§ 2.43 p.m.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance that they will not enter into any commitments designed to modify their rights under the Treaty of 1936 with Egypt without prior discussion in Parliament.]
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, if the noble Lord's Question means that he is asking for an assurance that Parliament will be given the opportunity to discuss the terms of any Agreements that may be arrived at with the Egyptian Government before they are signed, I cannot give any such assurance. To do so would not be in accordance with normal constitutional practice. But it is Her Majesty's Government's view that any Treaty should contain a provision for ratification, and in that case it would not come into force until the process of ratification had been completed. Before that occurred it would be the intention to afford Parliament full opportunity to debate the matter.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for his Answer, and arising out of it, would he not agree that my original Question was a natural one, seeing that, as publicly announced, the Ambassador is now on his way back to his post at Cairo, and that Parliament is not due to meet again until January 19, an interval of one month?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, if the noble Lord means that, knowing his views on this subject to some extent, I was not surprised by his Question, he is quite correct.
§ LORD KILLEARNThe noble Marquess should not be surprised.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGBut the noble Lord will recognise that the Parliamentary procedure I have outlined is exactly what he would expect me to say.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware of any cases on record where Parliament has refused to ratify a treaty 69 already concluded by the Government of the day without its having come before Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OE READINGOff-hand, I should be reluctant to commit myself. If the noble Lord likes to take the usual course, I will do my best to deal with it.
§ LORD CALVERLEYMy Lords, can the noble Marquess tell the House whether we shall be faced with an accomplished fact before we meet on January 19—because feeling in the country is very much perturbed at what is taking place.
§ LORD CALVERLEYThere is a French phrase that I cannot pronounce—I mean fait accompli.,
THE MARQUESS OF READINGIf we may take the expression "accomplished fact" as a free translation of the French phrase—
§ LORD CALVERLEYA very free one.
THE MARQUESS OF READING—what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, I think, covers the point: it will be when the Treaty comes up for ratification that Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss it. To discuss it before that would not be in accordance with constitutional precedent.
§ LORD HANKEYMy Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble Marquess whether there are not very important precedents where the Parliamentary procedure has been modified? I can think of two straightaway which I would submit to him for his consideration. The first was at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, when a terrible row arose about reparations. It was so serious that Mr. Bonar Law failed to allay it, Mr. Lloyd George had to be recalled from the Peace Conference and special meetings of Parliament were held. The second is pertinent to the present case. Does the noble Marquess not remember that in 1946, just after the Labour Government had announced the plan for conditionally withdrawing our troops, Parliament met in May, 1946, three times—twice for the Commons and once for the Lords—with very important results?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, as I said earlier on, what we propose to follow is the normal constitutional procedure.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, inasmuch as we are going to have a debate on Thursday on the matter, can the noble Marquess say how far he will be able to guide us, what information he will be able to give us, on Thursday before the making of the Treaty? I venture respectfully to agree with him as to procedure. How much information will he give us? For example, will he be able to publish some Papers about those negotiations in 1946? And, in particular, would he publish officially the text of the Treaty which was initialled by Mr. Bevin and myself with Sidky Pasha? It was published in Cairo, but I do not think it was officially published in this country. Would the noble Marquess consider publishing that, with other relevant documents, so that the public, in looking at the problem to-day, will see how far, for seven years, we have in fact been fully committed?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI see the possible relevance to the debate of what the noble Viscount has asked for, but when he asks me to produce that Paper by Thursday, at least in time for noble Lords to profit by its publication, I think he is, unfortunately, asking for the impossible. I do not see how it could be produced in that time.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I recognise the courteous tone of the noble Marquess's reply, but this is the difficulty. I have a copy of this Treaty—it is in an official paper; it was published by Sidky in Cairo. I can quote the Cairo paper, but that has not the same dignity or authority as an official Paper. The thing exists; it can be printed in a couple of hours at any printing shop. But if printed in the way I am asking, it would have the imprimatur of official authority.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI thank the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF READING—but I can give the noble Viscount no assurance, as I am sure he will understand.