HC Deb 19 October 1950 vol 478 cc2240-2
Mr. Walter Fletcher

I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a personal statement. Yesterday the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), thought fit, in a supplementary question to say: Is it not shameful that at a time when British troops are fighting Communists in Malaya, Malayan producers should be selling vast quantities of rubber at considerable profit to the Soviet Union. Would my right hon. Friend"— that is, the Secretary of State for the Colonies— attempt to obtain the cooperation of the hon. Member for Bury …?"—[OFFICIAL REEORT. 18th October, 1950 Vol. 478, c. 2033.] He should have added "and Radcliffe."

You, Sir, unfortunately did not hear my name mentioned. I was, therefore, not able to deal with the matter at that time. The inescapable implication of that Question is quite clear—that I and my firm, as producers of rubber, have been selling quantities of rubber at a considerable profit to the Soviet Union. The facts, which the hon. Member could have ascertained either from the Board of Trade, or from myself, are as follows: firstly, I am not a rubber producer but a merchant distributor, and the rise in the price of rubber to its present level is of no direct benefit to me.

Secondly, I have always consulted, by word of mouth and in writing, the appropriate Government Department on the question of sales of rubber to Russia both here and in the Far East, and the policy laid down by His Majesty's Government on East-West trade, and on dealings in rubber, has been adhered to throughout. This policy, under which I believe the Government have themselves delivered 10,000 tons of rubber out of their stock here to Russia within the last few years, would have permitted sales by myself and my firm to Russia. In actual fact we have not sold or delivered any rubber to Russia within the last two years.

The seriousness of the insinuation that I and my business colleagues have been making huge profits out of selling rubber to Russia with the full knowledge that this would endanger the lives of fighting troops in Malaya and Korea is evident. In view of the hon. Member's known position in international affairs, in which sphere what he has hitherto said may have been listened to with some respect, I would ask you, Sir, for a Ruling. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such base, unfounded and irresponsible imputations when he can ascertain—

Mr. Speaker

In a personal statement one must not attack another Member. One must only state one's own point of view. One must not accuse another hon. Member of making base and unworthy statements. That I cannot allow.

Mr. Fletcher

I would ask you, Sir, for a Ruling as to whether the Supplementary Question put yesterday by the hon. Member is in order, and I shall naturally accept your Ruling with the deepest respect.

Mr. Edelman

I regret very much that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) should have misunderstood my reference to him yesterday. The rubber market is a free market. It is not controlled by the Government, and for that reason I invited my right hon. Friend to seek the co-operation of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, who, as is well known, is a leading member of the rubber trade. The alternative to Government control is, of course, voluntary restraint on the part of the trade. This appeared to me to be a reasonable and appropriate request, and I was all the more surprised when the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe replied to it in somewhat unusual terms which, under your direction, Mr. Speaker, he withdrew.

I can only say that I made no attack on the patriotism of the hon. Gentleman, but I did say and I did imply that large quantities of rubber are still being sold to the Russians in circumstances which I consider inappropriate. For that reason, Sir, I do not wish to withdraw from the position or from the view which I took yesterday when I said that the rubber trade, as a result of rearmament, is making excessive profits and that the destination of large quantities of rubber is as undesirable as was the export of certain machine tools now stopped. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe may defend the present state of affairs; I deplore it—

Mr. Speaker

The only point is whether the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) accused the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe of unworthy motives. I gather he did not. All he has to do is to say so, and the mattter is ended.

Mr. Fletcher

May I point out in re futation of that attempt to get away with it—

Mr. Speaker

We are getting into an irregular debate. The position is perfectly clear. The hon. Member felt himself aggrieved and the hon. Member for Coventry, North, says he meant no unworthy motive whatsoever against the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. On that I think we had better leave it.

Mr. Martin Lindsay

Do we understand that the hon. Member for Coventry, North, has or has not in fact withdrawn the imputation against the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe?

Mr. Speaker

He said he never meant to make any implication at all of unworthy conduct by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, and therefore I take it that he has withdrawn.

Mr. York

May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that any reasonable man reading HANSARD of yesterday cannot but take the implication about which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe complains?

Mr. Speaker

As a matter of fact I read HANSARD, and I thought it might be taken both ways. Personally I was pretty sure I knew what the hon. Member for Coventry, North, meant and that he did not mean anything unworthy.

Mr. Fletcher

May I point out that in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th September, col. 1620, exactly the same imputation was made by the hon. Gentleman and it was the repetition yesterday that confirmed me in my belief?

Mr. Speaker

I think we had better leave this matter.