HC Deb 27 February 1952 vol 496 cc1394-414

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  1. (a) raising to seven hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of five hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (4) of section one of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
  2. (b)raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that Becton;
in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

5.6 a.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this Resolution, because the speech I should like to deliver is mainly concerned with the machinery of the Export Credit Guarantees Fund. The Money Resolution deals with the finance of the problem, and, therefore, it is probably even more appropriate that I should be able to speak on it than on the Second Reading, although I had hoped to be able to speak on Second Reading.

I rise, like all hon. Members who spoke on the Bill, to praise the work of the Department, but I want to emphasise one aspect of which I have personal experience, the problem of the small exporter to the dollar market. Some three years ago I spent six months in the United States as a salesman, not selling on a big scale—there were no parties at the Waldorf-Astoria—but travelling round with a despatch case full of literature and samples and knocking at doors.

The Chairman

This is a very narrow Resolution, simply raising the money, and we cannot discuss anything else.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

On a point of order. In my submission the Money Resolution exactly reproduces the Bill, and anything in order on the Bill is surely in order on the Resolution. The hon. Member must be in a position to develop arguments—and perhaps to seek your guidance about adjourning this debate so that we may amend the Resolution to deal with various aspects of the Bill. As it stands it is in exactly similar form to the Bill, and the question is exactly the same as we have debated before—whether or not it is desirable to increase the cover.

The Chairman

There is a considerable difference. Hon. Members may on Second Reading say what they would like to see in the Bill. The Money Resolution is only concerned with the sum of money, and that is all that can be discussed.

Mr. Bing

That is exactly the limitation that I should have said, if any of my hon. Friends had asked me what was meant by the Money Resolution, was the case. My hon. Friend's argument was this: he was showing why we should not devote such an amount for cover. It is the argument that some of us have already tried to put to the Committee, and it is very valuable when the President of the Board of Trade, who has been here all this time, will be able to reply to the debate. Of course, that should not influence you. But this, surely, is an argument directed to the point whether or not in one case we should increase the sum by £50 million and in the other case by £250 million. It is a considerable sum of money and we ought not to pass from it without considering why this Money Resolution is necessary and whether it is necessary to seek any amendment to it in order to facilitate the general object of the Second Reading.

The Chairman

With some of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said I agree. The point is that one can only discuss the amount of money being voted and we cannot have a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Further to that point of order. I am not trying to argue the point, but I tried to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, and it is necessary that we should have a full understanding of the ambit of the Ruling you have given, Sir Charles. May I draw attention to the fact that this is not a Money Resolution in the normal sense, when one deals with a single sum? It has two distinct parts. One provides for an increase in the sum to be applied to work to be undertaken by the Board of Trade under Section I of the Act of 1949, and the other provides for a quite separate increase for the specialist work under Section 2. I have been here for 15 hours as the only Lancashire Member trying to take part in the debate. We have not had from the other side one bit of information about Section 2.

I suggest respectfully that the matter the Committee is now called upon to consider is the double point whether we pass the Money Resolution for those two separate sums. I submit on that discussion we should be well within the bounds of order.

The Chairman

The fact that we have been here for 15 hours does not alter the procedure of the Committee. The debate is very narrow, and if the hon. Gentleman was unlucky enough not to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, the fact is that the House agreed to come to a decision on the Second Reading. Nothing can be done now about a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Hale

I appreciate that; I was not making that point at all, and I am sorry if I failed to put it as succinctly as I might have done. I submit that Section 2 is clearly separate and that we can deal with that Section and try to find out from Ministers why they are asking for extra money in that connection.

The Chairman

I can only repeat that this Money Resolution, in my submission, is very narrow. It is raising the limit of two sums and that is all that can be discussed.

Mr. Benn

Perhaps, after those points of order, I may be allowed to continue.

I propose to limit myself very strictly to the narrowest possible interpretation of the Money Resolution. But you will agree, Sir Charles, that this Resolution, raising the limits, particularly under paragraph (b) for the special purpose in Section 2 of the Act, must inevitably include some consideration of the machinery of the Export Control Guarantee Department, which is to be called upon to spend this additional money and to raise the liability which they are allowed to dispense. Would I be right in supposing that that came within the meaning of this Resolution?

5.15 a.m.

The Chairman

No, that was decided on the Second Reading and now we can only consider the sum.

Mr. Benn

I bow completely to your Ruling, Sir Charles, that we must simply consider the sum of money which the Committee is to authorise the Export Control Guarantee fund which it has to dispense under two heads. My submission is that in considering how far this Department can be fit to give liabilities of the size required, we must consider the workings of the Department and its capacity to deal with certain problems—

The Chairman

I am sorry if I did not make myself sufficiently clear. That is a point we cannot discuss.

Mr. I. Mikardo (Reading, South)

On a point of order. Surely if we are to discuss how much money is to be spent we need to consider what are the purposes for which it must be used.

The Chairman

That is what the House has just decided—how it will spend the money. This deals with the money and it is only the money that can be discussed

Mr. Mikardo

But how can we know how much is needed unless we know precisely what it is proposed to do? May I put it to you in this way, Sir Charles: Suppose we had just decided to allocate some money to buy coconuts. One could surely discuss why so many coconuts are to be bought in order to decide how many coconuts we want?

The Chairman

We could discuss that on the Second Reading. Now we are on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Benn

It I seem difficult, Sir Charles, it is because I am trying desperately to keep strictly within the Ruling that you have given. I must confess that when I turn my mind to the £150 million I feel that there are certain questions which I should like to ask whichever Minister is responsible for answering in this Committee. I should first like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the £150 million which we are authorising under paragraph (b) is being or will be dispensed in the best possible way. I put it to him that the whole purpose of the Export Guarantees Bill is to carry out effectively an operation of insurance. That insurance, if I understand it correctly, consists of two problems. One is the problem of assessing the risk and the other is the problem of reducing the risk—

The Chairman

Order. I think I have made myself perfectly clear. That is going back to a Second Reading speech and, if the hon. Gentleman persists, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I want to raise an entirely different point which I think, without controversy, would come within the scope of this Money Resolution. As you will observe, Sir Charles, the Money Resolution seeks for the purposes of the Bill to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade, The weal significance of this resolution is the reference to the Board of Trade.

One of the curious things which has emerged during the debate is the relationship between the Board of Trade and the Treasury. It is not the first time we have had occasion to discuss the relationship between the Treasury and another Government Department. What we want to know, and what I think the Committee will wish to know before they pass this Money Resolution which involves the expenditure of Government money, is why it is necessary, as we heard earlier this morning, that here again there should be this unnecessary duplication of effort and expenditure as between one Government Department and another. It has now emerged, and questions were put to the right hon. Gentleman which were not answered in the Second Reading Debate—

The Chairman

It is likely they were not answered then. They certainly cannot be answered now. If they are, I shall stop it.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not press for an answer because the experience one has had in this matter teaches one that one will have to be a super-optimist to get any answer from the Government on any question relevant to this matter. But I do want to press the Committee to reject this Resolution.

Hon. Members

Vote, vote.

Mr. Mikardo

Why are hon. Members in a hurry?

Mr. Fletcher

It would be monstrous to expect the Committee to pass this Money Resolution. It requires a great deal of further examination. What has emerged? The Government is asking for this money in order that this liability may be undertaken by the Board of Trade. It is evident that the Treasury have far more to do with it than the Board of Trade. We have all this confusion and duplication between one Government Department and another. We have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answering the debate on the Second Reading, and now we have the President of the Board of Trade dealing with the Money Resolution. The Government are in a complete muddle about this. We do not know exactly what is going on inside the Government. I think the Committee will agree, in these circumstances, particularly at this late hour, that it would be wrong to expect this Committee to give the Government the money for which they are asking.

We have had a very long day and the Government have made a good deal of progress, and I hoped, after this matter has been ventilated, to see the Government think fit to reconsider the matter and adjourn the Committee before asking it to proceed with this Resolution.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

I find myself in some disagreement with some of my hon. Friends. I think possibly when they were advancing the view that there should be a lengthy discussion on this Financial Resolution, that they had missed or overlooked a part of the debate which had preceded this. In fact, there would have been certainly no need for any lengthy discussion on this Resolution if many of the points raised previously, during the Second Reading debate, had been dealt with, as.many of the points, which are covered directly by this Resolution, formed a chief part of the discussions then.

The Chairman

That is just the point. This Money Resolution covers everything to be discussed during Second Reading, but I cannot allow the discussion now.

Mr. Foot

All I was suggesting was that what was happening was that the debate on the Financial Resolution took place in the debate on the Second Reading and my hon. Friends tried to conduct the debate on the Money Resolution on Second Reading.

The Chairman

If they did that, they are certainly not going to make their Second Reading speeches now.

Mr. Foot

I wish to discuss, in particular, the detailed figures in the Financial Resolution. One of the main points about these detailed figures is whether it is required that there should be £750 million, referred to in section A, and £150 million, referred to in paragraph (b). I suggest this is a vital point on the Money Resolution because, under this Resolution, as compared with the Financial Resolution which this Committee discussed in 1949, on a similar Measure, the increase in the figure is very much greater today. Indeed, this is a significant difference between the Financial Resolution before us now and the Financial Resolution discussed on 2nd February, 1949.

Therefore, I think it is legitimate for me on this Financial Resolution to quote what was said by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttleton), who referred in the discussion at that time directly to the question of how and at what stages the amount named in the Financial Resolution should be raised. It was one of the chief points made by the right hon. Gentleman, when he sat on this side of the Committee, that it was highly desirable not to increase these sums by big amounts but that it was very much better that the Government of the day should come back frequently if it was found necessary—even within a few months—to ask for extra money. He thought it also highly desirable that the Committee should have the opportunity to deal with the matter through a Financial Resolution of that kind rather than that the Government should ask for a much bigger sum than they required.

I suggest it is in fact quite possible that the Government are asking for a very much bigger sum than they require. In view of that explanation perhaps I may quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot said: As far as export credits are concerned, I applaud the Minister's proceeding by gentle stages and givng us an opportunity of hearing how the scheme is working from time to time rather than taking something which will keep him well covered for any conceivable life of any conceivable Government." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1689.]

The Chairman

Was that said on the Money Resolution debate?

Mr. Foot

No, Sir Charles. It was said on the 1949 Bill.

The Chairman

On what stage?

Mr. Foot

On Second Reading.

The Chairman

We are now discussing the Money Resolution. I have made the position perfectly clear.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

With great respect, Sir Charles, I submit to you that though my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) read from a Second Reading speech, nevertheless he is doing no more than deal with the fact that here, in this Money Resolution, we are to increase a sum from £500 million to £750 million and he has submitted to you and to the Committee that that is a very large increase and that the party opposite on a previous occasion disapproved of that kind of thing. He is asking that it should not be agreed to on this Money Resolution. My submission, to you Sir Charles, with great respect, is that he is in order.

The Chairman

I do not think he is. It was on Second Reading that that was suggested and on this occasion it is not by easy stages but during this present Session of Parliament that the Government are asking for the money.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

On a point of order. As one who has listened for 15 hours without saying a word, even as an interjection, may I ask whether you would be good enough to define exactly what we are entitled to discuss? I think we are entitled to have guidance from your experience, Sir Charles? I want to be quite candid and to say that up to now it has not yet been defined. All we are told, after repeated conversations between one of the Clerks and the Chair. [HON.—MEMBERS:"Oh."]Yes, indeed—

The Chairman

Any Ruling I give is my entire responsibility. The Clerk of the Table must not be criticised. If any mistake has been made it is I who has made it.

Mr. Jones

I withdraw my reference to the Clerk of the Table. My only meaning was that you do get additional guidance which I hoped would be helpful to me.

The Chairman

If I get guidance it is my responsibility whether I accept it or not, and if I accept it, it is my responsibility.

Mr. Jones

With great respect, Sir Charles, would you accept the responsibility of defining in detail what we are entitled to discuss now? It seems to me we shall not be allowed to discuss anything further owing to the lateness of the hour.

5.30 a.m.

The Chairman

I have already said what can be discussed, but I will repeat it again. The raising of the two sums of money can be discussed on this Resolution, but that is all that can be discussed on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Mikardo

Further to that point of order. Were you ruling, Sir Charles, that in quoting from the previous proceedings of the House or the Committee of the House on a debate on a Money Resolution one was only able to quote from previous debates on a Money Resolution, because that is what I understood?

The Chairman

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Foot) was explaining that he thought the money should be given in instalments, so to speak, in steps, and not in a lump sum. I pointed out that the money is asked for in the present Session.

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I take it that you did not intend to give any general ruling, Sir Charles, that it is automatically out of order on a Money Resolution to quote from an earlier speech merely because it was made in a Second Reading debate?

The Chairman

I gave two things; I gave a general Ruling and I said what could be discussed.

Mr. Fletcher

My question is—and it is a matter of importance and one which I am anxious to get quite clear—whether it is a Ruling of the Chair that it is necessarily out of order on a Money Resolution to quote from something which had previously been said in a Second Reading debate?

The Chairman

No, I would not give a general Ruling on that ground, but I could see from what was being said that it was out of order on the present occasion.

Mr. Mikardo

With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, when my hon. Friend was quoting from this passage he was specifically interrupted by you to say from what he was quoting. He said he was quoting from the proceedings of the 1949 Bill. You then asked what stage, and he said the Second Reading. You thereupon said that in that case it was out of order.

The Chairman

I perhaps misled the Committee, but I did not understand how on a Money Resolution a suggestion of that kind was made. When I knew it was the Second Reading, it was clear to me.

Mr. Foot

It is quite clear from what you have said, Sir Charles, that I have failed to make myself clear, and that there has been a misunderstanding of what I attempted to say, although you said I had attempted to suggest that the money should be paid out in instalments and that it was on that account that you had called me to order and had ruled out of order the quotation which I made from the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton).

I apologise for not making myself clear. I had no intention of saying that the money should be paid out by instalments, nor did the right hon. Member for Aldershot. This Resolution asks for an increase of money to be made available to the Export Guarantees Department and it increases the amount of this Resolution by a much bigger sum than has been proposed in any previous Financial Resolution under these various Acts passed by the House.

I submit, therefore, that it would be perfectly in order for me to criticise the amount by which the figure is increased under the Financial Resolution and it is to that I am directly applying my argument. To reinforce my own argument I was using the statement made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot in the Second Reading debate. In his speech on that occasion he was directly reinforcing what I had said because he said on previous occasions that it was wrong in view of the amount by which the sum was to be increased in the Financial Resolution that it should be stepped up by great amounts, and that it was much better to have more frequent Bills and more frequent Financial Resolutions on which the matter could be discussed.

I think that in view of the contemptible way in which we were treated by the President of the Board of Trade it is

desirable that we should have more frequent occasions to discuss these matters, and indeed the whole controversy about this money resolution could have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to deal with the argument on the first occasion.

Mr. Bing

It is now about half-past five, we are engaged in a difficult and technical discussion of considerable general importance, and the last thing we want to do is to get into conflict with the Chair. Will you, Sir Charles, accept a Motion from me to report Progress and ask leave to sit again? I do this, because at this hour of the night it is difficult for hon. Members to apply their minds to the Financial Resolution and the rules governing its discussion, and it is desirable, on a non-contentious Measure like this, to examine the Financial Resolution and see whether it is possible and desirable to put down Amendments.

It would be better if hon. Gentlemen could refresh their minds and not become involved in disputes with the Chair, which grow in acrimony with the lateness of the hour. It is painful for us to find that we are involved with occupants of the Chair, and at this time of the night the more certainly one is in the wrong the more certain does one feel one is right. We have made great progress: we have taken this important Bill after 10 p.m. and having succeeded in that innovation I think the Government ought to agree to let hon. Members have some leeway to consider this Financial Resolution.

It may be that we are under a misapprehension. If anybody ought to know what is in order on a Financial Resolution it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and he feels strongly on the matter. I ask the Government to give us an opportunity to examine the matter again. I feel it is unfair on the Chair to spring these points of order without any preparation and discussion. It is far better that we should follow our formal practice, where if we are thinking of raising such matters we communicate with the Chair informally and accept such guidance as we do receive, rather than become involved in wrangles of this sort.

There are a great many things my friends want to try and say on this Financial Resolution. I am not going to weary the Committee by going through the sort of things they may wish to raise, but I do think that it would be consistent with the dignity of the House if my Motion were accepted. It is not good for this Committee to vote a sum of £300 million at this hour of the morning and with great respect, Sir Charles, the Committee should not be forced to do it.

It may well be that the points we desire to raise when we have examined the Financial Resolution could be properly raised on the Committee stage. It may be that some points such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) require an amendment to the Financial Resolution. It may be that the Financial Secretary, on thinking over the harsh words he spoke, may regret them and feel that the Amendments he proposed were desirable for the House to discuss. We could then have an agreed Amendment.

If we have to go forward now and recommit the Resolution it is not as if there is going to be a great and long discussion on it and I do appeal to the Patronage Secretary to agree to postpone the discussion, and not ask us to vote £300 million at this hour of the morning without anybody on this side or the other really knowing what they are entitled to say.

You, Sir Charles, can tell us when we are out of order, but what Members who have waited all night to speak want to know is whether they are in order or not. They have never found an opportunity. Will the Patronage Secretary give us the opportunity of inquiring why we should incur this application of £300 million. It is a reasonable request at this time of the night. We have facilitated the passage of the Agriculture Fertilisers Bill and it would go for harmony and agreement in getting these Measures through the House if the Patronage Secretary would agree to give way.

I ask him to respond to this appeal to report Progress not only on these narrow grounds, but on the more general one that Parliament does not work unless there is a certain amount of agreement between either side. If the Patronage Secretary is prepared to give way we may save him days and days at a later stage—although I cannot make any promises for my hon. Friends.

The Chairman

I hope I understand the request of the hon. and learned Member. It is to report Progress. I appreciate his kindness, but I am having no difficulty at all. I fully understand the procedure and I refuse to accept such a Motion.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Do I understand, Sir Charles, that you refuse to accept such a Motion. Can I then make an appeal to the Leader of the House, as my hon. and learned Friend has been appealing to the Patronage Secretary?

The Chairman

I have just refused to accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Hall

I am not trying to move the Motion.

The Chairman

For my guidance then, what is the right hon. Gentleman moving?

Mr. Hall

I am making an appeal, through the Chair, to the Leader of the House. If I am out of order, you, Sir Charles, will rule me out of order. I was wondering if, at this late hour, and when he sees the tired faces of his colleagues on the benches opposite, he will not think it common humanity for someone on this side to move that Progress be reported. I wonder if the Leader of the House will answer the appeal in order that we may adjourn the debate and carry on our discussion when we are less tired and can attend to what is being said.

The Chairman

Hon. Members must speak on the Resolution before the Committee. I cannot understand all this talk about tiredness.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Hale

I am very glad to hear your view on this matter, Sir Charles, and that we can return to the points we desire to discuss. I venture to ask your assistance because I find myself in a different position from that of my hon. Friends who have been speaking up to now. I have listened to the debate with patience and I do not think I have made more than one intervention, and that was momentary. Certainly, it cannot be said that there has been any obstruction at all by anyone. We have helped the Patronage Secretary a good deal in many discussions, and have withdrawn many resolutions which could have been discussed.

I am in this difficulty. We have given the Export Guarantees Bill a Second Reading so that we have agreed to the principle, but that does not mean that we have accepted all the details. In Committee, any Amendments can be made which the Committee see fit to make. Now we come to the Financial Resolution, and following the archaic and almost immemorial procedure, once the Resolution has been passed we are committed to the principle of the maximum figures mentioned in it. No Amendment to the Bill in Committee or at a later stage can affect those figures. Once we pass the Financial Resolution we are bound by both these figures as a maximum.

In other words, if £150 million is voted for special cases under Section 2 of the Act of 1949 and £750 million is voted to Section 1, and if the situation alters and we find, as I personally think we shall, in the altered situation of today, that we need more money for special cases and not so much for Section 1, as I understand it no amount of discussion in Committee will permit us to amend the Resolution and make it possible for money allocated to one case to be applied to the other.

That seems to be a matter on which the Committee would wish the President of the Board of Trade to say a few words. [Interruption.] I am sure that he does not wish to be discourteous, and I think I am putting a point to which he would wish to reply. If he does not, I know of no procedure by which I can compel him to do so.

Here I genuinely seek your advice, Sir Charles, because the last thing I want to do is to find myself in conflict with your Ruling. We are asked to vote an additional £50 million for Clause 2, for what are called special cases, of which, so far, we have had only two examples—herrings for Poland and buses for Havana. No one has said how this works, what are the other cases to which the money has been allocated. I accept at once, Sir Charles, your Ruling that in a discussion on the Financial Resolution we cannot go in detail into the machinery of the management or into the details of special cases, or try to widen the ambit of the discussion, but surely we may go as wide as this: I can say to the President of the Board of Trade that I myself think special cases may grow more numerous, with the question of the devaluation of the franc, which may be decided on Friday, as well as the fate of the French Government, and that we may see an altered situation.

I do not think the Committee has before it at the moment sufficient information to justify it in passing this £50 million. I am in this great difficulty. In my view a case has been made out and full information has been given to justify us—because we have been given all the figures, we have been given the details of the expectations, we have been given the margins, we have been given the carry-over—in passing paragraph (a) of the Financial Resolution.

I can scarcely recall any information which has been given to the Committee which would justify us in passing paragraph (b). I clearly understand that we are in a position we so often find ourselves in on these omnibus resolutions—and when I say "omnibus" I mean in toto and am not speaking in terms of Havana—we are in this position, that we have got to take it or leave it, and that we cannot amend the Resolution at this stage. We can, as I understand it, only pass the Resolution as it stands or reject it as it stands. We cannot amend it at this stage in any circumstances. It is exceedingly difficult in these circumstances to give full effect to all the points hon. Members wish to raise.

It would be a courtesy to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would get up to give us sufficient information upon which to pass an effective judgment about whether we should spend this £50 million or not. Here is the difficulty I face, and here, Sir Charles, I seek your guidance. As I understand your Ruling, it is that I cannot do any more than say that in my view we should not spend this £50 million. I am not trying to challenge your Ruling. Everyone of us realises that these are exceedingly difficult matters; very narrow matters. It is always exceedingly difficult within the ambit of a Financial Resolution to put with fairness and correctness the points one wants to put.

I want to put it to you, however, that it is in order to put to the Committee some reasons why this £50 million should not be voted at this time, and I would urge the President of the Board of Trade to adjourn the debate and to withdraw this Resolution and recast it so that these two sums can be interchangeable as financial events occur. That is one thing he could do. The second is, he could give the Committee some information about the special cases, and how they are dealt with, to enable the Committee to come to a full and fair decision on this question of this large sum of money.

If I am in order, and if the President of the Board of Trade is willing to do so, I shall give way to him at this moment to enable him quite briefly to deal with the points that concern us. I gather, however, that he proposes to treat the Committee with the contempt with which he treated the House on Second Reading of the Bill. If that is to be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, then when we come to the other stages of the Bill we shall take every opportunity open to us to probe these matters to obtain the information, and to see that the President does treat us with more courtesy in the future than he has done in the past.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I think it is a little unfortunate, because we are all in favour of this Bill—

Mr. E. Partridge (Battersea, South)

The right hon. Gentleman shows it in an unusual way.

Mr. Hall

I think it is unfortunate that the President of the Board of Trade has treated the Committee in the way that he has. Here we are dealing with a sum of money equal to three-quarters of the food subsidies, and equal, too, to something like 1s. 0d. on the Income Tax. It is a considerable sum. Yet we have not heard a single speech from the other side of the Committee, including the Government Front Bench, on this Money Resolution. I can assure hon. Members who are new Members that if in the period 1945 to 1950 any Government spokesman had attempted to have ridden off in that way the present Minister of Health would have had a good deal to say about it.

I do think that, following the debate we had the other night, the treatment which President of the Board of Trade has given to the Committee is not in accord with the dignity of this Committee or of the party he is supposed to adorn. I know it is impossible to get Ministers to rise, but I should like to share, in the strongest possible terms, in what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said. We shall have to remember this on future occasions, unless, even now, at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman will do the decent thing and explain this Money Resolution to the Committee.

Mr. Jack Jones

Having received from you, Sir, some guidance as to what will be in order, the question before us is the raising of this enormous sum of money. I have spent 15 hours here, not with the object of interfering with the progress of this matter, or of making things more awkward for the Government than they are, but to find out what are the reasons for raising this money, and how it is to be allocated, so that I can pass the information on to the people I represent.

When I go back to my constituency, and the people who have worked there ask me what was debated for 15 hours, I will have to say, "I cannot tell you because the Government would not divulge it." That will not be very conducive to the effort that the Government are asking from them. This is a very important matter, and not one to be laughed at by people who do not understand the feelings of those they never mix with.

This £300 million has to be raised by those who do the work, and it is to be put into the coffers of the country for a purpose that we have been given no details about. We understand vaguely that it is for the purpose of continuing guarantees for certain credits because of certain additional costs, and so forth. I would add my plea in a very sincere way to that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) to the Minister to get up now and tell us, briefly, what he intends to do with this money when he gets it, so that we can pass on the information to the people who have to damn well earn it.

Mr. Benn

With the help of your guidance and many Rulings, Sir Charles, I am able to put to the Committee the difficulty I am in in connection with this Resolution. On the Second Reading we discussed the principle of the Bill, and everybody welcomed it. We are now faced with the allocation of the money the House has granted as between the raising of £250 million extra for general purposes on a commercial basis, and an addition of £50 million for special purposes. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in suggesting that that is a wrong balance as between the two sections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement on the general economic situation, set the country a stiff task of exporting to the dollar area, and said that we should have to reduce our deficit by £100 million a year. That is a terrible burden.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Angus Maude (Ealing, South)

On a point of order. It would be convenient if we could be sure on this question of order. I understood we were not in order in discussing the allocation of the total sum between the two sections, but only an increase of a certain amount in one section and in the other. I did not understand that the hon. Gentleman was addressing himself to that point.

Mr. Benn

As I understood your Ruling, Sir Charles, on Second Reading we debated the general principle, and no question could be raised then of the allocation of resources that Parliament is to provide. The Money Resolution is our only opportunity to discuss the allocation as between the two purposes. One could express it by raising the issue of one of them, and I am now raising the question whether the sum of £250 million is not excessive. The general principle we accepted and the general total we are now considering. But in view of the fact that a special effort is required for this country's export programme, I think the amount given for ordinary commercial insurance is excessive.

That is a serious point we have tried to bring out continuously throughout the debate. The President of the Board of Trade who, through the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, complained of the treatment he had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), might take this opportunity to say something about the allocation of resources between these two sections.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

I had not intended taking any part in this debate, because I find my views diametrically opposed to nearly all the views expressed on both sides. But, having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), I feel that there is someone with whom I have something in common—possibly because he at one time represented that constituency I now have the honour to represent.

It is really surprising that the Government, who I had thought were interested in developing private enterprise in risks, should now decide to increase the amount of Government export credit when many of them are risks that should be taken by private enterprise. It is one thing for the Government to give a guarantee where they want exports to go in an uneconomic direction, but not where the risk should be taken by private enterprise.

Mr. Bing

I want to put one final plea to the President of the Board of Trade. We have all said rather hard things about one another, but I hope he will accept this in the friendly spirit in which it is meant. Surely it is possible for him to see that there ought to be on the Committee stage some possible discussion about the reallocation of this total sum between these two sections. That is quite a reasonable—

The Chairman

That is for the Committee stage, not now.

Mr. Bing

With respect, perhaps I am mistaken but I understood that we should be bound on the Committee stage and should not be able to suggest, for example, that the sum of money which should be allocated under Section 2 could ever exceed £50 million, and we could not attempt to effect any real reorganisation. If I am mistaken and it is possible to put down an Amendment to that effect, then I immediately give way, because that is the point I am trying to make.

The Committee would find it desirable —because in view of the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite there may be a protracted Committee stage of this Measure and it might be convenient and prevent acrimony and ill-feeling—if we were in a position to discuss whether or not there should be a far greater allocation under Section 2. After all, the greater the risk, the less opportunity there is for commercial insurance, and the greater need there is for the exceptional type of risk taken by agreement with the Treasury.

It is a depressing work making this appeal from this side of the Committee. I have tried not to say anything forcefully or rudely. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did not succeed."] Hon. Gentleman opposite should have been in the debate and then they would have joined with me in pressing their hon. Friends. It is no advantage to the party opposite to enact legislation or a Money Resolution which does not conform to their purpose. They should study the Second Reading debate and on that basis see whether the Money Resolution is a fit instrument for carrying out the type of reforms that were suggested by many hon. Members during the discussion.

Finally, on a point of principle, it is desirable I should have thought that when the House votes £300 million we should not do it without a single word from the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Rochester and Chatham)

I must ask the Financial Secretary to give us an answer. Under your strict guidance, Sir Charles, we have had a discussion for over an hour which indicates that many valid questions have been put. None has been answered. At least we are entitled to have from the Front Bench opposite if not answers to the questions, at least some indication of why they want this money.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

They want a Reichstag.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  1. (a) raising to seven hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of five hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (4) of section one of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
  2. (b) raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer."—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported this day