§ Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, made yesterday by Lord Temple more, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
§ LORD TEMPLEMOREMy Lords, at the outset of my remarks I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Marley, that I hope he did not think last night that I was throwing any doubt on his assertion that a certain statement about an undertaking having been given by General Franco or his representatives had been made at the Special Orders Committee, all I should like to explain to your Lordships why I was in ignorance of that statement. I am afraid that, owing to duties connected with the office I hold, I arrived late yesterday at the Special Orders Committee, of which I am a member, after the remark in question had been made. Again, when the matter was raised in the afternoon I was not aware that there was a very able official of the Foreign Office in the box behind me, who had the answer ready had I chosen to send for it. I apologise to the noble Lord and to your Lordships for having delayed the business. It is entirely my fault.
As regards the question the noble Lord asked me yesterday, I should like to say that, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in the House of Commons on December 17, assurances 133 have been obtained from the Burgos authorities regarding the purchase of United Kingdom goods. By these assurances the Burgos authorities—that is, the people owing allegiance to General Franco—undertook that the greater part of the sterling obtained from the export of goods to the United Kingdom should be spent on the purchase of goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom and that the maximum amount of coal compatible with existing commitments should be purchased from the United Kingdom. It was necessary that these assurances should be obtained in order that trade with the territory under General Franco's control might be carried on on a satisfactory basis. I think I have answered the question which the noble Lord asked me yesterday.
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer he has given, and I was very sorry to have had to inconvenience the House by asking for a modification of our normal procedure in order to get that answer. In defence of the Foreign Office representative who was in the box, I should say that of course the true story will never be told. That is one of those deep mysteries which sometimes shake your Lordships' House, but which all Front Bench representatives realise may happen from time to time. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the answer he has given, and I hope tie will not think I am ungenerous if I make one or two remarks on that answer.
In the first place we have no guarantee whatever except the word of a man who has never been famed for his trustworthiness in dealing with his own or other countries—General Franco—that a portion of this money will be spent in this country. Have we any guarantees that that will be clone? What proportion will be spent? Is he fulfilling his word if he spends in this country 2½ per cent. of the money we pay him for the goods that he exports? Is that a fulfilment of his word, or is it a substantial amount? And What machinery is there in existence, or being put up by the Government, to check his statement that he will spend in this country the money he receives for goods which he exports? That seems to me to be fundamental in this matter, because otherwise this man, well known to many people for his un- 134 trustworthiness, may be simply "getting away with it" through the simplicity and good-heartedness of the Government—the Foreign Office or the Board of Trade or whoever it may be—in believing that other people are as kind, goodhearted, willing, and honourable as they are themselves. He would be doing down our own people by not keeping his word. I think an assurance on that point—some idea of what percentage of the money he receives will be spent in this country—would not be undesirable.
There are only two other points on which I would like assurance. Firstly, what means did we use in communicating with this person, as we only recognise the Spanish Government? We do not recognise the rebels. Therefore, we must have used some peculiar means to get into communication with him. The last time we had trouble with him—and all our communications have been troublesome—we had to send a destroyer to Cadiz to complain of the stopping or the taking of our ships. It would be interesting to know how we have had actual communication with him on this occasion. Can we have an assurance that this is in no way a backdoor recognition of the rebels in Spain? A clear statement from the Government that this is not in any way a recognition, front or back door, of the rebels in Spain would be helpful. I know that the necessity to sell our coal is of importance. Equally, I would say, it is very necessary that we should be able to buy certain Spanish products. I would be the first to regret the prohibition of the export of sherry from Spain, and there are many other Spanish exports which are very valuable and which we enjoy and need; but it is not worth paying the price of recognition, or anything approaching recognition, for that purpose. I am certain the noble Lord will be able to give a clear assurance to your Lordships' House on this matter.
§ LORD TEMPLEMOREMy Lords, I think I can answer the questions which have been asked by the noble Lord. He asked what guarantees have we that the assurances of General Franco and his representatives would be kept. Of course, We have no actual guarantees. The assurances obtained from the insurgent parties are entirely unofficial in character. If we had a written guarantee the noble Lord would have found fault with us because it would have meant, in his 135 opinion, that we recognised General Franco's authority. Then he asked by what means we established communication with the Burgos authorities. As to that, I understand that informal conversations took place between the Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Embassy then and still stationed at Hendaye, advised by officials of the Board of Trade, and representatives of the Burgos administration, and these conversations took place for the most part in Spanish territory. Then the noble Lord asked in conclusion—
§ LORD MARLEYWhat percentage?
§ LORD TEMPLEMOREI am afraid it is too early to give a definite reply to that question. We do not know how far these guarantees have been carried out. There remain certain difficulties inherent in the present situation, but His Majesty's Government are taking appropriate action to ensure the removal of these difficulties. Finally, the noble Lord asked if these negotiations constituted an official recognition of General Franco's Government. The answer is No. These assurances were entirely unofficial in character and in no way constitute de facto recognition of General Franco's regime. This was made perfectly clear to the Burgos authorities at the time by the Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Embassy and was accepted by them. May I say that I have just had information on the question of percentage which the noble Lord desired? The undertaking was that definitely the greater part of the money obtained should be spent in this country.
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, by leave of the House I would like to thank the 136 noble Lord for the fulness of his answer. I a m bound to confess it looks to me as if the Government have once again been cheated by these people. We now know that the greater part—that means 51 pet cent. or more—should be spent in this; country, and there is no arrangement for checking what is spent, and even the negotiations in connection with the arrangement are not as yet finally concluded. It seems to me extremely unsatisfactory. There is nothing to be done now and I cannot do anything, but I cannot help thinking we have a right to be profoundly dissatisfied with this action by the Government.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.