HC Deb 29 May 1946 vol 423 cc1162-7
Mr. H. Morrison

The House will no doubt have wondered, as I did, what lay behind the Press reports from Washington over the weekend suggesting that differences of interpretation have arisen between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government over the food agreement announced on 17th May and reported in my statement to the House on 23rd May. I find that various misunderstandings were caused by cabled Press messages of my statement before the official text was received by the State Department in Washington. One passage in particular was interpreted in some quarters as implying that the United States Government had assumed specific commitments to export American wheat to particular areas, thus by-passing the established procedure by which these questions are settled through the Combined Food Board. I have confirmed to the United States Government what I have already told the House, namely that These decisions are the decisions of the Governments concerned … to instruct their representative on the Combined Food Board. The question of export commitments from particular countries to particular destinations did not arise during my visit to Washington and all claims upon the United States or other countries will, of course, be settled through Combined Food Board machinery at the appropriate stage in the usual way.

I have been in touch with Mr. Clayton, United States Assistant Secretary of State, and I am glad to say on his authority that there is not and never has been any misunderstanding between us on what we agreed. After receiving the official text of my statement and ascertaining that the first versions of it had been misinterpreted in the way I have explained, Mr. Clayton confirms that my statement—I quote his words—" correctly represents the understanding reached in our discussions."

Mr. Churchill

Was it not rather a pity that a subordinate official of the United States State Department should have contradicted the right hon. Gentleman in this rather disconcerting manner? Would it not be possible to revert to the policy which we always used during the war, namely, of telegraphing over beforehand to the United States the actual text of the words which were to be used? That must have occurred on dozens and even scores of occasions, and I never remember any trouble having arisen before. While perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had some right to complain, I think also we must put on record the fact that it is quite possible by telegraphic exchanges to have agreed statements made on matters which have been the subject of verbal discussion, and public advantage would arise therefrom.

Mr. Morrison

I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. It would not have been practicable to have done this in advance without a delay in informing the House, and I do not think it would have been appropriate on this occasion. In any case no harm has arisen in the sense that there is, or ever was, disagreement about the interpretation of the agreement between us and the United States Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that a subordinate official, a public relations officer, I think, of the State Department, should have entered into the matter, although I understand the circumstances in which he got drawn; but he is not my officer— he is an officer of the United States Government. We have made representations on that point to the State Department, and Mr. Clayton has expressed his regret on behalf of the United States Government, and, therefore, I think that side of the incident may now be regarded as closed.

Mr. Churchill

It may be regarded as closed, and in a very satisfactory manner, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Mr. Clayton's statement; but there is another question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on the merits, apart from the procedure. I think I was right in hearing the right hon. Gentleman say that the question of export commitments from particular countries for particular destinations did not arise during his visit to Washington. May I ask how he reconciles that with the statement which he made to the House that: The United States Government have now felt able to associate themselves unreservedly with the task of supplying India and the British zone of Germany to the full extent that available resources allow and they have instructed their representatives on the Combined Food Board accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 543–4.] The misunderstanding between the two countries is cleared up but the misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentle-roan and the House still requires further elucidation.

Mr. Morrison

The only difficulty about this is that the right hon. Gentleman—I am not complaining—does not understand the normal procedure these things follow.

Mr. Churchill

That is no doubt due to my lack of experience.

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman does not understand everything. In this matter he has made it clear to the House that he does not understand the procedure which is followed. Our business was to arrive at agreements about how much should be provided for. It was not our business to decide as to which country should provide how much to go to a particular place. That is the affair of the Combined Food Board and it is now being followed up in the ordinary way. There is nothing exceptional about this procedure. It is the usual procedure, and the only new factor was that there were high level negotiations to clear up some difficulties.

Mr. Churchill

Is it not a fact—[Interruption]—I am so glad to give any occasion for hilarity to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are, no doubt, feeling somewhat depressed over this matter. Is it not a fact that this matter was presented to us in the form of a very great sacrifice of 200,000 tons of wheat to be made by this country, involving we do not know what serious difficulties and increased privations, and were we not assured that in return for this, and linked with this, would be what I have read out, that The United States Government have now felt able to associate themselves unreservedly with the task of supplying India and the British zone of Germany to the full extent that available resources allow and they have instructed their representatives on the Combined Food Board accordingly ? Now all this latter part is whittled away, but the 200,000 tons cut for Great Britain remains.

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman will persist in a most dogged determination to try to make politics out of this. He is utterly incapable of judging the matter on its merits or the words themselves on their English meaning. The United States Government are associating themselves with us to the maximum extent to that end within the available resources on the Combined Food Board by instructing their representatives. The statement did not say, did not portend to say, and ought not to be understood by a reader of the King's English to mean, that thereby the United States said that the wheat would come from a particular place and go to a particular place.

It is perfectly clear that the statement I have made as to whether any of it will come from the United States—

Mr. R. S. Hudson

But not from the United States.

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Agriculture now says, " But not from the United States." He will, I am sure, be quite disappointed to know that some of it is actually on the move from the United States.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

I am becoming a little puzzled. We seem to be entering into a Debate by a process of question and answer. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. There is to be a Debate on Friday devoted to this subject and the present procedure is somewhat irregular.

Mr. Churchill

I do not wish in any way to trespass upon your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, but a statement was made of very great importance by the Minister, on which it would be very necessary to point out in what ways matters had been cleared up and in what ways they had not. I should like to say that I used the interrogative form throughout my contribution.

Mr. Walkden

I should like to ask the Minister whether we are likely to have the promised Debate on Friday on the general question of his visit to America, in view of more recent Press reports from America concerning doubts about our supplies of wheat and the cut that will take place in August in the pipe line, and the fact that there may be a real gap which may determine the question of rationing bread because we shall not have much left.

Mr. Nicholson

May I be allowed to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's statement does need a little clearing up? I should like to put a simple question to him. Are the American and British zones in Germany in future to be regarded as one area from the point of view of food? Where does Austria come in?. What does his statement mean in India? Which Minister is to instruct our representatives on the Combined Food Board?

Mr. Morrison

That is covered in the statement I made last week. At any rate those parts of the question upon which I am able to give any information were so covered.

Mr. Nicholson

Are the British and American zones to be regarded as one food area in future?

Mr. Morrison

I made a perfectly clear statement on that last week, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stokes

In view of the fact that the bubble which the Opposition were endeavouring to exploit has now burst, may I point out to the Lord President of the Council that we on this side of the House are most interested and anxious about the general food situation in the world? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow a Debate on Friday so that the whole matter may be discussed?

Mr. Morrison

The question of a Debate on Friday is, of course, under the usual procedure of the House, a matter for the Opposition. The House will be in Committee of Supply on Friday. Whether it will be discussing this subject or another is for the Opposition to decide. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Leader of the Opposition was in a position to say now, because then hon. Members would know whether the subject was coming up.

Mr. Churchill

In view of the anxiety that there is upon the other side of the House and the request by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for a Debate at an early date and, if possible, on Friday, I can assure the Leader of the House at this moment that we shall consider most earnestly this evening how far we can further the general desires of the supporters of the Government to have a fuller opportunity of interrogating Ministers upon the question.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

Having regard to the real human tragedy which lies behind this problem, is the Lord President aware that the spiteful and malicious misrepresentation to which he has been subjected by hon. Members of the Opposition is in no way endorsed by the people of this country?

Mr. Speaker

Insinuations and imputations are out of Order in questions.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.