Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎144v] (288/442)

1937
1938
Supply (Committee). HOUSE OF COMMONS Foreign Office.
[Mr, Ponsonby.]
fairly with regard to foreign affairs,
because what happens is that we are told
we must not interfere. We are told it
is indiscreet to ask about some important
negotiations which are being carried on,
and then later on we are told the matter
is settled and it is no good interfering.
I do not want my right hon. Friend to say
this is a project that we stand or fall by,
and that any vote against the project is a
vote of want of confidence in the Govern
ment, but I hope he will consult us and
take the opinion of the House before
arriving at any definite decision.
This brings me to a subject which I feel
can only be sandwiched in to-day in a
few brief moments—the general question
of the control of this House over Foreign
Affairs. A great many of my hon. Friends
on this side of the House believe that the
House would gain greater control over
Foreign Affairs if we had an official
Foreign Affairs Committee set up, as they
have in some countries abroad. I am dis
posed rather to doubt the efficacy of a
scheme of that sort; but, on the other
hand, I feel that we are confronted with a
great problem. This question has not
been discussed since 1886, and even since
then there has been a very great change.
The House is occupied nowadays with pro
longed discussions over matters of vital
social interest at home. The House has
become very much more democratic, and
we have in all parts of the House Members
who are specially well fitted to discuss
these subjects, but at the same time
foreign affairs are getting relegated to a
very subordinate position, and if we get a
day or twm in the year we are
lucky. Thirty or forty years ago,
foreign affairs continually occupied the
.attention of the House, and it was infinitely
better, because we are always living now
in a state of uncertainty, and the right
hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Grey) has not an
adequate opportunity of telling us what
his policy is. I certainly do not blame
the Foreign Secretary for this state of
affairs, but it is gradually coming over the
House, and I think it is undesirable. I
should like the House to commit itself to
a Resolution by which the Government
before concluding any treaty, and before
sanctioning any acquisition, cession, or ex
change of territory, and before entering
into any commitment which will involve
national responsibilities, should consult
the House of Commons and get a vote
upon it. I do not think it would be im
practicable. It would necessitate every
specific Foreign Office question being taken
throughout the Session from time to time,
and you would get very much more satis
factory An East India Company trading post. Debates than you can on a day like
to-day, w r hen we are having a sort of omni
bus Debate, where everyone brings in ques
tions from Pekin to Peru. These con
siderations I hope we may have an oppor
tunity of discussing.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr.
Maclean): That is not quite within the
scope of the Vote w’e are discussing, and
I think the hon. Member must leave that
subject now.
Mr. PONSONBY: It only occurred to
me that with regard to this project of the
Persian railway the Government might
quite easily commit themselves to some
policy without consulting the House of
Commons, and it was on that point that I
diverted. I should like to take a more
general survey of the right hon. Gentle
man’s foreign policy, and in doing so I am
afraid I cannot agree with the last speaker.
The success of foreign policy in my opinion
can best be decided by the degree of sacri
fice which is demanded from the taxpayer
with a view to meeting expenditure on
armaments, and, subjected to this test, our
foreign policy for the last six years can
not be said to be a success. On the con
trary, we must regard it as rather a serious
failure, which is the more to be deplored
because a Liberal Government is in power.
I want now to turn the attention of the
Committee to a very serious innovation
which is creeping into usage, and which
will soon become a recognised custom with
regard to the control of foreign affairs
and the general way of conducting our
foreign relations. I want to refer to what
I may call the new voice of diplomacy.
Till recent years the opinion of the Gov
ernment on international matters was ex
pressed by the Foreign Secretary alone.
Negotiations, whether they were secret or
open, were conducted by our Ambassadors
and Ministers abroad, who acted as inter
mediaries between the Foreign Secretary,
who is the spokesman of the Government,
and the Foreign Courts to which they were
accredited. But this recognised method
of negotiating has been superseded by a
new system which, in my opinion, is very
undesirable and exceedingly dangerous.
Now we use our annual naval statement as
a means of speaking toEurope, as a method
of suggesting alliances, preserving what
we call the balance of power in Europe,
and more especially as a means of caution-