HC Deb 02 December 1948 vol 458 cc2171-7
53. Sir W. Smithers

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he took, before authorising the transfer of gifts and loans amounting to about£5,000 sent by the British Labour Party and individual trades unions in Britain to the French Socialist Party, and to the Confédération Générale du Travail, Force Ouvrière and the newspaper "Le Populaire" to satisfy himself that this money would be used for charitable purposes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

None, Sir. The applications were not put forward on charitable grounds.

Sir W. Smithers

In view of the fact that the British Treasury is copying Soviet technique by allowing money to go abroad to subsidise Communist revolution—I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present—will the Financial Secretary ask his right hon. and learned Friend when he comes back if he will say publicly "Yes" or "No" whether he is a Communist or not?

Mr. Gallacher

Will the Financial Secretary say, in view of the fact that this money was provided by the Socialists to combat the Communists, whether it cannot be represented as an act of charity to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Lord John Hope

Since the Chancellor's personal sympathy and inconsistency are responsible, should he not be here to answer the Question?

Mr. H. D. Hughes

As the view put forward in this Question is exactly the same as that taken by the French Communist Party, would the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) clear himself of being a secret member?

Earl Winterton

In view of the charges which have been made against the right hon. and learned Gentleman, outside this House, of gross partiality in interpreting these regulations, will he have a White Paper or a statement laid in the Library in order that some of us may make up our minds whether or not we shall ask for an independent inquiry into a charge against the Government of gross partiality and corruption?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I hardly think that the supplementary put by the noble Lord arises out of the Question put by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, in an answer which he gave to a question put to him a few days ago, made it quite clear upon what grounds these moneys are allowed to be transferred.

Mr. Nicholson

Has not the right hon. Gentleman been guilty of a certain lack of candour? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer claim on Tuesday that these payments were authorised where he thinks—by the exercise of his own independent judgment—that the cause of democracy was likely to be furthered? Does not this show that the Chancellor is using his own personal judgment in matters of political opinion in a way which is quite unwarranted and contrary to British political tradition?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

There is nothing to answer.

Major Bruce

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attitude of his right hon. and learned Friend is more honourable and more candid than that of the ex-members of the Anglo-German Friendship League?

Mr. Nicholson

I am sorry that the Financial Secretary has not shown his usual acumen. I asked whether he had not been guilty of lack of candour in ignoring a written reply by the Chancellor in which he said that these payments were authorised, or not, according to his personal judgment, and whether that was not most unwarranted and contrary to British political tradition? I submit that that is a question to be answered.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

As a matter of fact, I drew attention to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend. It was part of his reply that these matters are judged on their merits.

Mr. Nicholson rose

——

Mr. Alpass

On a point of Order. Some of us distinctly heard the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) speak across the Floor and say "Another Stanley." Is that in Order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

I heard nothing. I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley).

54. Mr. Drayson

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances he has permitted£5,000 to be sent to Socialist organisations in France during the past 12 months.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Two loans to a total amount of£5,000 by British trade union organisations to the Force Ouvrière were authorised in March and April of this year. One gift of£1,000 by the Labour Party to the newspaper "Le Populaire" was authorised in October. The purpose of the applications in each case was to strengthen the financial position of the institutions concerned.

Mr. Drayson

Is it not monstrous that this money should be allowed to go to France to strengthen the finances of a Socialist newspaper rather than that money should be permitted to go there in order to commemorate the fallen of the 49th West Riding Division who did much more to strengthen democratic forces than anything that "Le Populaire" or any other French Socialist party has ever done?

Mr. John Paton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action of his right hon. and learned Friend in facilitating these proceedings is in accordance with the long standing traditions of the Labour movement of this country in succouring comrades abroad, and their wives and children; and that his action has the hearty approval of the great mass of the working-class population of this country?

Mr. Henry Strauss

In order that it shall be generally known on what terms these funds can be sent abroad, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether Communist sympathies are required from the donor and the donee, or will one suffice?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down that question.

Mr. Gallacher

Can the Financial Secretary tell us, in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition declared last night that he had spent millions to help the Social revolutionaries in Russia, why we are having so much noise over this matter?

Mr. Nicholson

I asked the right hon. Gentleman, with all the seriousness at my command, whether he is laying down the doctrine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain is entitled to encourage subventions to any political party in any country in Europe?

Mr. Gallacher

Ask your own Leader.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. My right hon. and learned Friend has not encouraged anybody to do anything, as is alleged by the hon. Gentleman. What he has done is to follow the usual practice, and treat these transactions as they come on their merits.

Mr. Nicholson

I think the right hon. Gentleman is unaware that on Tuesday the Chancellor said that he granted or withheld approval according to whether or not it helped the cause of democracy. I am asking—whatever his motives may be—whether that is not equivalent to encouraging certain political parties in foreign countries at the expense of others, and is it not unworthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Chetwynd

How much money has come from overseas to Lord Woolton's Fund to help the Conservatives? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Surely hon. Members know that I cannot reply to that question. If my hon. Friend desires to know how much has been received by the noble Lord, I think the question should be addressed to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).

Vice-Admiral Taylor

Is it not a fact that the sending of this money to the Socialist Party in France is merely encouraging a strike initiated by the Communists?

Mr. McAdam

Does my right hon. Friend recognise from the attitude of the Opposition the truth of the old philosophy that "when the cat's away, the mice will play"?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott

As a former member of the 49th Division, may I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to reconsider the application to send£5,000 to France for the 49th Division war memorial?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am sure that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down his question my right hon. and learned Friend will be very pleased to answer him. Where the object is a worthy one, my right hon. and learned Friend is always willing, where possible, to accede to requests which are made.

Mr. Drayson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that I asked him to reconsider the application by the 49th Division?

Mr. R. A. Butler

Why was it that only£500 was allowed to be sent in the case of this war memorial, and£5,000 was allowed to be sent in the case of a political party?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I think the answer probably is that the application was made for£500. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I stand corrected. If the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not know why he asks me.

Mr. Butler

I asked the right hon. Gentleman why, in the case of the 49th Division war memorial, for which it was requested that£5,000 should be sent abroad, permission was given by the Treasury——

Mr. Beswick

What earthly connection has this question with the Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker

The Question on the Order Paper asks why£5,000 was permitted to be sent to Socialist organisations in France.

Mr. Beswick

Yes, but the supplementary question was about a war memorial.

Mr. Eden

Repeated questions have been asked about the£5,000 required for a memorial for the 49th Division. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it had to be cut down by 10 per cent., while in the case of the Socialist organisations in France, the money was permitted to be sent in full?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

As the House knows, I have been overseas for a number of weeks and, therefore, I am not as familiar with this question as are others. If the right hon. Gentleman will put the Question down again, I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do his best to answer it once more.

Mr. Butler

The Table will not allow it again.

Major Legge-Bourke

With reference to the last answer which the Financial Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), would the right hon. Gentleman please clarify the answer in which he implied that the project of the 49th Division was not a worthy one?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think one should go into details about the 49th Division. One can ask a question properly as a supplementary, but to go into the details is to go outside the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Churchill

On a point of Order. Will it be in order for some hon. Gentleman on this side of the House to put down a Question about the 49th Division on a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to be here, or will such a Question be out of order in accordance with the Rules of the House because it has been asked before?

Mr. Speaker

It is difficult for me to answer. Of course, if a Question is completely answered, it cannot be put down again. However, I should have thought that it would probably be difficult to say that this Question has been completely answered, and that there might be an occasion for putting it down again.

Mr. Churchill

Of course, I could put-it down as a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister, if necessary.

Mr. Speaker

Yes, subject to the Rules of the House, of course, I should have thought it could be put down again.