asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the East German Government about the interference by their broadcasting station with the Welsh Regional Station; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 8th November, 1954, to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key). The matter of interference with the B.B.C.'s Welsh, North of England and London Home Services was taken up formally with the Soviet High Commissioner in Germany by the United Kingdom High Commissioner in 29th October, 1954. In his reply, the Soviet High Commissioner stated that the matter had been settled by informal conversations between United Kingdom and East German broadcasting engineers. The conversations referred to have not led to any lessening of the interference, and a further formal approach was accordingly made to the Soviet High Commissioner on 20th January.

Will the Minister be good enough to make a statement, following the representations which were made on 20th January, when the reply is received?

I will most certainly bear that point in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to prevent the recrudescence of Nazism in Germany resulting from the employment in a military capacity of ex-Nazis Major-General Arthur Brandt, Vincenz Mueller, and Bernhard Bechler.

These officers have for some years been employed in the East German armed forces. Her Majesty's Government are not able to control or influence developments in the Soviet Zone of Germany.

Can the Minister inform the House whether these three were included among the 87 who made such a heart-rending appeal last week? Can he further explain the phenomenon of peace-loving ex-Nazi generals in East Germany and war-mongering ex-Nazi generals in West Germany?

I should like to see the first supplementary question on the Order Paper, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Would not the easiest way of dealing with the matter in a manner satisfactory to all of us be to see that there were no German armed forces at all, and therefore no Nazi generals at the head of them—East or West?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government agreed with the representatives of the Governments of the United States of America and France to hand over the archives of the former concentration camps to the Bonn Government.

Arrangements for the future of the International Tracing Service, which at present holds these archives, are still under negotiation between the United States, the United Kingdom, French, Belgian, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italian, Israeli and Federal German Governments. No agreement has yet been reached.

While appreciating the fact that as yet these archives have not been handed back and that negotiations are still going on, may I ask whether the Minister will promise to do all he can to see that, if they eventually go back to the Bonn Government, they are preserved and not destroyed by that Government?

That is the purpose of these negotiations. The importance of these documents is very well understood by the Governments concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the West German Ambassador-designate to London is Heinz Heinrich von Herwarth, that this man served in the German Foreign Ministry during the entire Nazi period, and that from 1939 to 1945 he was liaison officer of the German Foreign Ministry with the Nazi Army; and whether he will inform the Bonn Government that this man would be unacceptable to the British Government as a German Ambassador, in view of his past associations with the Nazis.

Her Majesty's Government informed the German Federal Government on 12th January, 1955, that the appointment of Baron Herwarth is agreeable to them.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether or not the points contained in the Question are correct, whether this man has past Nazi connections, and if so, can he—in this instance, at any rate, even if he cannot do anything about East German Nazis—do something to stop this growth of Nazism?

I cannot take responsibility for what the hon. Gentleman says in his Question. The position, as I understand it, is that this gentleman was a member of the German Foreign Office and served in the German Army in the war. I am also informed that at no time was he a member of the Nazi Party.

Is it not true that this gentleman was associated with, or suspected of being associated with, the attempt on the life of Hitler in 1944, and that his immediate chief in the same service was executed for his part in that plot?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right and that we have no reason to do other than welcome the appointment.

Is it possible for anybody to have experience in Government service unless he serves under the Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it was decided, as announced by a Foreign Office spokesman to the French Government at Christmas, that Her Majesty's Government would feel free to withdraw British troops from Germany In the event of the French Parliament failing to ratify the Paris Agreements.

The Foreign Office statement of 24th December did not say that Her Majesty's Government would feel free to withdraw British troops from Germany in the event of the French Parliament failing to ratify the Paris Agreements. The question, therefore, does not arise.

Would the Minister agree that it is most unfortunate that Press reports should give the impression that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in agreeing to British troops in Germany was solely concerned with defending the French against the Germans?

The papers I read carried the Foreign Office statement quite accurately.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it was decided, as announced by a Foreign Office spokesman to the French Government at Christmas, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was that Germany should be rearmed in any case, irrespective of any guarantees or alliances that could be arranged.

The Foreign Office statement of 24th December did not say that Germany should be rearmed irrespective of any guarantees or alliances that could be arranged. The Question therefore does not arise.

Would it be possible, when next bullying the French Government—if any—in this matter, for the communications to be made in a more normal manner than they appear to have been made last time?

The statement made in this case was that the rejection of the Paris Agreements

"would not mean that German rearmament would not take place. The issue is not whether the German Federal Republic will rearm, but how."

The need for a West German contribution to Western defence was accepted by all the N.A.T.O. Governments, including the Labour Government of the United Kingdom in 1950.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what additional formalities must now be completed before the agreements relating to German rearmament are finally ratified by Her Majestys' Government.

The only formal step now required before ratification by deposit of the Instruments is their signature by Her Majesty The Queen. The necessary documents are being prepared for signature.

The news that the Paris Agreements have not yet been ratified by Her Majesty's Government will be welcomed by very many people. Does the Joint Under-Secretary agree that recent events in France and the shift of opinion in Germany make the future of these agreements rather doubtful, and will he, in those circumstances, take advantage of the breathing space so provided to institute four-Power talks.

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the statement issued by the Government of New Zealand on the question of the United States intervention in the Formosa dispute, if he will now issue a similar declaration.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the statement made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand in New York on 24th January. My statement to this House on 26th January was couched in similar terms. As the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Government gave full support to the New Zealand Government's subsequent initiative in the Security Council.

While thanking the Foreign Secretary and appreciating the tone of his reply, may I ask if he is aware that the New Zealand Prime Minister did, in fact, state categorically that the New Zealand Government and people would not be parties to any dispute about or take part in any war in connection with Formosa? The Foreign Secretary was not quite so categorical. Can he now make a similar statement?

The quotation I have of the speech by the New Zealand Prime Minister and the statement which I made are, I think, almost exactly the same. If the hon. Gentleman likes to compare them, I shall be quite ready to do so with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order that our representative at the Security Council may be adequately informed, he will seek information from the United Nations Organisation as to the number of civilian refugees from the Chinese mainland who are living on Formosa.

The United Nations Organisation will not possess this information as Chinese nationals from the mainland who are now living on Formosa do not fall within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They are not refugees within the terms of the "Convention relating to the Status of Refugees" made in Geneva in 1951. There are, to the best of our information, about a million such nationals.

Can the Joint Under-Secretary say what proportion this number bears to the total population of Formosa?

About 10 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why exequaturs were not applied for in respect of Her Majesty's present Consul and Her Majesty's present Vice-Consul at Tamsui in Formosa.

In normal circumstances, exequaturs are applied for by the diplomatic representative accredited to the Government of the State in whose territory the consular officer is to function. In the case of Formosa, we have no such diplomatic representative.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that exequaturs from the Republic of China were applied for and obtained for their consular officers by the United States, and, in these circumstances, should he not draw the attention of the United States Government to the difference in views on the law between the British and United States Governments?

I was asked what our own position was, and I have given the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date upon which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom considered they were no longer bound by the Cairo and Potsdam declarations as to the future of Formosa; and the dates upon which this decision was communicated to each of the other Governments parties to these declarations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on the implementation of the policy on Formosa agreed at the Cairo Conference in 1943; and what communications on this subject have been made to the Central People's Government of China.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Cairo Declaration was fully explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st February. There have been no communications on this subject with the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Potsdam Declaration laid down as conditions for the Japanese that they should carry out the terms of the Cairo Declaration. Japan complied by formally renouncing all title to Formosa in the Japanese Peace Treaty.

is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of the United States consider Formosa to be an integral part of Chinese territory; that, on that basis, they have concluded a treaty with China which they recognise; and that they do that on the basis of the Cairo Declaration? Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling the House that the American Treaty is invalid?

No, Sir; my position is exactly the same in this matter as that of the late Government, which was very clearly expressed by the then Foreign Secretary in May, 1951, when he said:

"The question of Formosa will, however, come up in the context of the Japanese Peace Treaty. Our aim here is to secure an early Peace Treaty without allowing the difficult issue of Formosa to delay its negotiation and without attempting in the Treaty to find a final solution to an issue which must be given careful consideration later in the general context of the Far Eastern situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2302.]

That is still the position of Her Majesty's Government.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Friday, in which he said that the status of Formosa was uncertain, and in view of the terms of the Treaty between the Americans and the Chinese Nationalists, in which Formosa is described by inference as an integral part of China, is it not clear that there is a serious difference of opinion on this matter between Washington and London?

No, Sir; that is not so. The position of all countries in this respect is the same. It is that, at the time of the negotiations for the San Francisco Treaty, it was not possible to dispose of Formosa. Had it been possible to agree on the future of Formosa, it would have been included in the Treaty. As it was not possible to decide that, all that the Treaty did was to say that Japanese rights were ceded. That is the position of all the signatories to the Treaty of San Francisco.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present context has made a change in the situation, as contrasted with the time when the Japanese Treaty was signed in San Francisco? In these circumstances, might it not go a long way to satisfy the Chinese People's Government if a firm declaration were made by the right hon. Gentleman that Formosa, whether now or in the future, but at some time, and perhaps as a result of negotiations or some arrangement made between the parties, is an integral part of China and therefore comes under the control of the Chinese People's Government?

I think the position is as I stated in reply to the right hon. Gentleman on Friday. It is equally right to say that none of the signatories has ever said that the islands are never to be ceded to China. What they did say was that they could not agree at the time of the San Francisco Treaty. They agreed on the first part of the operation, which was that Japan surrendered her rights, without allocating the islands. Perhaps I might make one more quotation from the late Government, because this is exactly the point made on 14th December, 1950, when the then Foreign Secretary said:

"But it has to be said that there is a great strategic conflict. It is no use disguising that. There are great problems associated with Formosa, and I shall not come down in a dogmatic way and say that we will do this, that or the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1462.]

Is not the truth of the situation that the Cairo Declaration was, in fact, performed in 1945? The Cairo Declaration was that Formosa was Chinese territory, and the Potsdam Declaration and the Japanese surrender terms say that that Declaration should be performed. It was performed by handing over to the then Chinese Government, and, from 1945 onwards, it has been part of China?

I am afraid that is not so. The position in law is that an armistice or the cessation of fighting does not affect sovereignty. There has not been a transfer of sovereignty because, at San Francisco, although there was a desire to agree about China, there was a difference of opinion as to which Chinese authority it should be handed over.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what mention was made in approaches recently made to the Soviet Government regarding the situation in the Far East of the desirability of a truce to facilitate the evacuation of the Tachen Islands and of the Soviet Government conveying their view on this matter to the Chinese Government.

Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow saw the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Molotov, on 28th January. He stressed Her Majesty's Government's grave concern over the situation which was developing in the area of the Chinese coastal islands, and expressed the hope that the Soviet Government would feel able to urge restraint on the Chinese and above all the importance of avoiding any incidents which might lead to general hostilities. He did not make specific reference to the evacuation of the Tachen islands. Since that date, I have seen the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in London and Mr. Molotov has seen Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow. I have, however, no statement to make on those conversations at present.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask if he does not agree that it is a desirable immediate objective to facilitate the evacuation of these islands; that it is important if, as the Soviet Government are reported to have indicated, no objection would be raised to the evacuation? Would he further agree that similar circumstances apply to Quemoy and Matsu?

As I have indicated by my answer, conversations are taking place between a number of Governments in this matter. I think that diplomacy must be given its chance to do some work and that I would not help matters along were I to try to follow the hon. Gentleman.

As the Foreign Secretary has now said that these islands do belong to China, is it not the Nationalist forces, in failing to evacuate them, who are causing the danger of war, rather than—as he said in his former answer—the Chinese forces, who intend to reoccupy what he now agrees are their own islands?

There are some Questions later on the Order Paper on these legal matters. I would only say that everyone's interpretation of these matters, and other nations', is not precisely the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information Her Majesty's Government have received from the United States Government of their intentions as regards the Tachen Islands and the islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

Since my statement of 26th January, the evacuation of the Tachens has begun. Her Majesty's Government share the hope expressed by the United States Government that these steps will contribute to a cessation of Communist attacks and to the restoration of peace and security in the West Pacific.

The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the two islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Will he say anything about those?

I have no further statement to make upon that subject.

In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago—when he said that the first concern of Her Majesty's Government was to stop the fighting—will he express the hope that the United States Government will at least consult Her Majesty's Government before taking any action in the defence of the islands of Matsu and Quemoy on the ground that they are essential to the defence of Formosa?

We are, of course, in close consultation with the United States Government and with other Governments all the time, as my earlier answers have indicated. As I said last week, we did our best to bring about a cessation of the fighting by inviting the Chinese Communist Government—in the most considerate terms which could be worded—to attend a meeting of the Security Council. I deplore the fact that in abrupt tones that invitation was flatly turned down. It is now the task of Governments to try to work out other methods to bring about a cease-fire in this area. Only when cease-fire conditions are established can we hope to proceed with other methods of pacification.

Would it not be of material help in the present situation if the United States Government were to indicate that they did not intend to retain Quemoy and Matsu under their forces; that they were in favour of the withdrawal of Nationalist troops from those islands as well as the Tachens, and that this would be the best step towards the ultimate neutralisation of Formosa—which the Labour Party has always stood for?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many other considerations would have to be borne in mind before I could give him an answer of that kind. I really think that what I have already said to the House is, in all the circumstances, as far as I can go today. The House really must have confidence that we are doing everything in our power—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to bring about a cease-fire, and I should have thought that the reply of the Communist Government to the Security Council's invitation might have had some criticism from some hon. Members opposite.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in his own description of the legal situation he has drawn no distinction between the Tachen Islands and Quemoy and Matsu? He has put them into the same category. Since they also appear to be in the same category from the point of view of danger of fighting—because they are just as near the Chinese coast—does not he think that it might be advisable for the United States Government to follow the same policy with regard to Quemoy and Matsu as they are following with regard to the Tachen Islands?

I do not want to express any opinions about what I have already said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I do not think that I should be helping the cause of peace if I were to do so. [Interruption.] As nobody knows better than the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), this situation has existed for a very considerable period of years, and how I handle my answers now may have a very considerable effect upon it. I am not going to say a further word about these islands today.

As the right hon. Gentleman has now declared roundly that these islands belong to China, surely it would be helpful to the peace of the world and the promotion of a cease-fire—which is his objective—if he were to say that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—even if the American Government could not agree—that the Nationalist forces should evacuate these islands as they are fortunately evacuating the Tachens?

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it would help matters if I were to say that this is the view of Her Majesty's Government, though the United States Government take a different view? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In this particular context? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I think that we should do far better to try to get agreement between all concerned.

May we at least take it that Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter is based upon the distinction between the islands off the coast of China and Formosa and the Pescadores which was drawn by the Foreign Secretary himself earlier on?

That distinction is not exclusive to ourselves. It was made by the Canadian Government, and I think that it has been expressed several times by the United States Government. It is certainly our view and is known publicly by everybody to be so.

Has it not been said by the President of the United States that he considers it is in the interests of peace that there should be no ambiguity as to where commitments lie? Would it not, therefore, be in the interests of peace that we ourselves should not be ambiguous about what we consider to be our interests in this part of the world? Would the right hon. Gentleman not be serving the interests of peace if he indicated to the United States what we considered to be the status of these islands?

That is precisely what I have done. The right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Minister of Defence very reasonably asked whether I would put down on paper the legal position in respect of these islands. I have done so, and the whole world can see what is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. That is proclaimed, and there it stands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what government is recognised by Her Majesty's Government as the government, de jure or de facto, of the Tachen Islands, Matsu and Quemoy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the claim of the People's Government of China made to the United Nations Organisation to take possession of the offshore islands such as Quemoy and Matsu.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 4th February in answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

In view of the fact that the reply makes it clear that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the islands referred to in the Question are undisputably territory which belongs to the Chinese People's Republic, can the Foreign Secretary say what representations he has made to the American Government in view of a resolution passed by the American Congress which arrogates to the American Government the right to make dispositions of territory which the British Government claim to belong to the people of China?

The terms of the resolution would not answer to the hon. Gentleman's description. I have dealt earlier with the topic of such conversations, and they have been many, which we have had with the United States Government and other Governments during the last few days, and I have made it clear to the House that I cannot in conducting negotiations of this kind undertake to make statements while discussions are proceeding, and I will not do so.

If the Foreign Secretary could definitely state on Friday that in Her Majesty's Government view these islands undoubtedly form part of the territory of the Peoples' Republic of China, surely he can pluck up his courage sufficiently to say this clearly and categorically to the United States Government and to the Chinese authorities of Formosa, and tell them both that if they get into a military adventure in this quarter Britain will have nothing to do with it?

I thought it useful, desirable and in the international interest to make a full statement in reply to the Question which the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Defence put down.

In a written reply on Friday.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that I am frightened to make it on any other day; is that the idea? The reason that it was a written answer was because the right hon. Gentleman courteously in his original Question said, "If I put down a Written Question, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer?" Of course, I gave him an answer to his original Question in a written form, and I thought that the best way of making clear our decision to the world. I have nothing to abstract from what I said in that answer, and nothing to add to it at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this Question while I was away, and as he would not be able to answer it orally it was necessary to get the information in some other way? May I ask him, although hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that while engaged in delicate negotiations and conversations he may not be able to go further than he has done, if he will take note of the views expressed on this side of the House?

I hope that I am conscious of the views expressed in all parts of the House, and it was because of that that I felt that clarification in Friday's statement on the purely legal side was desirable. With regard to the political side, which is that which must be discussed between Governments, it is that on which I cannot make a statement while the discussions are proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the Resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 8th December, 1949, calling on all States to respect the right of the people of China to choose freely their political institutions and calling on all States also to refrain from seeking to acquire spheres of influence or to create foreign-controlled régimes within the territory of China, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's statement last Friday that Quemoy and Matsu undoubtedly form part of Chinese territory, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that the declaration by the Chinese Nationalists this weekend, that they intend to continue to occupy Quemoy and Matsu, is a violation of the United Nations Resolution which the Government support, and that it makes the Chinese Nationalist Government aggressors in this area? Will the Government continue to press this point of view in the United Nations?

The position is that Her Majesty's Government will support any attempt by the people of China to choose their political institutions by peaceful and democratic methods, and regard any attempt to impose a régime by force as a threat to peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further progress he has made in respect of the situation in South-East China.

As the House knows, the Chinese Government have refused the invitation which was tendered to them by the Security Council to participate in the Council's discussion. The invitation had been supported by nine members including the United States. Her Majesty's Government much regret both the matter and the manner of this decision. They remain concerned at the situation and their aim is still to stop the fighting before it can spread any further. Her Majesty's Government are in close and constant touch with other interested Governments, especially those of the Commonwealth, but I am not yet in a position to say what further action we intend to take.

Does not the general question offer an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to explain the previous situation, and may I ask him whether he appreciates that the operative word is "progress" and, in those circumstances, can he assure the House that progress is being made?

I should have thought that would have been derived from the announcement in today's Press.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although we on this side of the House have been very quiet this afternoon, he has the full confidence of this side?

If the Foreign Secretary cannot make any further statement now than that which he has given in his answer to my hon. Friend, what would he think of a foreign statesman who at the time the Germans were in occupation of the Channel Islands had said, "Of course these Channel Islands undoubtedly belong to Britain, but Britain will be guilty of causing a war if she attempts to reoccupy them?"

The right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the late Government, knows perfectly well all the circumstances in respect of these islands, and I think that he should, if I may say so with respect, support the Government at a time like this in not being willing to say what they are doing so long as they are in the midst of negotiations.

While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say very much at the moment, can he reassure the House on this one point, that the presence of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London has made it advantageous to consult them on this very difficult topic?

It certainly has been most advantageous and these discussions are not yet concluded, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, which is an additional reason why I think I am justified in asking the House to show some forbearance today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a reply from the Chinese Nationalist Government to his protest concerning the sinking of the British ship, s.s. "Edendale."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what steps he proposes to take to obtain adequate compensation for the loss of the s.s. "Edendale" at Swatow; and

(2) what information he has about the type, make, and country of origin of the aircraft which attacked and sank the s.s. "Edendale."

As stated by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary on 26th January, Her Majesty's Consul delivered a note of protest on the 22nd January to the Provincial Authorities in Formosa. Her Majesty's Consul addressed a further letter to the Provincial authorities on the 29th January, giving further details and pointing out that the ship was prominently marked with the British Flag and the attacking aircraft could not, therefore, have failed to identify the ship as British. In an interview with the Provincial Governor about the incident, Her Majesty's Consul was informed that his protest had been passed to the Central authorities in Formosa.

When the owners of the "Edendale" have provided full details of their claim for compensation, appropriate action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to lodge a claim with the Nationalist Provincial authorities. I have received no reports about the type or make of the aircraft which attacked the "Edendale." The aircraft were plainly identified as belonging to the Chinese Nationalists and the full responsibility for the incident must rest with them.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he has sought an assurance from the American Government that aircraft which the United States has supplied to the Nationalist forces in Formosa will not be used for attacks on the Chinese mainland, which will involve similar risks to British ships?

I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should say that my reply is unsatisfactory. I made representations at once, on all the information which I had available, to the Formosa authorities. When I get the "Edendale" claim, I will certainly lodge that claim as soon as possible with the authorities and ask that it should be met. On the wider matter, certainly representations on the general aspect of bombing in that area have been made, and no doubt will be made when required.

Will the Foreign Secretary consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to see what representations can be made to British shipowners that crews sailing in British ships in these waters should now be paid danger money?

I will speak to my right hon. Friend about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the civil war now being waged in the China seas, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Powers immediately interested the making of a non-intervention pact of a type similar to that originally proposed to be applied during the Spanish civil war.

No, Sir.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should address to the Government of the United States the same plea for moderation as he saw fit to address to the Chinese Government in regard to their conduct of the islands, at least of the inshore islands?

That does not seem to have anything to do with the non-intervention pact.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who has been in this House for some time, whether he recollects that this non-intervention pact mentioned in the Question was the signal for a free-for-all on the part of various other countries to interfere in some other country's civil war?

That is why my right hon. Friend did not feel that this suggestion would help to stop the fighting and make for peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British ships have suffered damage as a result of attacks made upon them by assailants known or suspected to have come from Formosa, the Pescadores, the islands of Quemoy, Matsu or the Tachens since 1st January, 1952.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of attacks on British ships in the last 12 months to the most recent convenient date which have been made by the forces engaged in the Chinese civil war; and the number which, on investigation, have been found to be due to the forces of General Chiang Kai-shek, and those due to the forces of the Chinese Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions in the past four years protests have been made to the authorities in Formosa about attacks on British ships.

Full details of cases of interference were given to the House on 22nd November. Since that date, the only case has been that of the s.s. "Edendale." In addition, I have received reports of three cases of minor damage which have happened since 1952 as a result of Nationalist interference but the damage was apparently so slight that the owners have not put forward claims for compensation. As stated on 22nd November, protests have been made by H.M. Consul at Tamsui and by H.M. Chargé d'Affaires at Peking in all cases where it was evident that there was improper interference with British ships and responsibility for the interference could be established.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of that reply and the number of incidents which have taken place, and in view of the tension in this part of the world, he would consider calling another Nyon Conference to protect our ships from these acts of piracy?

This is not on all fours with the situation then. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to discuss the Nyon Agreement I will do so, but not at this moment. We have put in certain claims and some have been met and some not, and we shall continue to pursue our claims.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many of these cases representations have also been made to the United States Government about the matter, particularly in view of his own legal interpretation of the situation in Formosa, which apparently means that the real authorities are not Chiang Kai-shek but the American authorities?

I should want notice of that.

Will the Foreign Secretary give instructions, or say whether such have been given, that all British ships in the neighbourhood of Formosa should be clearly marked so as to reduce their chances of being attacked, as was done in the case of the Spanish Civil War?

I understand that instructions in that sense have been issued, but I will make sure.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that facilities will not be made available at Hong Kong for the repair or refuelling of any warship engaged in operations against the territory or forces controlled by the Central People's Government of China.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) on 4th February.

Does that negative reply mean that, despite the vulnerable position of Hong Kong in relation to the mainland of China, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to concede to American interventionist warships facilities which were refused by his right hon. Friends even to civilian refugees on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War?

I wish to make it quite clear that Hong Kong offers normal repair and fuelling facilities to all ships in a friendly way. Any ship in distress will receive help from Hong Kong.

Is this not an exceedingly dangerous and provocative action against the Peking Government? Is it not a fact that we are in Hong Kong at the present time under treaty arrangements and that, in point of fact, if the Peking Government did not want us to remain, it would be highly doubtful whether we could defend our position there? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would be not only highly doubtful but impossible to defend it. Therefore, ought we not to avoid any provocative action of this sort?

Apart from the provocative nature of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I think it not an unreasonable line to take that we shall help ships of all nations when they are in distress.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the military obligations of the United Kingdom under such regional defensive pacts as she has entered into have been made subject to an overriding obligation to abide by the decisions of the United Nations Organisation.

All the regional defence treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party provide that the treaty in question does not affect the rights and obliga- tions under the Charter of the parties which are members of the United Nations.

Would the Minister tell the House what would be the position in the event of a regional treaty organisation deciding that a casus belli had arisen and the United Nations decided the following week that it had not, and in view of the fact that we have now four regional treaty organisations virtually covering the whole world, in every one of which the United States is a member, what would be the position of the United Kingdom in all these matters and how far would she have a choice?

The United Nations Organisation itself does not take the decisions. The question is referred to the Security Council. It is laid down explicitly in the Charter—I think it is Article 103—that in the event of a conflict between the obligations of members of the United Nations under the Charter and under any other international agreement their obligations under the Charter shall prevail.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, after "Council" to insert:

"(the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia having stated that they will give to the inhabitants of the Cocos or Keeling Islands all those same rights which those inhabitants enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies)".

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took the Amendment to the Preamble, line 17, at the end to add:

"And whereas the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia have stated that they will give to the inhabitants of those islands all those same rights which they enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies."

I agree, Sir Charles.

During the speech he made in winding-up the debate on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations expressed confidence in the Australian Government and said that they would do what was right for the people of the Cocos Islands. We would agree with him, and because of that and the confidence we have in the Australian Government we feel that there can be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to inserting these words in the Bill. They simply express what we all know to be a fact, that there will be no diminution in the privileges of the people of the Cocos Islands as a result of their being taken over by Australia.

If the Government have any objection to inserting these words in the Bill, then I would ask what rights they think these people will not have. Will they not have freedom of speech or freedom of association such as we would give them? Will they not have the right to move where they like without any passports inhibiting their movements? Will they be subject to pass laws? Obviously not, but will they be told to separate and live only in special parts of the country as the unfortunate inhabitants of another part of the Commonwealth are being told to do? Obviously, they will not be so directed and they will not be deprived of their rights. Therefore, I think it is only correct that we should insert this fact in the Bill.

I know it may be argued by Government supporters that an unwritten constitution is always better than a written one. I think we would agree in the case of a free people. It is certainly better in our own case, but these people are not to be free. They are to be transferred from the power of one Government to the power of another. Therefore, the position is somewhat different.

For these reasons we feel that the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment which merely puts into the Bill facts about which all of us on both sides of the Committee and the Australian Government are in general agreement. We think it would, in fact, give a charter to the people of these islands, a charter which might be useful in the case of transfers of any other islands to other parts of the Commonwealth in later years. We hope that the Government will accept this very simple and reasonable Amendment.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would heartily approve of the terminology and also of the sentiments expressed in these Amendments. I would be extremely happy to see such Amendments in the Bill, but I imagine from what we heard on Second Reading that they are designed to enable the people of the Cocos Islands to move freely, for example, into Australia. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has in mind; but I am open to correction and I shall be only too happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if I am wrong on that point.

Yes, and the Australian Government have given assurances which are satisfactory, at least to Her Majesty's Government.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee, but my recollection of the Second Reading debate is that the Australian Government undertook to consider each application with great sympathy, which is something rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now. Of course, that particular agreement was negotiated in terms by the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged.

As I said, I would be delighted to see such a form of words in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman is being a trifle unfair to the Committee when he suggests we can demand a form of words which the Government of which he was a member did not, for some reason, negotiate. That, as I understand, would be the effect of this Clause. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend say that there would be no difficulty in having such wording in the Bill, but I imagine, from our debate on Second Reading and the past history of this problem, that we have to accept the agreement negotiated by the Government previous to this one, which is that, while these people will enjoy all the liberties and rights which they already enjoy as members of the British community, including the right to go to North Borneo and to Britain—they have those rights already—they cannot easily enjoy these additional rights.

While that may be unfortunate, it was the impression which I derived during the Second Reading, and I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that was the whole meaning of what was said during that debate. I think, too, he will agree that he agreed by implication or expressly with that agreement when the Government of which he was a member made it. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend say that there will be no difficulty in arranging this but from what I have heard of the history of this matter, there will be some difficulty.

In any case, I am satisfied that the people of the Cocos Islands will have no rights taken from them by this Bill. On the contrary, rights have been added, an important one being that contained in the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that the Australian Government will consider with great sympathy each application to go to an additional place. These people already have the right to go to North Borneo or to come here, but the assurance has been given that sympathetic consideration will also be given to applications to enter Australia. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has very innocently presented this Amendment as if there were no difficulty, but I imagine that there is considerable difficulty.

Unlike the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), when the general principle involved in this Amendment was raised on Second Reading some of us felt that the assurances then given by Her Majesty's Government were by no means satisfactory. The hon. Member is trying to shelter behind an alleged agreement to which my right hon. Friend was a party. If he was a party to such agreement, I did not know, but the fact that something was agreed two or three years ago does not deprive me, when the principle is brought to my notice, of the right to record my strongest objection to that principle.

While it is true that this Bill does not take away any right which the residents or natives of the Cocos Islands at present enjoy, it goes on to give them a kind of half-right which is the subject of argument now. That half-right relates, of course, to their Australian citizenship, and that is something that we, on this side, are trying to prevent. By the Bill as it stands we shall create, or give the Australian Government the opportunity of creating, two classes of Australian citizenship. There will be the first-class citizen who can live in Australia without any difficulty and who will not be subject to any restrictions. The second-class citizen will be he to whom citizenship may be granted only at the discretion of the Australian Government, and who will be subject to such qualifications and restrictions in respect of that citizenship as the Australian Government may seek to impose. It is to that that we object.

It is true that there are perhaps only a few hundred people remaining on the island who, by remaining there now and eventually applying for Australian citizenship, will be affected by this Bill, but the principle to which we must record the strongest possible objection is the creation, within the Commonwealth, of two different grades of citizenship. That is what is happening under this Bill and why I support the Amendment. That is why, if no satisfactory reply comes from the Government, I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division. A most important question of principle is at stake.

I wish to raise quite a narrow point. For myself, I am quite convinced that the Australian Government and people will be generous and sympathetic to the wants of the islanders. My concern—and I hope I am in order—relates to air travel. As I see it, there is only one international airline operating through the islands, and that is an Australian company. While, no doubt, aircraft of the United Kingdom or any Commonwealth country would have the right to go through—and would do so—the fact remains that the servicing, and so on, would be carried out by that Australian company.

One knows what happens when there is a monopoly. I should like an assurance that in these islands, where air passage is important to the people, airline operations will not be limited or tied to that one company, and that it will not be able to place any embargo on any Commonwealth company having facilities similar to those which it itself enjoys.

I am extremely disappointed by the Government's attitude to the Cocos Islands. Throughout the speeches on Second Reading the suggestion was made by the Government—and, in particular, by the Under-Secretary of State—that all we wanted was to be achieved, and that the Cocos Islanders were really to have citizenship in Australia. But, in addition to making those promises—and I think they amounted to promises—the hon. Gentleman was sheltering all the time behind the supposed agreement of right hon. Gentlemen on this side to what was being done.

I think it is plain that what right hon. Gentlemen on this side agreed to was that the Cocos Islanders should have full citizenship. Surely, those right hon. Gentlemen would be pardoned for assuming from that that citizenship meant at least the right for these people to settle in Australia, and to practise, if they wished, as doctors, barristers or whatever they chose. Perhaps none of them ever will want to do that, but the point is their right to do so.

This is a matter of principle. Although we are now considering the transfer of a very few hundred people to a country like Australia which, on the whole, has enlightened laws, at a later stage we might be considering the transfer of far more people to a Dominion which had no such enlightenment in its policy. If we agreed to this today without saying anything we should be held to have agreed to the principle of handing people over to something very much less than citizenship in the full sense of the term.

It is less than courtesy to the Committee to pretend that one large section of it has agreed to the handing over of a few hundred people in these circumstances when what, in fact, right hon. Gentlemen on this side agreed to—and if I am wrong I hope I shall be contradicted at some stage—was that full citizenship in Australia should be given to the Cocos Islanders.

Can it in any way be said that full citizenship is given to them if they are not to be given the right to go freely to Australia, to settle there and do whatever they wish in the way of earning their living? They are not, apparently, to be allowed that now as a matter of right, though I have no doubt that generous consideration will be given to them under the terms of the agreement between the Australian Government and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

I hope that we shall have a very full statement. Let us be under no misapprehension at all. No one on this side, as far as I am aware, agreed to the handing over of the Cocos Islanders on terms by which they would receive anything less than full citizenship in Australia. It is cowardly and, in my submission, quite wrong for the Government to pretend that they have full agreement to anything less than that from my right hon. Friends.

I support the Amendment, because it tends to clarify the position. If the Government are so satisfied that they are to get for the Cocos Islanders from the Australian Government what they say they think they will get, why do they not agree to the Amendment which makes it plain beyond a peradventure that the Cocos Islanders will get something very much more than the second-class citizenship to which, apparently, Her Majesty's present advisers have agreed?

The hon. and learned Member spoke of handing these people over to something less than citizenship. Did he also recall my hon. Friend's assurance that these people were to retain their full rights of British citizenship?

Yes. I was talking about Australian citizenship.

That is the whole point.

The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) spoke of two kinds of citizenship which might result were this Bill to pass unamended. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether there are not, in fact, two kinds of citizenship in New Zealand and in Canada and whether we ought not to bear these difficulties in mind. We cannot expect similarity between different countries each of which has a different geography and a different history. I thought I would call attention to that point by means of this question.

The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) gave the Committee, I think unwittingly, the impression that the Cocos Islanders would benefit as a result of being transferred to the Government of Australia. I submit that under the terms of the Bill as it is, unamended, they will get no benefit at all.

What will happen is that the Cocos Islanders will exchange one benevolent Government with interests in their development for another benevolent Government which is interested in their development, and no more. It will be as though they were moving from one pleasant house with a pleasant view to another pleasant house with a pleasant view, but they will get no more than that, because, unless they are given the right to move into and about Australia in exactly the same way as any other Australian citizen, they will be denied citizenship.

Surely it is our responsibility to try to arrange the lives of the colonial peoples in such a way that we improve their lives and increase their advantages. It is because this Bill does not do that, that I suggest that the Government ought to accept this Amendment. In what I am saying I am not criticising the Australian Government for their relations with native people. They will make mistakes, in the same way as we have made mistakes and, no doubt, will continue to do so, but I recognise that they approach this problem in a spirit of good will.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in the very reasonable speech that he made in reply to the Second Reading debate last week, made it clear that what we were arguing about—and certainly what I was arguing about—was a point of principle and not a point of substance. I agree that the future happiness of the Cocos Islanders is a minute drop in a great ocean of humanity, but this is a really important matter of principle.

The argument has been stated over and over again that the Australians are in a difficulty. I heard the Australian Prime Minister say on television the other day that the "White Australia" policy was supported by both parties in that country. It is argued that we would be putting the Australians in a difficult position if we were to insist on this Amendment, because the Australian Government would have no support at home for granting the Cocos Islanders complete citizenship, by reason of their colour. But I would point out that there is an open door in Australia, and that there is a very strong feeling in that country that a restrictionist, exclusive White Australia policy is very bad for Australia. I think it would be very bad for the Cocos Islanders. It is a bad thing to have a colour bar anywhere. I advance this argument in support of this Amendment and, if I may be so impertinent, in the interests of Australia and her people also.

I commend to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the annual Social Justice Statement made by the archbishops and bishops of Australia, responsible and respected persons, in September, 1951. In that document they say:

"Is there any valid moral reason why we should strive for the survival of Australia as a nation predominantly European? The answer to this question is all-important. The moral justification of Australia's survival will not simply be found in Australia's own achievement. This achievement, great in many respects, has been marred in others by manifestations of human frailty of which we can hardly be proud. … Nor will the necessary justification be found in any false assumption of racial superiority which too often underlies, the so-called White Australia Policy."

Here the leaders of religious thought in Australia expressed the fears which my hon. Friends expressed last week and are expressing again today. On the last occasion I said that this was an affront to coloured peoples all over the world. I know the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. I know that they have gone a long way to get the Australian Government to agree to view with reasonable sympathy any application by any Cocos Islanders who want to go to Australia, and I know, too, that the Australian Government have gone a long way to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.

This Amendment asks that we should go just one step further in ensuring that we add to the rights, privileges and happiness of the Cocos Islanders in this respect because it is our responsibility.

I think that all hon. Members will agree with what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has said about the colour bar. In my view, no reasonable person condemns anyone for the colour of his skin.

A publican in Coventry seems to take a different view.

It is a long way from Coventry to the Cocos Islands, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience in this place, realises that if I were to go into a dissertation on what Coventry thinks, I would be out of order on this Amendment.

As I said, I think everyone agrees that it would be wrong to condemn any person for the colour of his skin, and, as far as I am aware, that is the general view in Australia, too. What I surmise is the Government's difficulty in accepting this Amendment is that the terms of this arrangement have already been agreed with the Australian authorities, and, indeed, they were agreed by the late Government. Therefore, I think it is rather difficult at this late stage for any change such as is suggested to be made now. It seems strange that such a suggestion should come so forcibly from hon. Members opposite who, in fact, agreed to the terms of the transfer.

In answer to what the hon. Member for Deptford has said about the statement of the Church authorities in Australia, I should have thought that the best course would be to let this Bill go through as it stands, and let the agitation, if any, come from the Australians if any of the inhabitants of these islands are refused their just and lawful rights such as they have enjoyed under the British Administration, it is surely right and proper that the people of Australia should agitate to rectify the position.

I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will agree that, as they approved these arrangements, it is rather late in the day for them now to come forward with other suggestions, and that they will let this Clause go through as it stands without amendment.

Has the hon. Gentleman not grasped the point that the Australian Government have asked for these islands, and we are now discussing the terms on which we hand them over to the Australian Government? That is a much more important point than the hon. Gentleman seems to have grasped.

With great respect, as I understand, that is not the case. The present arrangements were agreed by the previous Government with the Australian authorities.

I am sure we all agree that the Australian Government behave in a generous and sympathetic fashion, and no one on this side of the Committee wishes to snipe at that Government in any way over their so-called "White Australia" immigration policy. It is more a white elephant policy when we look at the empty spaces in the north which it is impossible to have colonised by coloured people, never mind Anglo-Saxons.

But we cannot compare the handing over of the Cocos Islanders with whatever the Government of Australia may do about being swamped by millions of Asians with lower standards of living—Chinese or Indians, for instance, coming from South-East Asia. That is the reason for the anxiety on this side of the Committee. In the last debate on this matter the Minister said:

"We are dealing with a group of Cocos Islanders about whom the Australian Government have said, in the course of negotiations, that any applications for transfer of residence will be considered most sympathetically. That is not a consideration which they apply to any other group."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st January, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 729.]

We are guardians of these islanders and before we finally hand them over we must look very carefully at any arrangements which are made. Are the Cocos Islands unique in this matter? I wonder whether they are. I was talking in the Lobby today to a guest from Australia and I asked him what would happen to the Cocos Islanders when they were handed over to the care of the Australian Government. He replied, "I suppose they will be the same as the Lord Howe islanders." I have not been to the Lord Howe Islands and I wonder whether even my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) has been there.

I have been to Norfolk Island.

These islands lie off the east coast of New South Wales. Their history is similar to that of the Cocos Islands; three Europeans went there with a harem of Maori ladies in the 1830s and the islands' population has blossomed in the same way as the Cocos Islands' population has blossomed. The Lord Howe Islands are now governed by the New South Wales State Government and I wonder what their status is and whether the Cocos Islands will have better conditions than the Lord Howe Islands have been given, as we hope will be the case. After all, the Cocos islanders may go to Australia and play cricket. The Aborigines play cricket and the famous Eddie Gilbert once bowled Don Bradman first ball for a duck. He played for Queensland but has no vote in that State.

In view of the fact that mechanics and even pilots of the airways will mingle with them, the Cocos islanders will have contacts with Australians, will go to Australia, will marry Australian girls and will wish to settle in Australia. It is natural that we on this side of the Committee should wish to make quite sure in our minds what will be the future status of the Cocos islanders.

Hon. Members opposite have said that we on this side of the Committee entered into an agreement on these lines in 1951. I wonder whether the details of the agreement were settled in 1951, I asked a Question in July, 1951, about the airstrip being handed over to the Australian Government, but I wonder whether, when in Government, we arranged the details of the status and the conditions which the islanders would enjoy when they were handed over to our sister Dominion. There may be doubt about it.

Whatever we did or did not do four years ago, we want now to make quite sure that their conditions are as they should be, for the best, if and when the islands are handed over. I hope the Minister will make it clear that full citizenship will be given to the islanders when they wish to leave and to intermarry on the mainland, and I hope we shall have some definite statement about what the status of the Cocos Islanders will be when compared with the status of the Lord Howe Islanders.