THE SUDAN AGREEMENT (Hansard, 18 February 1953)

§ LORD KILLEARN
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, it is open to any noble Lord to put down a Motion on the subject on any day available, and thus secure an opportunity of expressing his views.

§ LORD KILLEARN
My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, of which I take due note, may I ask whether it is not the fact that the Agreement is animated by mistrust of British good faith, as shown by the provisions fettering the authority of the Governor-General?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, that seems to me not to arise in any way out of the Question which the noble Lord put down, but merely to be, perhaps, an unfortunate comment at this stage upon the negotiations which have just been concluded.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the Agreement is operative as from the date of signature?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
Yes, it is.

§ LORD KILLEARN
My Lords, may I put a further supplementary question, in view of the reply of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and arising out of Article V, in which we apparently undertake not to cheat? That strikes me as an abnormal provision to make. Is that the normal practice in Treaties?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
The noble Lord's Question on the Order Paper is to ask how he can find an opportunity for expressing views on this Treaty. If he desires to call attention to specific provisions of the Treaty, he has, as I have said, the opportunity of putting down a Motion, or alternatively, presumably, of asking a direct Question. I think it would be unfortunate if at this stage we embarked upon a discussion, by means of supplementaries, of individual provisions of this Agreement.

§ LORD VANSITTART
My Lords, is not this Agreement subject to ratification? Article XV says: This Agreement and its attachments shall come into force upon signature. There is no provision for ratification.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, the Agreement is not subject to ratification. Ratification, of course, is part of the Prerogative of the Crown. It is not a matter which has to come before this House and, as I indicated to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, just now, the Agreement came into operation upon its signature.

§ LORD VANSITTART
My Lords, surely that is a most unusual provision in any Treaty. I do not think I can recall a previous instance where an international Agreement has not been subject to ratification.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, I confess that that statement of the position, coming from the noble Lord, startles me, because, as I understand the position, Agreements are subject to ratification only if it is stated in the Agreement itself that that shall be so; and that is not the position here. Otherwise, ratification is part of the Treaty-making power under the Prerogative, and it is an executive act of the Government. I do not think that, strictly, it is ever necessary to obtain Parliamentary consent. Strictly, that is right, and the only occasion when ratification is at all necessary is, as I say, when it is specifically provided for in the document which is under discussion.

§ LORD KILLEARN
May I put the point that on December 10,when this same question was asked, an assurance was given by the Leader of the House to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that there was no doubt that Parliament would have to consider the Agreement before ratification? The words used were: …That is obviously right. That was said in this House, and is on record in Hansard of December 10, 1952 (Vol. 179, Col. 892).

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, the noble Lord says that that is obviously right. For the reasons which I have just given I would not agree, with great respect, that that does represent the position. As I say, the position is that the Agreement comes into force as soon as it is signed. I have the reference to which the noble Lord was referring on December 10, when the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, asked whether there would be a possibility of information being given to Parliament…. 512 My noble friend Lord Salisbury said: I will consider that aspect. I see no further reference.

§ LORD KILLEARN
About halfway down the column.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My noble friend Lord Salisbury said (Col. 892): No doubt Parliament has to consider before ratification…and if it is not satisfied then the only thing to do is to vote against the Government. But I should not like the House to think that I am giving any undertaking to-day that this matter can be discussed in the middle of negotiations and before an Agreement has been concluded. That was in answer to a supplementary question. I imagine that it was not possible at that time to say whether this Agreement would provide for any formal ratification or not. In fact it has not, and it is in force.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
My Lords, as my name has been mentioned, may I explain that what I asked the noble Marquess the Leader of the House (of course, it is in Hansard, but I did not catch it in the reply) was this: Whether he could put the Treaty, or whatever it was, before the House in such a form that instead of merely asking questions about it we could have a short discussion. That was my only object.