HC Deb 10 October 1944 vol 403 cc1563-5
46. Mr. Boothby

asked the Prime Minister whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent statement at the Mansion House, that we are opposed, in principle, to all discriminatory commercial and currency agreements of a permanent character and intend to work for their elimination, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Attlee

My right hon. Friend informs me that the purpose of the part of his speech referred to was to call attention to the effect of the Mutual Aid Agreement which His Majesty's Government entered into with the United States Government in February, 1942. In it we agreed to work for the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce. As stated by the Prime Minister on 21st April last, in the Debate on Empire and Commonwealth Unity, this is qualified by an understanding that we are not committed to the abolition of Imperial Preference. The policy of His Majesty's Government is to carry out in letter and in spirit the provisions of the Agreement, to the terms of which I invite the attention of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boothby

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this does not constitute rather a serious departure from the policy of this country since he has not yet received the authority or sanction of the House; and in view of his statement, does he not think that we ought to have an early Debate on the whole question?

Mr. Attlee

I should doubt whether an early Debate would be useful. Perhaps my hon. Friend would discuss the matter with me.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking entirely for himself, and without any authority from the House, and apparently without any endorsement of the Government; and why does he not say so and let us know exactly where he stands? He has no authority to make any such statement without the consent of this House.

Mr. Attlee

No, Sir, I cannot agree entirely that a responsible Minister like the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not entitled to make a speech without having it vetted, first of all, by the whole House.

Mr. Shinwell

Of course, he is entitled to make a speech but, if he makes a statement of principle that commits this country and this House to a line of policy upon which the House has not expressed an opinion, surely that is most undesirable?

Mr. Attlee

An agreement has been discussed in the House.

65. Mr. Boothby

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the maintenance of the sterling area is still an object of Government policy; and how, in the absence of a discriminatory currency arrangement for the sterling area, he proposes to deal with the sterling balances now held in London.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson)

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part of the Question it is important to keep in mind the distinction between arrangements which will be necessary and appropriate in relation to the post-war transitional period and to international indebtedness arising out of the war on the one hand, and the ultimate objectives to which the policy of this and other countries should be addressed on the other hand. It is clear that the question of the sterling balances now held in London belongs to the former category.

Mr. Boothby

May I ask my right hon. Friend how he intends to maintain the sterling area without some kind of discriminatory currency arrangement?

Sir J. Anderson

That is a matter which might very appropriately be cleared up some time in the course of Debate. I personally see no difficulty.

66. Mr. Boothby

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the discriminatory commercial and currency agreements to which the Government is opposed include all forms of clearing and payments agreements, bulk purchase contracts and import control; and whether the effect of the application of the principle of non-discrimination upon our long-term agricultural policy has been taken into consideration.

Sir J. Anderson

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative.