§ 3.39 p.m.
§ Second Reading debate resumed.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I wonder whether I may first refer to the brief but very relevant contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. He asked me about the position of the Irish Free Trade Agreement. There is a special case here which I recognise. Certainly Her Majesty's Government wish to do nothing at all which will impair the good relations between this country and Ireland, especially as manifested in the Agreement which we reached with them. But the noble Lord should not talk about bad faith here. The Government of Eire have never charged Her Majesty's Government here with bad faith. They have never said we were acting contrary to the Agreement. Certainly they expressed their disappointment; of course they did. We, too, were disappointed in 307 having to do this. But there was no question at all that we were breaking any undertaking. The noble Lord says, quite rightly, that under the Agreement it would have been possible to impose quotas, but I think that, on reflection, he will agree, and most others would agree, that quotas would have been far more mischievous than this import deposits scheme. So I hope that his fears with regard to trade between this country and Ireland—which I hope will expand—are not well founded.
To the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, I think I owe an apology, and I am always ready to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll. It seemed that I spoilt his fun a little by anticipating the kind of arguments which he would put up. Apparently I did not foresee two which he has listed, but otherwise it was rather interesting that I had not only got the arguments that he had down in his speech, but I had them in the right order—which I must say was rather lucky. The noble Lord referred to the fact that I had used some words twelve months ago about the scheme being for a maximum period of twelve months. I said then in good faith—and he will recognise this—that Her Majesty's Government had put before Parliament a scheme which had a legal life of twelve months. Parliament agreed that they should have powers to implement the scheme for twelve months. We have found that the economic situation is not so secure now as to justify our withdrawing this scheme, so we have come to Parliament again for a renewal of those powers, although, as an earnest of our good faith, we have suggested that the powers should be given at the reduced rate of 40 per cent. rather than 50 per cent.
The noble Lord also said that I had tried to make some reference to international reactions. I did not try to make any reference; I succeeded. I specifically referred to reactions from overseas, and I said that not in any case had there been any question of any country overseas charging this Government with breaking any international commitment. Why then should the noble Lord, who is every bit as loyal to his Queen and country as I am—and I would never say one word to the contrary—spend his weekend in 308 devising a speech attacking this Government for having broken international agreements? It really is not good enough. He speaks about disrepute. The only disrepute really is when people read in the newspaper or in Hansard that across the floor of the House this kind of charge is bandied about. Let us, I suggest to the noble Lord, forget it. It really is not worthy of him.
The noble Lord mentioned the point that I tried to deal with the extent to which imports were frustrated directly by the import deposits scheme. I noticed that some figures were given in the other House, but they proved to be too much for the Opposition there to assimilate, and I did not intend—and I do not now intend—to quote those figures about the way in which the trend went before the scheme and has gone after the scheme. The evidence suggests that the rising tide of imports was halted to some extent, and in so far as the imports have not been frustrated there is this other advantage: that an amount of money—50 per cent. of the proposed imports in value—shall be deposited with the Government. and this of course has a useful effect upon the volume of credit. This, then, is a sort of Morton's Fork—either you catch it on that prong or on the other prong. In either case it is something to the advantage of the economy of this country.
The noble Lord spoke about its being mean not to allow across-the-exchanges interest to be paid on those deposits which were financed by the overseas supplier. Well, the noble Lords says we were mean. Sometimes I believe he really thinks that moneys collected in this way are put directly into the pockets of the individual members of the Government. What we were trying to do was to help the economy of the country—our country—and had overseas suppliers been allowed to finance the deposits at a rate of interest, to that extent the objectives of the scheme would have been frustrated or hindered. We hoped that the scheme would be successful and that it would be possible to end it within the period of twelve months.
If there is any other question which the noble Lord put to me, I have no doubt in good faith, I will certainly write and answer him. But may I end my appeal that this House should give the 309 Bill a Second Reading by saying this? I said at the beginning, and I repeat it, despite the noble Lord's rather fractious posture at the Opposition Box, that he is a man of considerable judgment in commercial and financial affairs, and I put it to him that he does not really believe that this is the point of time at which we could end this scheme abruptly. It is much better to phase it out. Possibly in the course of the next twelve months—I do not know—it may be considered wise to reduce the 40 per cent. to a lower percentage. It may be wise and possible to end it completely. But right now, until we are more certain, it would be irresponsible to end this scheme; and I do not believe that in his heart the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, considers that it would be sensible to end it.
The noble Lord ended his speech with quite an eloquent plea about the benefits of international trade. Of course I agree with almost everything he said. We want a situation in the world where we can have the freest possible exchange of trade. That is the situation in which this country does best, and that is what we want. And it is because we believe—I believe, certainly, and I think the noble Lord believes—that the financial situation we had before, with "Stop—Go" policies and difficulties and doubts about the pound sterling, was contrary to the best interests of international trade that it was necessary to take quite ruthless measures to put the situation right. All the evidence goes to show, and the most recent evidence supports it, that our balance-of-payments position is improving, and this scheme has helped to improve it. It would be wrong to end it now. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.