SCHUMAN PLAN (MINISTER'S SPEECH) (Hansard, 5 July 1950)

§ 45. Mr. Eccles
asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for War at Colchester, on 1st July, represented the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the Schuman Plan.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)
The policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the Schuman Plan was expressed first in my statement to this House on 11th May, when I said that "the French proposals must be regarded as a notable contribution towards the solution of the major European problem," and during the recent Debate on 26th and 27th June. It was made clear that we could not accept in advance of discussion the principle that the most vital economic forces of this country should be handed over to an authority which is not responsible to Governments. I have nothing to add to these statements.

§ Mr. Eccles
Has the Prime Minister noted that the Secretary of State's description of the Schuman Plan as a plot against Socialism is identical with the propaganda line of Moscow radio; and does he think that a Minister who, in this way, questions the good faith of the French Foreign Minister should remain a member of a Government which, only a week ago, asked this House to welcome the plan?

§ The Prime Minister
I understand that my right hon. Friend used the word "plot" not in relation to the putting forward of the Schuman Plan, but to the manœuvres in the House of Commons of the party opposite.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss
Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the Secretary of State for War repudiates the version of his speech given over the B.B.C. and appearing in the "Observer" last Sunday; and, if he does not repudiate it, can the Prime Minister say how the Secretary of State for War reconciles his description of the Plan as a "plot" and as "bogus internationalism" with his support of the Government Amendment welcoming the initiative of M. Schuman in putting it forward?

§ The Prime Minister
I understand that the use of the word "plot" was in connection with the manoeuvres of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I understand that this was not a textual report. It was a report made in the ordinary way of a speech, and I think there was some confusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—between what was said with regard to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and what was said in regard to a foreign Power.

Hon. Members
Shame.

§ Mr. H. Macmillan
Is not the statement of the Secretary of State for War connected with his often expressed views that Socialist society evolves in time into a Communist society, and that Socialism is a necessary transition stage to Communism? Perhaps, it is not so much a condemnation as praise of M. Schuman.

§ The Prime Minister
I do not see that that has anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. John Hynd
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House who are no less perturbed about the reports of this speech, welcome his reassurances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as, I am sure, a number of hon. Members on the other side will—that the Government's policy in this respect remains unaltered from that contained in the statement made by the Prime Minister to the House, and also his explanation that the report of the speech is not a correct rendering of the speech?

§ Mr. Hollis
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it so happens that at the time when the speech was made I was in Holland as the guest of some distinguished Dutch Socialists, and that if I were to repeat the observations made by those Socialists upon the Secretary of State for War, I should be entirely out of order?

§ Mr. Eden
As a matter of interest, in view of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question, if the report which he saw in the "Observer" and heard on the B.B.C. does not accurately represent what the Secretary of State said, can either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State kindly tell us what he did say?

§ The Prime Minister
Obviously, I cannot give the House an account of exactly 474 what was said in a speech which I did not hear, but my right hon. Friend assures me that he did discuss the Schuman Plan, that he did point out the dangers that might arise from handing over these important industries to an irresponsible authority, but that the use of the word "plot," which appeared, I think, in the reports, did have relation, as I say, to proceedings in the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Eccles
If the Prime Minister's interpretation of the word "plot" is correct, why did not the Government contradict it at once? Did the Prime Minister instruct His Majesty's Ambassador at once to try to allay the damage which he knows as well as anyone in the House has been very severe in Paris, as the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out yesterday?

§ Mr. Dodds
This is another plot.

§ Earl Winterton
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of his statement is to make a most serious charge against Pressmen holding all sorts of political views, that he has, in fact, accused them of making a false report? Is he aware that this matter will not be allowed to rest where it does? We demand the truth from the Prime Minister. What did the Secretary of State for War say?

§ The Prime Minister
There is no accusation in suggesting that the report is not absolutely accurate. Reports of speeches are frequently not exactly reports of the speeches as delivered, because, inevitably, there is compression, and there may be some misunderstanding.