fact that the Government of China, whatever its complexion, was sufficiently realistic to appreciate that it is in her interests as much as Britain's to have this trade going on.

What is the use of talking about practical, friendly gestures at a time when His Majesty's forces are locked in bitter struggles with Communist forces in some other part of the British Commonwealth?

That has no connection with the situation in Hong Kong. There are other factors obtaining there.

With the greatest respect, I would say that it has the closest connection, since the aircraft spares in question, which have been referred to in the course of this Debate, may very well be used—it is, of course, hypothetical—to carry on the hot war in some other place in the Far East.

In that extremely unlikely event the Government would have the support of the nation in defending them- selves against any aggression of that type, particularly if it were unwarranted. No one questions that. But I do not intend to make confusion worse confounded by hypotheses or complexities which may or may not arise in a part of the world which has not got the blessed restrained and calm mentality which governs most Members of this honourable House. What the hon. Member suggests is, of course, always a possibility, but on the bigger issue raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), who has shown an alacrity to interpose, I would say that public opinion is veering round to the idea that sooner or later, in the interests of world peace—which is the predominating and vital factor—the heads of the nations concerned will have to get together at the highest level for the purpose of finding some solution.

"Stunt."

Well, very often a point of view which is put forward at a carefully timed and strategic moment—suddenly thrust forward, as it were—may have an ulterior motive, apart from the intrinsic merit of the proposal. On the broad issue that the people in high authority should get together for the purpose of making more secure the peace of the world, I think most intelligent people, in these islands at any rate, would be in accord. The part that Britain can usefully play would be to do all she can, consistent with her legitimate and rightful interests, in seeing that peace is maintained between the leading Powers of the world, for if we do not take that point of view it is quite obvious we must throw up our hands in utter despair and disavow our faith in mankind.

On the other hand, I do not necessarily take that pessimistic point of view. We should be eternally vigilant and bear in mind all these complexities, but at the same time, if we spread the idea that all Communists must necessarily be wicked and evil, that they are people who cannot be trusted, and that everything anti-Communist must, by the same process of reasoning, be pure, unalloyed and sincere, then I think we are overstating the case on both sides. I am not a Communist although I have been wrongly accused of being tarnished by that creed. I recognise, however, that sooner or later there are Members in this House who will be very pleased to enter into negotiations with Communists to ensure a respite, at any rate, from the present intolerable position.

I do not claim any particular knowledge, unlike other. Members whose faculty of self-appreciation is inordinately well-pronounced and often in inverse ratio to their knowledge of the subject but I have endeavoured to put a point of view, in a very humble capacity, that is worthy of consideration and may commend itself to a few enlightened people, whom we hope still exist in this confused world. We have to get down to this matter instead of scoring cheap debating points. The issue is above party. It is an issue for mankind, an issue for the future, and an issue for the whole world to take seriously to heart.

This Debate has covered a very wide field, and it is right that it should, being an Adjournment discussion, but I am afraid that I do not intend to stray into all the topics that have been raised. I do not intend, for instance, to discuss at great length the question of Prestwick or whether Hong Kong or the Isle of Wight is an island or a peninsula. On the general question, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has expressed most admirably the reasons why it is essential that we should remain in Hong Kong, and why it is desirable that we should remain there. I will only say that the Government have never at any time, and do not contemplate now, leaving Hong Kong. There is no question whatever about that.

The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said that the departments in Hong Kong had carried out their duties in a negative way. That is not so. They have carried them out in a strictly judicial way and have not tried to be on one side or the other, and it is right that that should be so. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) said that they had made friendly gestures to the Communists. That is totally untrue. They have made no more friendly gestures to them than to the American companies. They have been perfectly fair on both sides.

I certainly never said that the judicial authorities in Hong Kong had made friendly gestures to the Communists. I was joining issue on whether it was wise for the Government to continue to make friendly gestures to the Communists when they were not reciprocating.

I am very glad to hear that.

The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said that we must keep these aeroplanes from the Russians. I gather that he thought that this was our principal duty. I am surprised to hear that coming from him as a lawyer, because I think our principal duty is the vitally important one of preserving something which we in England and the British Empire are very proud of, and that is the rule of law. We think that is of vital importance, even in such a matter as the cold war, because if it once becomes known that the rule of law in this country does not matter, that people do not mind about it and are abrogating it, it will be a major loss apart from any other losses.

The hon. Member for Windsor said the question of whether these planes were military or civil was splitting hairs. I submit that it is not. It is very important that these are civil planes and not military planes. I have no doubt that any aeroplane can be used to drop something out of it, but all Members will agree that there is a fundamental difference between civil and military aeroplanes. Not only is that so, but the law deals with the export of ammunition and arms, and civil planes do not come into that category.

I think it might be as well, in view of the discussion that has taken place, if I were to give a purely factual statement as to the situation regarding these aeroplanes. Some 70 civil aircraft have been grounded at Kai Tak aerodrome in Hong Kong for the last four months. They have been the subject of litigation in the courts of the Colony between certain employees of the China National Aviation Corporation and Central Air Transport, a department of the Chinese Government, and persons representing the interests of the Chinese People's Government, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, persons representing the interests of the Chinese Nationalists and certain United States interests who, on 12th December, which is since the proceedings were begun, signed a contract with the then Chinese Government purporting to purchase all the Corporations assets. The employees, since the commencement of the proceedings, have been in physical possession of the aircraft on the airfield. They claim to hold them on behalf of the Chinese Government.

Injunctions restraining both sides from removing the aircraft were imposed by the courts, but these injunctions were lifted following a ruling by the courts on 23rd February that the property was in the possession and control of the Chinese People's Government, and that it would be a violation of the immunity of a foreign sovereign power to make an order directing that the property in its possession and control should be delivered over to a receiver appointed by the courts. The courts based this finding on the fact that the aircraft were in the physical control of employees who declared that they held them on behalf of the Chinese People's Government and accepted orders from high officials of that Government.

Since then, an appeal against the courts' decision has been lodged by the side representing the Chinese Nationalists and United States interests, and the hearing has been fixed for 28th April. In the meantime, the aircraft are still at Hong Kong. Applications for further injunctions against their removal were refused by the Hong Kong court on 28th March. That is the position at present. The Government have no intention of taking any steps in this case, beyond those designed to ensure that their obligations under the Hong Kong law and the Chicago Convention of International Civil Aviation, as well as under international law in general, are complied with. It would be highly improper for the Government to make any attempt to influence the Hong Kong courts in regard to a matter under consideration by them, or to take any executive action which could be justifiably interpreted by either side as partial.

The situation in regard to these aircraft is, I understand, one that is entirely without precedent. There has never been anything remotely resembling it before. They are affected by the Chicago Convention and the Air Navigation Orders of Hong Kong. So complex is this question that we are taking legal advice, and until that legal advice has been given we are not absolutely certain as to the exact interpretation of this extremely complicated matter. We feel that it would be improper to do anything other than leave the situation as it is now, and that is that the aeroplanes and the equipment shall remain subject to the decision of the courts on 28th April. If we do that, we consider we shall be doing our best to maintain the rule of law, and that is the most important aspect of the whole case.

The hon. Gentleman has told us that the equipment remains. Will he explain what he means by that, because the equipment in aircraft and spare parts has already in part been shipped away?

I think I said that we should leave the question of the ownership of the equipment and the spare parts to be determined finally when the matter comes before the courts on 28th April.

Did not His Majesty's Government anticipate that some such situation as this would arise since the general situation in China has deteriorated? Everyone knew that the aircraft were there, and it would not have been very difficult to forecast that the problem of their ownership might well arise? Why is it that it is only at the eleventh hour that His Majesty's Government are now taking legal advice? What is the actual position in what is clearly a technical and very complicated business?

This does not only apply to His Majesty's Government. It might have been realised by both sides that this question might arise. It was not realised apparently, and the situation was allowed to drift on. It would have been very much better if it had been realised at an early date, but that was not the case with either of the parties concerned. As regards His Majesty's Government taking legal advice, this is a matter which has to be carefully, slowly and deliberately considered, and we are, in fact, taking opinion on it. We hope in due course when we have the complete opinion to be able to come to a definite decision as to the future course of events.

I should like to ask the Minister to clear up one point on which he did not express himself very well. It relates to this question of the aircraft spares and stores. I understood from what he said that the aircraft would be remaining on Hong Kong Island until some further decision was taken by the courts. But he did not make it clear whether these spares and valuable stores are going to be shipped away, partly by the Communists. Perhaps the Minister would completely stay further activity on the aircraft and stores until some decision has been taken as a result of the legal advice now being sought.

I did not say that, and what I want to make clear is that if, in fact, the court has refused to give an injunction to restrain the parties from removing either aeroplanes or spares it would be wrong for His Majesty's Government to go against that decision and keep them forcibly when the court has said that they should not, in fact, be so kept.

I think the Minister said that the planes remain the subject of the decision of the court, and I understand he meant by that that the aeroplanes could be flown out tomorrow morning with any spares, because although they remain subject to the court, they do not have to remain in Hong Kong to be subject to the decision of the court. With respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish)—

On a point of Order.

There cannot be two points of Order.