§ 47. Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the requisitioning by the Admiralty of two tankers, recently built in Britain for the Polish Mercantile Marine, is a violation of Article 6 of the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement of 14th January, 1949, he will initiate consultations between the Service Departments, the Foreign Office, and the Board of Trade, in order to prevent further such violations of agreements, and the damage to international trade and understanding resulting therefrom, by the misuse of war-time Defence Regulations.
§ Mr. Godfrey NicholsonOn a point of order. Why did this Question pass the Table? Is not the word "misuse" in the last line but one, a tendentious word? Should that be used in a Question, Sir?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe word "misuse" is an English word, so far as I know, and I expect I could find it in the Oxford Dictionary. I do not think there is anything wrong.
§ Mr. NicholsonSurely that word prejudges the whole issue and, therefore, is tendentious.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt means that the wartime Defence Regulations have been wrongly used. I think that is in order.
§ Mr. NicholsonSurely it is a Ruling of yours, Sir, that a Question should not prejudge any issue. Does not this Question prejudge the issue of the whole matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that this Question does prejudge the matter. It 30 asks what is to happen and whether this might result in a misuse of war-time Regulations.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)I cannot accept all the implications in my hon. Friend's Question. Decisions such as that to which he refers are, naturally, always taken only after full discussion between the Ministers concerned. I therefore see no reason to issue any special instructions of the kind suggested.
§ Mr. NicholsonFurther to my point of order. Does not the Prime Minister's answer imply that the whole matter has been prejudged, by the form in which this Question was put down?
§ Mr. SpeakerI should have said that the Prime Minister's answer bore out exactly what I said.
§ Mr. NicholsonSurely, Sir—
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the hon. Gentleman ought to look beyond his nose. Everything the Prime Minister said bore out exactly what I said.
§ Mr. DribergI should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that the Poles have stuck very strictly and scrupulously to their side of the Agreement, and that we have had from them all the goods, and have consumed the goods, for which these tankers were to have been exchanged? Are we not behaving towards the Poles rather as we 'complain that the Persians are behaving towards us?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. DribergMay I press my right hon. Friend about this matter? Has he looked personally into the facts of this case and can he say why this somewhat dishonourable transaction should take place?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not prepared to admit for a moment that it is dishonourable. The question whether there has been any violation of the Trade Agreement is a matter of interpretation. I do not think that Article 6 can ever have been intended to override the general powers of requisitioning for defence purposes. This matter must be viewed in the light of the conditions existing at the time.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanIs not my right hon. Friend aware that the Agreement itself 31 provided expressly against this kind of thing? Did not the Agreement undertake, expressly and explicitly, that the Government would not use any powers to prevent the delivery of goods ordered within the period limited by the Agreement?
§ The Prime MinisterI am perfectly well aware of the conditions governing this Agreement. In my view they did not preclude the inherent right of the Government to requisition in a case of this kind.