HC Deb 17 July 1935 vol 304 cc1025-7 The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WILMOT: 7. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German naval agreement is now in force as a binding agreement; and, if so, whether he will state upon what date it became binding, and upon what date it was registered with the secretariat of the League of Nations in accordance with the covenant?
Mr. WILMOT

May I ask your direction, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in order for Members of this House to address questions to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, having regard to the statement made during the Debate the other day as to the status of the Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have not considered that particular question, but undoubtedly, if a question is put down to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and it happens particularly to concern the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, the latter will reply.

Mr. MANDER

On that point of Order. Would it be in order to put down questions specifically to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by doing so. If the question be put down for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and if it concerns particularly the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, that Minister will reply. It comes to the same thing.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Are we to understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is head man in that show?

Mr. WILMOT

May I say that the point arises, because questions addressed to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs are altered at the Table to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is carrying out my Ruling.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL

As there are two Ministers dealing with the various departments of foreign affairs, are not Members of the House of Commons entitled to address questions to one or the other of them, and are not out of order if the questions come specifically within either Minister's province?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not say that they are out of order, but rather that it is the practice in dealing with questions that, when they are put down to one Minister but refer to something which is in the particular province of another Minister, they are answered by the Minister concerned.

Sir H. SAMUEL

I understand that questions which are addressed to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs are refused at the Table—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—or are transferred to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. SPEAKER

They have been put down to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. MANDER

Is it not a fact that questions to the Minister for League of Nations Affairs have been definitely refused at the Table as out of order, although dealing with League of Nations Affairs?

Sir S. HOARE

May I suggest, on the point of Order, that all questions should be constitutionally addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and that it rests between my right hon. Friend and myself as to who answers them?

Sir PERCY HARRIS

Is there not a precedent in the case of the Secretary for Mines and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who are both subordinate Ministers to the Board of Trade? Questions are addressed directly to them.

Mr. SPEAKER

They are heads of different Departments.

Mr. WILMOT

May I now ask question number seven?

Sir S. HOARE

The exchange of notes between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the German Government, regarding the limitation of naval armaments was signed in London on 18th June, 1935, and by agreement between the parties, expressed in the notes themselves, took effect between the two Governments as from that date. The exchange of notes was registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 12th July.

Mr. WILMOT

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether it is not contrary to the Article of the Covenant regarding the registration of international undertakings for an undertaking to come into force before it has been registered with the Secretariat of the League?

Sir S. HOARE

. I do not think that that is the case. I have here the interpretation put upon the position by a Committee of the Assembly. The interpretation is as follows: Registration does not take the place of ratification. It is simply a condition upon the fulfilment of which the binding force of a treaty or international engagement is dependent. Once the treaty or international engagement has been concluded, neither of the Contracting Parties can escape unilaterally from its obligations, but, until registration has taken place, the treaty or agreement will lack positive binding force, both between the Contracting Parties and in regard to third parties.

Mr. COCKS

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Secretariat has any right to refuse registration on the ground that the agreement is ultra vires?

Sir S. HOARE

No, Sir, not without notice.