A.B.C.A. BULLETIN ("WORK FOR ALL") (Hansard, 5 October 1944)

§ Mr. Hugh Lawson (Skipton)
At this late hour I do not intend to take very long in introducing a subject which the Financial Secretary to the War Office has been good enough to come down to discuss with me. As long ago as 11th July I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War regarding the Army Bureau of Current Forces Leaflet No. 71. This leaflet is 1290 entitled "Work for All" and gives a survey of the Government's White Paper on Unemployment Policy. I asked the Secretary of State for War if he would issue an additional bulletin written from the standpoint of those who took the view that a planned economy and the common ownership of industry will be the only remedy for unemployment. The Secretary of State for War replied: Views advocated by any political party as such were not included in this background material."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1556.] That is a point of view with which I cannot agree at all. I was very glad to see that the Army Bureau of Current Affairs had devoted their attention to this very important matter. I am not criticising them at all for having taken it up and for stating the traditional capitalist point of view on this matter. What I am surprised at is that the Socialist point of view was not given at all.
What does the Bulletin do? The Bulletin first assumes that the Government's White Paper states the cure for unemployment. Anyone reading the Bulletin and having no knowledge of this matter would be of the opinion that this Bulletin and the White Paper state something which is a cure for unemployment. I believe that a very large section of the population of this country take an opposite point of view, and I also know that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members of this House take the same view. We had evidence of that in the Debate on the Government White Paper, which was debated for three days on a Motion in these terms: That this House takes note of Command Paper No. 6527 on Employment Policy and welcomes the declaration of His Majesty's Government … After that Motion had been debated for three days, the Minister who was winding up on the Government's behalf gave the impression that because this Motion was carried the Government were therefore authorised to go forward with implementing the proposals in the White Paper, and that very nearly caused a Division. It was quite clear from the speeches made from this side of the House and from the Labour Front Bench that the Labour Party did not accept this Motion as one which committed them to the proposals in the White Paper. I mention that to 1291 show there is another case apart from the case contained in the White Paper and described in the Bulletin.
It might be said that it was perfectly in order for one side of the question to be put in a Bulletin such as this, because most reasonable people assume that if one case is stated there is also a contra case, but the Bulletin does try to examine alternatives to the Government's proposals. I have it here and on page 12 there is this headline: The Remedy—Why Cure Won't Work. Item 1. Two Ways It Cannot Be Done. And then it reads as follows: The problem we are up against is to try and make demand keep pace with production, and there are two ways of doing this which are so obvious that, we must discuss them first to see why such plausible remedies should not be acted upon immediately. … The first of these ways is, why not raise wages all round so that everybody can buy more? Secondly, why not print more money? Quite rightly the writer of this Bulletin disposes of those two suggestions as ways for dealing with the problem of unemployment but, having taken on the responsibility of examining alternatives to the Government case, I certainly think, if this Bulletin were to be able to claim to be at all objective, it should have examined other views. It should, in particular, have examined the views which were expressed as criticisms of the White Paper by those who believe in the economic theories of Socialism. I do not think it would be of very great use if I were to examine at length the case of the Socialists against the Government's White Paper, but because it is some time since we discussed this, I might remind the House of the main proposals which the Government put forward. First of all it was said that there should be planned spending on public work. I agree that that is something which the Government should undertake. Secondly, there should be a variation in the rate of interest; thirdly, there should be variations in social security contributions so that when unemployment is increasing the contribution should be decreasing and vice versa; and, fourthly, there should be the licensing of labour and material.
All those are things which might have some slight effect on unemployment policy, but I do not think they can be counted upon as a cure for unemployment. They 1292 cannot ensure a policy of genuine full employment. I say that for this reason: In spite of those four conditions, which the Government White Paper proposes, and which this Bulletin assumes will be sufficient to give full employment, they still leave the regulator of employment and production as it is to-day. The regulator of production in a capitalist economy—as everybody will agree, whether they favour a capitalist economy or not—is the expectation of profit. Those things are done which will yield profit; those things which do not cannot be done. So if we still retain profit as the regulator of production in our system it will always be possible and, indeed, even likely, that while we have a need for employed people to make things to use we shall also have, at the same time, idle men. It is this paradox of poverty in the midst of potential plenty which is one of the greatest condemnations of our present economic system. I, and others, maintain—and I do not suppose that the personal view of the Financial Secretary is very far different from ours on this—that if we are to have a policy of full employment the present regulator of production must disappear, and there must be planned production for use. If the present regulating function of the owners of industry is to be taken from them it is only honest and fair to say to them that the ownership of the means of production must pass from the individuals who own them to the community. That is a fundamental of Socialist economy.
However, I do not want to elaborate that this evening. What I am saying is that this is an alternative to the proposals of the White Paper, which is accepted by a considerable section of the Members in this House and people in the country. Whether we are right or wrong, in any Bulletin that sets out to consider this question this fact should have been stated. Particularly should it have been stated when the author of the Bulletin had gone to some trouble to try and investigate alternative cures for unemployment. I asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would issue another Bulletin putting this point of view. He said that it was not necessary, and as far as I know it has not been done. I should have thought that the sensible thing would have been to devote the first 16 or 17 pages of the Bulletin to the conventional capitalist point of view, and then the remaining two or three pages to the point of view I have 1293 been expressing. If that had been done I would not have raised this matter at Question time or on the Adjournment. One does not expect to have "fifty-fifty" treatment in matters like this, but I do think the case should have been stated.
This is no mere academic point, because I believe the employment policy is going to be one of the major issues at the General Election. I asked the Prime Minister the other day what steps he was going to take to see that the main issues at the General Election were before those in the Forces who have the vote. He seemed very sympathetic to that point of view: We have the Army Bureau of Current Affairs putting forward one side and refusing to put forward the other, and it seems to me that on a matter of such fundamental importance as this those in the Forces have the right to know both sides. It may be argued that, from general reading in the newspapers and political knowledge, a soldier who hears a lecture on these lines by his officer may be able to get up and say, "There is another point of view." It may happen in a few rare cases that there are officers who would state the other point of view from their own knowledge without being briefed by A.B.C.A. to do so, but I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what he proposes to do—if anything. I should like to hear that he proposes to issue a bulletin stating the Socialist case on employment policy, because no one can deny that here we have the capitalist case. As it is a matter of principle, I should like to know how he is going to treat the fundamental issues of controversy in the future without issuing bulletins of that sort. I do not want anything I say to encourage A.B.C.A. to slide over controversial subjects. I am very glad that the Bulletin has been issued. All I ask is that the other side should be issued as well.

§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson)
It is not for me on this occasion to debate whether or not the White Paper will bring about full employment. There was a three days Debate in June and the House accepted a Resolution taking note of the White Paper and welcoming the declaration that the Government accept as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the 1294 maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the war. The hon. Member, however, contends that the Bulletin did not deal with alternative proposals to the Government's scheme as set forth in the White Paper. Having carefully read the Bulletin, I do not consider that in substance it goes beyond the White Paper. The hon. Member has referred to the heading "Two ways it cannot be done," the first one of which is, "Why not raise wages all round so that everyone can buy more?"; and the second is, "Why not print more money?" Both those questions were covered by Section (B) of the White Paper, which deals with the stability of prices. In any event neither proposal is put forward as an alternative to the Government scheme, but they would be equally relevant to any discussion of the problem of unemployment whether industry be privately or publicly owned.
Moreover, in discussing these two remedies under the heading, "Two wave it can't be done," the author does not enter into any discussion of the merits of either private enterprise or public ownership and makes no attempt to prejudge either of those issues. In my opinion, she rightly makes no attempt to prejudge them, nor does the White Paper prejudge them. This is, therefore, entirely consistent with what was said in the Debate on the White Paper. May I quote the Minister of Labour, who said: The Government do not claim that the White Paper is the final solution of this problem. The proposals do not raise the question, for instance, whether industry will, for ever, be privately or publicly owned. … What we have tried to do, is to devise a conception which, however you may decide the ownership of industry by adjustments which may have to be made, seeks to obtain its objective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 213–4.] That is, the objective set out in the White Paper. Later on in the same Debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour pointed out yesterday, the White Paper does not seek to take sides in the controversy between private enterprise and public ownership or public management."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 412.] The hon. Member has referred to the A.B.C.A. publications, and it might be convenient if I said a word about the A.B.C.A. discussions. Regimental officers are regularly reminded that, as chairman 1295 of the A.B.C.A. discussions, it is their business to allow their men full freedom of opinion and comment. No point of view is to be excluded from the discussions and officers are particularly warned not to suppress opinions or to land themselves in a position of being censors of opinion. It is not the officer's duty to suppress any expression of opinion, however controversial, but to invite other members of the audience to say whether or not they agree. It is found in practice that this self-regulating device works in almost any average platoon. The average A.B.C.A. discussion takes place at platoon level. Many thousands of regimental officers have had the principle explained to them at A.B.C.A. training courses. It is set down in unambiguous terms in the A.B.C.A. Handbook issued for British officers, and it is reiterated in almost every issue of "Current Affairs." Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from page 1 of the edition to which my hon. Friend takes exception, the copy which deals with the White Paper. These are the instructions to officers who are to take charge of the discussions: If you can, try to brief some of the members of your group to come as delegates for special points of view. There are several. Most units should have a fair selection to choose from. There is the sturdy trade unionist, the craftsman, the labourer, the rugged individualist who doesn't believe in planning at all, the man who lived in one of the Special Areas before the war. the youth who went straight into the Army and has never done a man's job at a man's rate, the regular soldier, the bank clerk, the miner, the agricultural worker and so on. Each one of these will have a slightly different, slant on the problem. … Whatever way you decide to tackle this question, whether by staged commission or by straight discussion in the normal manner, try to see that all points of view are represented.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
Is it possible for Members to see that document?

§ Mr. Henderson
My hon. Friend can be assured that copies of this document are in the Library of the House. I should have thought that what I have read made it perfectly clear that there is the freest possible discussion in these A.B.C.A. gatherings. The object of this particular publication was not to discuss the merits or demerits of private ownership or public ownership, but to set out as a basis for discussion the contents of the White Paper. There will be general agreement 1296 on the great value of the A.B.C.A. discussions, which have formed such an essential part of Army life. I trust that the House will agree that the A.B.C.A. authorities at the War Office were wise to restrict its scope to what has been approved by Parliament without Division. I am very sorry to say that we do not feel ourselves in a position to accede to what my hon. Friend requested, the issue of a supplement to this edition.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
Before the Minister resumes his seat, may I ask whether he does not think that it is a little hypocritical—not in him, of course, but in the War Office—to lay such stress on the freedom of discussion and the airing of different opinions in the A.B.C.A. groups, unless sufficient data on all sides are given on which those opinions can be based? As things are, the man who supports the status quo is fed by A.B.C.A. bulletins with all the latest information, whereas the man who opposes the status quo—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
These remarks of the hon. Member seem to be a great deal more than a question. The hon. Member seems to be making another speech.

§ Mr. Driberg
With all due respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have been trying to put my remarks in the form of a question, but I think there is still a minute or two to go.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
There is, but I have already informed the hon. Member that there is another reason why we should be brief.

§ Mr. Driberg
Would it not be possible, in a case where Parliament has had a major Debate on the subject dealt with in an A.B.C.A. bulletin, for at any rate a brief, objective account of that Debate always to be included in the Bulletin?

§ Mr. Henderson
That is an entirely different matter. What we are discussing to-night is whether or not the particular issue of the A.B.C.A. Bulletin to which my hon. Friend has referred has gone outside the subject of the White Paper, and raised only one or two remedies without raising other remedies. I must confess that I should be very sorry to have 1297 seen public ownership put down as No. 3 of those remedies which will not work.

§ Mr. H. Lawson
I did not suggest that.

§ Mr. Henderson
Therefore, one realises the difficulty which would arise if one were to go outside the scope of the While Paper. My case has been that this issue of the A.B.C.A. Bulletin has been substantially within the scope of the White Paper. To do what my hon. Friend has just suggested and issue a supplement containing the reports of the Debates—

§ Mr. Driberg
No, not a supplement, but to include a brief summary of the Debate in the Bulletin.

§ Mr. Henderson
It would be a very difficult task to undertake, and might make invidious distinctions, to decide which Member's speech was to be reported, and which Member's speech was not to be reported.