§ Mr. WarbeyOn a point of order. I desire to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order arising out of a reply given by the Postmaster-General to me yesterday concerning agreements which have been signed and approved by the Government for the establishment of a worldwide telecommunications network through satellites. The point which I wish to raise is the extent to which the agreements is the 1425 the type of treaty, agreement or contract with other Governments or external commercial interests which is of no effect unless it is ratified by this House?
There is a general provision in our Constitution, according ot the authorities—Halsbury and Anson—and I quote from Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution", which says, in Part II, on page 137 of the 1935 edition:
It would seem to follow from the general principles of our Constitution that a treaty which lays a pecuniary burden on the people or which alters the law of the land needs Parliamentary sanction.I submit, firstly, that the agreements will impose a pecuniary burden upon the people if it is signed by the Government, as is their declared intention, because we are required, under the terms of the agreements, to transmit sums of money from this country to a corporation or a committee which will be the owners and controllers of this system of global satellites. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] Moreover, the rights of private citizens and the laws of the country may be affected in that under the agreements the British Broadcasting Corporation and possibly the Independent Television Authority may be required in future when the agreements come into force—
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I could follow the hon. Gentlemans' argument with less inconvenience if he could indicate to me what the point of order is.
§ Mr. WarbeyI am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give a Ruling that the Government are in this matter bound to observe the rules of our Constitution and also the Standing Orders of the House. I shall be coming in a moment to the question of the Standing Orders. I am dealing now with the general rule of our Constitution.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member can develop his point on the Standing Orders if he likes, but I do not at all fancy giving rulings about the bearing of the Constitution on the point.
§ Mr. WarbeyWith respect, it is an established principle of our Constitution that a treaty of the type that I have described, and as described in Anson, Halsbury and other authorities, is one which requires Parliamentary ratification 1426 before it becomes effective. That is my first submission. I was merely seeking to show, by reference to the terms of the agreements and with such minimal reference as was necessary for my purpose, that the agreements will lay a pecuniary burden on people in the country and also that they will affect the laws of this country and the operations of private citizens.
The B.B.C. and the I.T.A., under the provisions of these agreements, will be required to enter into agreements with this committee dominated by external interests for the provision of worldwide television relays.
I now come to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that hon. Members opposite, as supporters of commercial television interests, are not interested in—
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is essential, in the general interest, that we should confine raising points of order to raising points of order.
§ Mr. WarbeyI am grateful, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. Robert CookeOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerI can only receive one point of order, at a time. It lengthens even one if there are two simultaneously.
§ Mr. WarbeyI was raising a point of order, and it is in accordance with the rules of this House that points of order should be heard in silence so that Mr. Speaker may hear the point. If you can hear the point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied, but I do not see any reason why I should be compelled to raise my voice so that you should do so.
I now come to the question of the application of Standing Order No. 92. which specifically provides:
In all contracts extending over a period of years, and creating a public charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the government for the conveyance of mails by sea, or for the purpose of telegraphic communications beyond sea, there shall be inserted the condition that the contract shall not be binding until it has been approved of by a resolution of the House.
§ Sir T. MooreMay I intervene?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It will be very pleasant if and when we all have a little rest. But for the moment I should be greatly obliged if the House would allow me to hear and rule upon this point of order.
§ Mr. WarbeyMr. Speaker, the agreements in question include certain contractual aspects affecting telecommunications and involving the Postmaster-General who has already initialled the agreements in his capacity as Her Britannic Majesty's Postmaster-General and, therefore, as a Minister of the Crown and a member of the Government. He has announced his intention of approving the agreements. The agreements will be open for signature on 19th August and will come into force when two Governments have signed them.
I should like to have from you, Sir, a Ruling that the Standing Order at least, if not the general provisions of our Constitution, is binding upon the Government and upon the Postmaster-General in this respect and that it is, therefore, their duty to ensure that the agreements are submitted to this House for approval.
§ Mr. Robert CookeFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear in mind, in giving your Ruling, that the hon. Member's Question of yesterday mentioned the United Kingdom specifically not at all? The only country which was mentioned specifically was the People's Republic of China.
§ Mr. SpeakerI propose to rule on the only matter which arises for me, which is a matter of order. The fact is that no point of order arises, because the agreements have not, in fact, been signed and do not come into effect until they have been. That is common ground. With regard to the rest of it, of course, the words of Standing Order 92 relate to agreements creating a public charge, and "public charge", by long-standing interpretation of our Standing Order, does not include those instances where moneys are derived from a fund like the Post Office Fund which, for all I know, may well be this case.
§ Mr. MasonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, we are not certain that the £6 million, and possibly £9 million, which are to be spent under the agreements over the next five years 1428 are coming from the Post Office Fund. In view of the fact that it involves research and development, the money may well come from the Ministry of Aviation, and, consequently, will be public moneys as stated in Standing Order 92. According to Standing Order 92, the agreements cannot be endorsed by the House unless there has been a Resolution of the House, and, although it may be hypothetical at this stage, the agreements are to be signed on 19th August or shortly thereafter. The House will be in recess.
Therefore, if public moneys from the Ministry of Aviation are to be involved and, therefore, come under Standing Order 92, could you consider giving a Ruling tomorrow on whether there will be a contravention of the Standing Order if the signature is appended by the Government during the Recess?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he is very wise. He will realise that, from the point of view of the Standing Order, the situation is hypothetical until the agreements are signed. It does not come under it at all.
§ Mr. RankinFurther to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), Mr. Speaker. In view of the interest not only in the House, but among interested persons outside, and because of the biased attitude of the Padmore Report towards reactor designs which do not originate with the Authority, could we hope that, before the House rises—perhaps tomorrow, or on Friday—we may have a statement from the Government about their intentions?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not a matter of order for me to express hopes or absence of hopes. It is not a point of order at all.
§ Mr. WarbeyFurther to my original point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] Mr. Speaker will decide.
The question whether or not the point is purely hypothetical seems to be material here. I submit to you, Sir, that it is not hypothetical in the ordinary sense of the term since the Government, in their reply to me yesterday, said that 1429 the United Kingdom Government have now approved the agreements. Surely, that is an indication of intention to sign. The Government having indicated that they intend to sign, must not we act on the presumption that they intend to carry out that intention?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot add to what I have said. It is plain enough. It does not come under the Standing Order for me unless it is signed. I cannot rule about it.
§ Mr. MasonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] You keep saying that it is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, until they are signed; but you will not be here and neither will Parliament if the Government decide to sign on 19th August. What redress will the House have, and, if the agreements are signed, will there not then be a contravention of Standing Order No. 92?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. The hon. Gentleman's quarrel or potential quarrel is with a Minister, not with me. The agreements may be signed when we are not here, but this still does not enable me to rule upon it now. That is the difference. I cannot help it.