CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of agreement and power to make advances.) (Hansard, 5 July 1938)

§ Mr. Batey
There is a question which I should like to raise, which was missed when the Bill was before us yesterday. It affects the question of coal in the agreement. I should like to make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the 344 Treasury. This Debate will take a long time, because we must oppose the agreement as it affects coal. The Patronage Secretary has done very well to-night. He has got a good many Bills. Will he be satisfied to leave this question over to another occasion? If he will not, then I want to deliver my speech on the question of coal.

§ The Chairman
Is the hon. Member sure that he is speaking on the right Bill?

§ Mr. Batey
If I am wrong, it would not be the first time I have been wrong, but I think I am right, on Clause 1.

§ The Chairman
If the hon. Member is referring to Article 4 of the agreement, that merely deals with ratification and the exchange of the instruments of ratification.

§ Mr. Batey
This Bill is to confirm agreements made with the Turkish Government. There are three of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were political, economic and financial agreements. There can be no doubt that into the economic argument comes the question of coal, and the only part of the Bill on which to deal with that point is Clause 1, which confirms the agreement. I submit that I am entitled to point out the words which deal with this matter. In Command Paper 5754, on page 5, there are these words: There shall be a company incorporated in England, under the Companies Act, 1929, with its principal place of business in London, for the sale"—

§ The Chairman
I am afraid the hon. Member is dealing with the wrong Bill. If he will get the right Bill, he will see that it has nothing to do with the matter he wishes to raise.

§ Mr. Batey
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately dealt with the three agreements.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has not the right Bill. If he looks at the agreement, he will see that it has nothing to do with the matter he is raising.

§ Mr. Stephen
The Bill we are dealing with is the Anglo-Turkish Agreement Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was moving the Second Reading, 345 pointed out that there were three agreements, which all hang together, one providing £6,000,000 for armaments, another dealing with export credits to the amount of £10,000,000, and the third agreement dealing with the clearing arrangements. In the second of these agreements, the one dealing with export credits to the amount of £10,000,000, on page 5, there is a reference to the setting up of a Turkish corporation in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they all had to be taken together, and I take it that the hon. Member is objecting to Clause 1 of this Bill because he does not want to ratify one of these agreements if it is going to do injury to the coal sales of this country.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon)
May I state the position as I understand it? It is quite correct to say that on the general issue raised on the Second Reading of the Bill I called attention to the fact that there were three agreements made on the same day, and I said that only one of the agreements needed statutory ratification; that, of course, is the one in the Schedule to this Bill. Now we have reached the Committee stage, and you, Sir, have put the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." The only thing dealt with in Clause 1 is the agreement in the Schedule, and that has to do with armaments credits. Neither of the other agreements requires statutory ratification. I apprehend that it was quite right to discuss the relation of all three agreements on the Second Reading of the Bill, and right for me to call attention to the fact that they were all signed on the same day, and that only one needed statutory authority. Now that we are in Committee I respectfully submit that the question is whether Clause 1 dealing with the agreement in the Schedule should be agreed to.

§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn
I submit that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has raised a point of substance. We are considering a Clause which ratifies the agreement in the Schedule, and that agreement is to facilitate such purchases as are referred to under the clearing agreement. One of the considerations for loaning this £6,000,000 is to facilitate the purchase 346 of articles referred to in the trade agreement, and, therefore, I submit that the hon. Member has raised a sound point. If that is so, perhaps the Patronage Secretary will see that proper time is given to discuss it.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is quite right in regard to the facts but not in the deductions which he draws. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has now gone astray. What he has said would have been quite in order on the Second Reading, but he will realise that as we are now in Committee, the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) cannot oppose the Bill on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." The principle of the other agreements has been passed, and therefore they cannot be discussed on the Committee stage of this Bill.

§ Mr. Benn
Am I right that Clause 1 is the Clause which approves the agreement set out in the Schedule, which in paragraph (1) says that the Government of the United Kingdom undertake to advance £6,000,000, and the reason for doing so is to facilitate certain purchases? The hon. Member is raising the question of these purchases. That, I submit, is in order.

§ The Chairman
I understand that the purchases that the hon. Member refers to do not come under this Clause.

§ Mr. Stephen
Surely the hon. Member has still the right to oppose the Clause. He will doubtless give his reasons. He might say that he has given full consideration to all that was said from the Government Bench but feels that he must oppose it because they have not made out a sufficiently sound case for the ratification of the agreement.

§ The Chairman
That is exactly what the hon. Member cannot argue. He can say he will vote against the Clause and he can do so, but the matters that come under the £10,000,000 Resolution cannot be debated on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," which refers only to the £6,000,000.

§ Mr. Stephen
I do not think you understood me, Sir Dennis. I quite realise that he cannot discuss the £10,000,000 Credits Agreement but he can discuss the £6,000,000.

§ The Chairman
I fully understood the hon. Member. He cannot make the speech he wants to.

§ Mr. Batey
The question I want to deal with is this: When the Government makes a loan it makes provision for repayment and it sets up a committee which will sell coal in any part of the British Empire or any foreign country.

§ The Chairman
I see the hon. Member has the Bill in his hand. Will he point out to me where that is mentioned?

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
It is true that the committee is not mentioned in the Bill but the money is provided. If it were not, the committee would not be set up.

§ The Chairman
I must rule clearly that those matters which come under the £10,000,000 loan dealt with in a separate Resolution cannot be discussed at all on the Committee stage of this Bill.

§ Mr. Batey
It has to be raised somewhere: there is no question about that. We will not have coal dealt with as the Government propose to deal with it here. If we cannot raise it on Clause 1 cannot we raise it on Clause 2?

§ The Chairman
No. I gave my Ruling, I hope quite clearly, that it cannot be raised on the Committee stage of this Bill at all.

Mr. Davidson
With regard to your request, Sir Dennis, to be shown where the Clause deals with the matter that my hon. Friend wishes to bring up, it makes definite reference to the agreement in the Schedule, which says the Government of the Turkish Republic have adopted an economic programme and deals with the value of the mineral and certain other products—

§ The Chairman
I am obliged to the hon. Member for trying to help me, but his remarks do not cause me to make any alteration in my definite Ruling.

§ Mr. Stephen
I wish to say a few words on this Clause. In this agreement, the Government are making arrangements to lend £6,000,000 for the provision of armaments to the Turkish Government. Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer give some idea as to what those armaments will 348 be? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, he told us that the Service Departments had been consulted on the matter and had stated that they were in a position to provide the armaments that would be required under the agreement. Later on, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) put a specific question as to what were the armaments, I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he could not say, and that that was something for the future. He did not know exactly what they would be. I was a little puzzled by that. How can the Service Departments say that they are in a position to supply the Turkish Government with the armaments if they do not know what those armaments are to be?

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace)
On a point of Order. Actually I did not have the privilege of addressing the House at all on this question.

§ Mr. Stephen
I apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. The Financial Secretary knew that just as well as anybody, and he might have put his correction a little more courteously that he did. In my opinion, the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is every bit as competent as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were uncertain as to what the armaments would be, and I am asking how the Service Departments can say that they will be in a position to supply those armaments to the Turkish Government if they do not know what they will be. For example, if they were aeroplanes, would the Service Departments be in a position to provide them? I would like some Member of the Government to clear up the contradiction of the previous Debate in this connection. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to the whole subject of this agreement. I sympathise very much with the speech that was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) on this agreement. I think we have been too easy in allowing the Government to get away with it, and I feel that all the more since hearing the 349 attempts of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to raise the question of the effect the agreement might have on the coal trade of this country in the future.

§ Sir Stafford Cripps
There seem to be some points that ought to be raised on this Bill. I do not know whether the Patronage Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer insist on taking this to-night, or whether they would be prepared to adjourn the matter to a more fortunate time for discussion. It is not that hon. Members want to raise points simply for the sake of staying here tonight.
It would be unfortunate, in view of the spare time that there has been on other occasions, such as last night, if we had to sit late to discuss this Measure. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as there are points to be raised, whether he could see his way to let us go now and take this matter on some other occasion? I am sure it would add to the amenities of the House and the expedition of business if he took that step.

§ Sir J. Simon
I think we all want to do what is generally convenient, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that we want to do what in the circumstances is fair. The answer to the point of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is very simple. We spent a long time discussing it on Second Reading, when all these points were mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Article 1 of the agreement he will find that the material that can be ordered by the Turkish Government can only be ordered under contracts concluded with the approval of the Government of the United Kingdom. The agreement does 350 not give the right to the Turkish Government to order as they please by arrangement with contractors here to the disadvantage of this country. The nature of the purchases is completely controlled. I cannot say what they will be because they have not been settled in detail, but the fact that they are completely controlled shows that there will be no difficulty under that head. With regard to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), there is no question that there was an undertaking not to keep the House up but if there is a genuine feeling that there are points to be raised that will take some time to discuss, we had better move to report Progress. I do not think, however, that there is really very much to be discussed on this Clause.

§ Sir S. Cripps
There is a point I want to raise.

§ Sir J. Simon
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."