§ 22. Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether approval has been given for trade with Spain to be resumed by the joint U.S.-British bizone of Germany.
§ Mr. MayhewYes, Sir.
§ Mr. Platts-MillsWill the Foreign Secretary consider again this particular course of trade? Is it not obvious that any trade between Western Germany and Spain is really an underhand way of bringing Spain within the Marshall Plan; and is it not quite obvious that any trade with this murderous régime in Spain must strengthen the hands of a dictator against the people, and must undermine the struggle of the people against that dictator?
§ Sir W. SmithersOn a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to make such a remark about a friendly Government?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis always raises a rather difficult position. I understand that we have no Ambassador in Spain, which makes the position rather involved.
§ Mr. Michael AstorFurther to that point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that, while we have no Ambassador in Spain we have a Mission in Spain, so we still have diplomatic relations. Therefore, is it in Order for an hon. Member to refer to the régime of a country with whom we have diplomatic relations as "murderous"?
§ Mr. SpeakerErskine May says:
Opprobrious remarks must not be made against the Ruler of a Sovereign State with whom we are in amity.While, quite frankly, I deprecate charges made against another Government, I cannot rule that it is completely out of Order.
Major LloydAre we to understand that in future the definition of a "friendly country" is one in which we have an Ambassador and not a chargé d'affaires?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the hon. Member might read Erskine May. We are not in complete amity with a country when we have no Ambassador in it. That is quite certain. We have had several statements made by the Foreign Secretary which have made it perfectly clear that we are not entirely in accord with the Government of that country.
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidIt is very important to get this matter right. Am I right in understanding, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling to the point of Order depends not on whether we have an Ambassador or not, but on the distinction between a ruler and a Government? Or is it your Ruling that in this House we can refer in different terms to a friendly nation with whom we have not exchanged Ambassadors from the terms we can use about a nation with whom we have exchanged Ambassadors?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated the fact accurately. Erskine May makes a distinction between opprobrious epithets against the ruler of a country, the head of a country, and—though once again I deprecate them—opprobrious epithets against the Government of a country.
§ Mr. Quintin HoggAm I not right in thinking that the use of tendentious epithets of any sort in a supplementary questions has hitherto been ruled out of Order; is it not an undesirable practice to use tendentious epithets of any sort in this way; and, if so, is not the hon. Member's reference out of Order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI thought I had already said that I deprecated these statements.
§ Mr. F. Noel-BakerMay I ask, in reference to the original reply, whether the Government will do all they can to see that trade with the bi-zone is diverted into more desirable directions?
§ Mr. MayhewThe position is that the United Nations have not instituted economic sanctions against Spain and therefore there is no reason why Western Germany should. The reason why a decision is required now is that a previous decision was not possible until a settlement of the question of German assets in Spain had been reached.
§ Mr. Kenneth LindsayWill the Under-Secretary see that trade between every country in Europe, irrespective of politics, is prosecuted so that we can get Europe back on its feet again?