§ 46. Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for War at Colchester with reference to the Schuman Plan represented the policy of His Majesty's Government.
45. Mr. Garner-Evansasked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for War at Colchester on 1st July relating to the Schuman proposals represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
§ 47. Mr. Alportasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for War at Colchester on Saturday, 1st July, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
§ 48. Commander Nobleasked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for War's statement at Colchester on Saturday, 1st July, with reference to the Schuman Plan represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
§ 49. Mr. Julian Ameryasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the speech made by the Secretary of State for War at Colchester on 1st July with reference to the Schuman Plan; and if it represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) yesterday.
§ Mr. BoothbyArising out of that reply, may I ask the Prime Minister two things; first, whether he was aware, when he gave his answer yesterday, that a full and accurate text of the speech had been released to the Press before it was made; second, in view of that fact, and as he has asked this House formally to welcome what has since been described by the Secretary of State for War as a"plot," he will now repudiate the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of. State?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I explained yesterday, I understand that the reference to a plot was not to the putting forward of the Schuman scheme. I quite agree that a full report was given, but I understand it was made clear at the time—it is always a difficult thing to do in a 631 speech—that that particular sentence applied only to Parliamentary proceedings and not to the question of the Schuman Plan.
§ Mr. ChurchillAre we to understand that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman derived his information from the Secretary of State for War?
§ The Prime MinisterI have, naturally, consulted my right hon. Friend on the matter.
§ Mr. ChurchillHow can the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the Secretary of State for War had handed out, both from the War Office and, I understand, locally, a textual report, which is confirmed by the Press Association, who took it down, in which the passage referring to the plot, as actually delivered by the Secretary of State for War, was as follows:
We shall get more and more of these schemes, no doubt, which, under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system"?
§ Mr. Churchill
Labour has only to expose this plot in order to defeat it.On what grounds does the Prime Minister attempt—and I am really surprised that he should do so—to maintain in the House that"these schemes" did not comprise and were not indeed appended to the Schuman Plan, which is the only scheme before the House and the country at the present time? How does he explain it? Was he misled by the Secretary of State for War, or did he think of it on the spur of the moment? I have the greatest confidence—[HoN. MEMBERS:"Speech."]—in the Prime Minister's good faith, but I think he owes it to the House to give a much clearer explanation of how he escapes from the fact that the scheme we had been discussing, and which everyone had in mind, was not included in the scope of the word"plot" which the right hon. Gentleman used?
§ Mr. A. LewisOn a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the Motion we are debating?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman is putting his question in his own way.
§ Mr. ChurchillOn what grounds can the Prime Minister dissociate the word"plot" from"these schemes" and the Schuman scheme, which was the one before us? May I earnestly hope that we shall have better treatment from the Prime Minister, on a matter of this very important personal kind, than we have received so far?
§ The Prime MinisterI have already explained this matter. I naturally did not answer on the spur of the moment. I naturally asked my right hon. Friend about the speech, and he made it perfectly plain to me that at this point in his speech he turned to the question of Parliamentary proceedings, and that the word"plot" referred to the activities of right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. ChurchillWhat did the right hon. Gentleman say?
§ The Prime MinisterI said that the word"plot" referred to the proceedings in this House, and not to the Schuman Plan.
§ Mr. ChurchillIf that be so, does not the text of the document, supplied beforehand on the authority of the Secretary of State for War to the Press, show that he completely misled the Prime Minister, and that this led the Prime Minister to mislead the House?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. ChurchillMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not go into this matter more in detail and examine carefully the text which the Secretary of State followed in his speech, and give, if I may say so, a candid and true opinion as to whether the mere assertion by the right hon. Gentleman, contrary to the text, that the word"plot" did not refer to the Schuman scheme, cannot in any way be possibly sustained?
§ Mr. MitchisonWill my right hon. Friend, if and when he complies with that request, look at the part of the speech the Leader of the Opposition omitted to read following directly on that part he did read?
§ Commander NobleMay I ask the Prime Minister whether, instead of trying to excuse his right hon. Friend on very thin technicalities, he will in future try to restrain him from promoting his long-held opinions of Marxist orthodoxy at the expense of European unity?
§ Mr. AmeryIn view of the doubts that have been aroused about this, will the Prime Minister consider asking the right hon. Gentleman to explain himself to the House and tell us what he meant by it, and whether he still means it now?
§ Mr. MarloweIs the Prime Minister aware that this speech contained the factual statement that the supra-national authority would consist of a council of eight or nine men who would have power to shut down half the coal mines of South Wales and the steel mills of Sheffield, provided it satisfied the shareholders profits? Can he tell the House whether the Government have received information to the effect that this is the constitution and powers of the proposed supra-national authority? If so, was this a leakage or was the right hon. Gentleman imagining it?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend was referring to the fact that there was a proposal to hand over these industries to an irresponsible authority and—
§ Mr. ChurchillWhat proposal?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Schuman proposal.
§ Mr. ChurchillExactly.
§ The Prime MinisterI am answering the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). I think that it is a perfectly fair comment, on looking at the scheme, to say that one would be putting into the hands of an irresponsible authority powers to deal on a very wide basis with all these industries.
§ Mr. Churchillis not the essential point whether the word"plot" covered the Schuman proposal? What other proposals were there before the public at the time, except the Schuman proposal we had just been debating? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will consider his own position very carefully in this matter.
§ Lord John HopeOn a point of order. Owing to the obviously inadequate replies of the Prime Minister, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ Sir Waldron SmithersIn view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Prime Minister, can you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the traditions of this House, do anything to remove malignant tumours from the body politic?