§ LORD BARNBY had given Notice that he would call attention to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling for a policy of post-war expansion so that employment is maintained; ask views on a policy such as is outlined by priority purchase certificates; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems a peculiar and happy coincidence that my Motion should follow on the eloquent appeal that we have just heard from my noble friend whose Motion has occupied our attention during the earlier part of this sitting. In the course of his most interesting speech my noble friend emphasized the importance of post-war arrangements to make happy the return into civilian life of John Citizen, who, till then, will have been a soldier. My noble friend suggested that he would return bewildered, frightened and angry, and he included in his remarks a minatory recommendation to the Gov- 512 ernment that such a situation would, if not provided against, inevitably direct all criticism upon the Government of the day.
§ My Motion is aimed at assisting a postwar expansion policy that will make for good employment. This subject was emphasized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very important debate on the post-war economic situation that took place recently in another place. That speech was indeed a speech which must have impressed those who read it as a weighty and helpful contribution to all those who are gallantly trying to deal with this immediate problem. It was succeeded three days later by another very informative, helpful, guiding speech, advanced in a very eloquent manner by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. He in his speech reiterated many of the points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer three days before. In this matter we have heard much about the inflationary gap and the hazards to the community as a whole. Briefly the thing is based on the belief that as the war proceeds we shall further develop a situation where increased earnings projected on to a diminishing supply of consumer and consumer-durable goods will tend to make a difficult internal position.
§ In your Lordships' House recently we have had several debates in which have been brought out the ideal solution of many of these problems of which we are all conscious as facing us in the post-war period. Much that is desirable has been urged, but I am inclined to think that while a good deal of it has been produced with the aim, certainly a proper aim, of solving this question, too much of it has disregarded practical means. Let me take an example. Recently we had a discussion in your Lordships' House on agriculture; it was most impressive and most informative. Your Lordships' House includes authorities second to none who are qualified to speak on that subject. Those authorities put forward their views, but I must say I was impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook's comment: "You are all impractical. Of course what you want to do is all right, but none of that can be done unless you do a certain thing." That certain thing was to reserve the home market for home producers. It was a Puckish humour that 513 impelled the noble Lord to make that suggestion because that is impractical too. In addition to all these debates we have had a spate of articles from eminent personalities fully qualified to speak as economists. They are all qualified to speak, but as we know they are always conspicuous by their general disagreement.
§ What has impressed me is that they have always disregarded the overriding fact that an international monetary mechanism must be decided upon before you can decide how to restore world trade. It is easy to visualize ways by which you can give full employment for the industrial plant of this country and other industrial countries, but that in turn involves some way of enabling the products of that plant to be received in other parts of the world. Malnutrition and a backward standard of life, if corrected, can very soon find a home for all this vast volume of industrial products, provided yen produce some international monetary mechanism which will take into portfolio the promises on the part of those parts of the world to pay at a subsequent date for the merchandise they receive. That is not easy to decide upon and it can only be done by the United States, who are in the box seat. It is to be hoped that the recent pronouncement that a Conference is going to be held with the object of finding some solution really opens a prospect of early attention to this problem.
§ The post-war industrial position is what really impelled me to raise this point. I would take the opportunity, with the permission of your Lordships, to give some quotations from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to give the authority on which my reasonings are based. He said that "there will be a very considerable shortage of all kinds of goods for civilian requirements" and he added "For the necessary increase in our export trade there will be additional payments for goods and services in this country." He said in another place "It is not worth having money if there are insufficient goods to buy," and he also said—a point to which I shall return later—that "we shall have to maintain, for a time at any rate, considerable measure of control of our economic life." It will be within the memory of your Lordships what a scramble there was after the last war for consumer and consumer-durable goods and that it created much hardship.
514§ By some means apart from the various controls and regulations that it is foreshadowed will continue, there must be found some additional means of dealing with or softening that problem. It is with that object in mind that the simple idea is put forward that you should work out a scheme whereby you cart forthwith deflect into the coffers of the Government free of interest funds which become surplus to permissible or appropriate requirements at the moment against the promise which the subscriber will get that in the post-war period he will have a definitely preferred position in reference to the supply of such goods as he will want.
§ For the purpose of illustration I would mention things like domestic equipment of all kinds, including electrical equipment. You can have also bicycles, washing machines, sewing machines, furniture, automobiles and houses. There is a wide range of choice within the capacity of the earner to provide the money. I purposely refrain from going, in great detail, into what the proposals involve. I do not consider that my refraining from doing so vitiates the proposals. I think it must be obvious to your Lordships, and to the public in general, that this idea, in its fundamental aspect, is so simple that it does not need much elaboration, and that an immense variety of combinations could be devised to increase its desirability. It is a plan which is flexible in regard to the practical methods to be adopted in putting it into operation. Broadly speaking, I would have no hesitation in saying that the majority of people who give it some consideration or explore it, will be satisfied as to the desirability of its ams.
§ I frankly confess that what puzzles me is the possibility of establishing the mechanism to put it into effect. On that point I would remind your Lordships that we, in the early part of the war, had never thought that clothes rationing could be brought in overnight. Nor did we think that there would be planned and brought into operation many of the schemes, containing as they do such immense complexities and complications, for which Lord Woolton has been so eloquently and so rightly eulogized in this House. It would never have been thought possible for clothes rationing to be achieved in the way in which it has been achieved. In this connexion, I think that 515 everybody must pay a great tribute to those most capable civil servants who, with such brilliance, have worked out the mechanics of such things as clothes rationing, following the limitation of supply and the concentration of industry, and have worked out solutions of those many other intricate problems which have arisen in connexion with our progressive handling of the economic situation during the war.
§ Before I pass to objections which may be raised, I would like to make sure that I have—as I hope I have—satisfied your Lordships as to the aim in view. It is that some scheme should be worked out whereby those lending to the Government to-day can secure, in return, a claim to obtain a selected standard article of their choice in the post-war period in a rotation which will secure them supply in priority over those who make no such current arrangements. Doubtless the first objection which will be raised will be put something like this: What about the demobilized soldier, the man returning home from the war, for whom the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has made such an eloquent appeal to-day? Of course that man must be provided for, but surely there will be no more difficulty about that than about providing the solutions for the great problems which have been solved in connexion with clothes and food rationing. It will not defeat the whole intention of individuals who want to find a solution for this problem.
§ Then it may be asked, what about the people who have been "blitzed"? Equally, some provision must be made for them. I am not at all sure that something could not be done on somewhat the same lines as in the case of the discharged soldiers. In their case you could, doubtless, tie this up with the war gratuity, which offers admirable possibilities in connexion with such a scheme. You could reserve for them a determined percentage—say, not less than 25 per cent. This percentage would have to be worked out having regard to the numbers of the discharged soldiers as compared with the population as a whole, and having regard to their likely ability to participate in a scheme of this character. The same would be true of those who have been "blitzed" and it should be possible to work out provision for their needs on somewhat similar lines.
516§ It may be argued that there would be difficulty for the Government in finding the money to pay out for all these things. Well, they are going to pay out on demand on certificates of all amounts which have been issued. The Government are going to be faced with the need for meeting demands promptly, though I do not know how much they are likely to be called upon to pay in this connexion. Lord Mottistone is sitting here, and no doubt he could give us figures. He has been doing great work in the War Savings Campaign and no doubt he is familiar with the relevant statistics and could readily give them. A point which I would like to bring to your Lordships' notice is that this scheme has been suggested in the United States. Mr. Morgenthau, commenting on it, has said that the average person would rather have War Savings Bonds redeemable in cash than claims to specific goods. It is clear therefore that he, in the United States, contemplates this vast astronomical sum, billions of pounds, for which bonds have been issued, being payable immediately after the war at the option of the holders. The money has got to be found somehow and somewhere.
§ Further, there is the objection that there may be variations in the level of prices which would have to be borne by the Treasury. That is not contemplated at all. Some means can be devised for getting over that. We must remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent speech drew attention to the change factor. He said that it would be desirable to continue the policy of the stabilization of the cost of living and of the price of goods in common use on the lines we are maintaining to-day. He therefore foreshadowed that there is not going to be much change in the purchasable value of tangibles in terms of money. That is encouraging. It does, I admit, contribute substantially to the possible mechanics of working this thing out. Then there is another objection based on the possibility of people changing their minds. Well, the certificates would have to have a surrender or sales value, possibly with some discount; at any rate, negotiability would have to be a feature. There is also the question of re-sale. Why should not re-sale be permitted? Whatever programme we have after the war, there will have to be the possibility of re- 517 sale, as there was after the last war. The objection has been raised that those who are earning more during the war will be in a better position to make their payments, to secure their position on the rota, than those who are earning less, and who are thus less happily situated. In that connexion, the position of the discharged soldier has been raised, but with that I have already dealt. It must be borne in mind, however, that the position of the munition worker who is earning more than some others will remain in any case; he will have an advantage as compared with those who are earning less. Money will always have buying power. That objection, therefore, cannot be raised to the scheme.
§ I appreciated the patience which your Lordships have shown in listening to my argument, but I should like to go on to emphasize that this whole scheme assumes the retention of private enterprise. In that respect it should have the sympathy of your Lordships, with the exception, perhaps, of some of my noble friends on the Labour Benches. This scheme assumes the retention of private enterprise, and it bears in mind the fact that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, for some extended period—a flexible term—after the war there will have to be control and regulation of materials and labour. That fact enhances the propriety of introducing a scheme like this, which will help manufacturers to build up large orders and to know their requirements for materials and labour.
§ I believe that the real difficulties will arise in what I may call the mechanics of the scheme, but I am hopeful that they will be solved. I realize that vigorous opposition may be raised by the Treasury, but that does not dismay me. I have seen many schemes eventually adopted which have first been opposed. It is the novelty of this scheme, the fact that it is unorthodox, which will give rise to the greatest objections to it Your Lordships will be familiar with the objections raised in the early days to schemes of social service; yet all their opponents were eventually confounded. Curiously enough, vigorous opposition to such schemes continued in the United States much longer than it did here, where we were pioneers in that direction. In view of the fact that those who opposed such schemes were shown to be wrong, I am not dismayed when opposition is raised to this 518 scheme now. I bear in mind the fact that Lord Keynes, who is now in a position to bring the great weight of his experience to our aid in these debates, as we hope that he will in due course, suggested in the early part of the war, before he was a member of this House, a scheme for the retention of deferred earnings. If my recollection is right, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, rejected that scheme in what some of us who were enthusiastic about it regarded as rather contemptuous language, though I should be reluctant to imply any such intention to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, who deals so brilliantly with every subject. However, the scheme was rejected; but, in spite of that, it was subsequently adopted, and we now regard it as a most practical part of our war-time economy.
§ Your Lordships will all be familiar with the instalment system of finance, and will know how much this was resisted when it was first introduced. In the early twenties, the big joint stock banks regarded it as improper even to think of lending money to any firm engaged in what was regarded as such a low-class activity. It was not until the Bank of England participated in the United Dominions Trust that that form of finance received any dignity or standing at all; but now it is a fundamental part of the economic machinery of the country. If I may, with the permission of the House, give a personal experience, I have always believed that in foreign trade the political hazard should be borne by the State and not by the exporter. When I was a Member of the House of Commons I advocated this very strongly. A Committee was appointed, of which I was a member, and that Committee made recommendations to Parliament, which were subsequently adopted, and which led to the establishment of the Export Credits Department. That plan, however, was most vigorously and vehemently opposed, partly by the vested interests in the private banking houses. That was not unnatural on their part, and I sympathized with them; but their opposition was not to the advantage of progress. In passing, I should like to make a brief reference to the metric system. It may seem remote from the subject with which I am dealing, but, had we adopted the metric system, we might well be in a better position than we are in to-day.
519§ Japan supported for seven years the agony of passing from an obsolete system of weights and measures to a modern one.
§ I should like to make one last reference to this spirit of resistance to new ideas. I hope that I shall be able to persuade your Lordships to look on this proposal in an adventurous spirit, and not to regard it as something to be avoided because of its financial intricacy. It is in fact a very simple scheme. It has much to recommend it, and I hope that it will receive the sympathetic support which it deserves. Your Lordships will recall the plan which was urged in America to deal with the situation which arose because of the lateness of the passing of the Finance Act of 1942 in the United States, which makes it extremely difficult for the taxpayers in 1943 to pay their taxes for 1942. This scheme recommends the United States Treasury to abandon the receipts for 1942, and to concentrate on 1943. It is pointed out that they will get just as much money in that way as by trying to sue millions of taxpayers who have not the resources to pay, and who did not know that they would be liable for taxation, but who are liable to prosecution for non-payment of taxes. Because that scheme was a novelty, it was very vigorously opposed; but only last week it was adopted virtually in its entirety, or at any rate in principle, by the Canadian Minister of Finance.
§ I know that the scheme which I am putting forward will be objected to very much by Lord Kindersley. I mention him in particular because it gives me the opportunity of saying that I realize what a debt the nation owes to him, and how grateful we should be for his unselfish and unflagging efforts in achieving the most effective method of placing the vast voluntary savings of the community at the disposal of the State. With that tribute I should also like to associate Lord Mottistone, who has been very active in this matter. But I do not believe that this would be competitive or would conflict with war savings contributions; it is rather complementary. It is going to tap a different source of savings, and it is going to have—and here I appeal to the House for reflection—a possibility of urging the wage-earner to put out a bigger effort, to earn more, EO that he may acquire the 520 savings which will enable him to buy on this priority system the long-coveted and cherished articles which particularly appeal to him. A ten per cent. or five per cent. increased effort would raise a vast sum of money, which would not be in conflict with war savings but would be supplementary to them, and would make a valuable contribution to the coffers of the State.
§ I understand that the Lord Chancellor is to reply for the Government. I have no doubt he has been briefed by the Treasury to give a vigorous rebuttal to these proposals, which are novel and unorthodox. He might well apply his unparalleled forensic skill to demolishing me, and he might easily have a field day, but I appeal to him to forgo what would be attractive to hear—and I should be the first to enter into the gaiety of the occasion. I would appeal to him to regard this as a matter worthy of careful examination. It is in that hone that I raise it, believing that it can be a contribution to the national effort now, that it can help to solve the difficulties of the post-war period. On those grounds I hope he will recommend this scheme to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Progressive ideas have before been disregarded and turned down, and this may receive a similar fate, but it merits a better one. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Committee be appointed to explore this proposal, and so avoid disappointment to a vast number of people in the country interested in it, who regard it as a practical business proposition, and who have an earnest hope that it may be thoroughly explored. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison has asked me to apologize to Lord Barnby for the fact that he has had to leave the House, but he has a certain point of view, which is also the view of the Labour Party, which he has asked me to put forward on this important question. If it coincides with the views about to be expressed by the Lord Chancellor, that will make Me rather doubtful about it, but in any case there is a certain logic in what I am going to put forward, which I am sure Lord Barnby will appreciate. The mover of this Motion has been navigating very deep waters: I am going to keep close inshore, and I am only going to refer to 521 this proposal of priority certificates. We consider that it would be unfair to the poorer sections of the community, who can only just keep their heads above water now, who have not the margin of money to invest in these priority certificates, but who after the war will need goods, which we hope will then come on the market, just as much as, or even more than, will the better-to-do. This system would give an advantage to the well-to-do over the poor purchaser. In other words, the rich woman would go to the head of the queue in front of her poorer sisters. From what I know of the British people, I do not think that would he popular; in fact, it would be unworkable.
§ LORD BARNBYWould there be any difference if you did net have this system, because those who are in possession of money would inevitably have the advantage?
LORD STRABOLGII was coming to that; my noble friend and I see eye to eye there. What we shall undoubtedly have to do after the war is to maintain control for a considerable period, and we shall have to take step; to see that the people who most need the goods receive them. I think that we shall have to adopt the policy of priming the pump—Lord Barnby, with his close study of American practice, will recognize that process—and we shall have to make loans to the people who have been bombed out, to the returned soldiers, and to the displaced munition workers who have had to leave their homes, and who have not been making the huge wages that we hear about. We shah nave to make loans in kind and grant certificates for the right to purchase furniture, bedding, household utensils, crockery and cutlery, which everybody is short of now, and which these people will need. We shall have to do that in order to start the wheels of industry, and partly as a social insurance—the sort of thing that my noble friend Lord Nathan was speaking about earlier this afternoon. It is on those lines that you will have to proceed, I think, and this proposal of my noble friend would be impolitic and unworkable.
I would ask my noble friend to consider this also. I hope that we shall not have too much attention directed by these interesting proposals to what is going to happen immediately after the war. I am 522 all for the Government making their plans in advance and having some machinery for resettlement and welfare ready, but if we devote our attention too much and start public debate on what is to happen after the war it will distract public attention from the great need now—that is, to win the war. My noble friend gave me the impression that all was over except the shouting. I respectfully suggest to him that we are only now beginning the war in earnest, and I hope that in the next six months we shall fight it in earnest and carry out the promises of the Casablanca Conference.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, my noble friend has raised an interesting question, and in the remarks I am going to make I desire first to call the attention of the House to what the question really is. He wishes to know the views of the Government on "a policy such as is outlined by priority purchase certificates," and I think it would perhaps be the clearest course to state first what my understanding is of such a proposed policy and then to call attention to some considerations which have to be weighed before such a policy could be approved. Now what is the policy of priority purchase certificates? It is not, I think, quite so novel as my noble friend Lord Barnby seemed to suppose. In different forms, both in this country Sand in America, it has been put forward for some time past. if you consider the position of manufacturers who, it may be, find their peace-time trade suspended or prejudiced by the war, who want naturally to maintain their sales organization and their canvassing during the war, and want to assure themselves of a post-war market for their produce as soon as the war is over—which in its turn would mean a strong claim for priority of supplies for making the goods which they have promised to sell—you can see that an idea such as that outlined by the noble Lord is one which may well have attractive features.
I should define the scheme thus, and if I do not define it correctly I am sure my noble friend will tell me so, and I shall he very glad to be put right. It appears to me that, whatever be its exact form, the scheme is this: it is a scheme under which the public is to lend money to the State now, free of interest or at a very low rate of interest, in return for a certi- 523 ficate, a promise, which guarantees to the lender priority in the delivery, after the war, of the particular kind of goods which the individual decides he wants. I hope I have put it perfectly plainly and fairly. I may even have the good fortune to be told I have not put it contemptuously! The question is whether that is a good scheme or not. While my noble friend who is, I gather, one of the most prominent of reformers in all matters of change during his life-time—I was not sure that that was the Party to which he belongs—points out with great truth that many new ideas which were at first criticized have turned out to be profitable, he must not—I am sure he will not—fall into the rather elementary error of saying that this is a new idea, therefore it must be a good one.
There are a good many reasons which might be given against this proposal, but it is sufficient for my purpose if I mention for consideration three of them. First of all, what is this new attraction which is to be put before those of our citizens who have a little spare money? How does it affect war savings? Up to the present, ever since the beginning of the war, the foundation of war savings has been that we would get people, to the utmost of their resources, to lend money to the Government for the purpose of carrying on the war. We have had so high a view of our citizens' sense of duty as to appeal to them in these terms, and we have not appealed in vain. What is this appeal? It is to be a rival appeal; it is to be an appeal to those who have some spare money to hand it over to the Government, not in order to carry on the war, but to secure that the man who produces the money shall obtain furniture, wireless sets, motor cars, or houses, as soon as the war is over, with a promise of being put in front of everyone else.
The first objection that occurs to me—and I did not need to be briefed by the Treasury on this point—is that that is, to say the least, a very great lowering of our civic ideals. Here we have this immense "Wings for Victory" campaign going on in London this week. Why not put up on an adjoining hoarding: "Would you not perhaps prefer to pay your spare money to the Government, not to assist the Royal Air Force, but to secure a nice suite of furniture for your 524 drawing-room when the war is over?" I think the Government are likely to object altogether to this possible combination. My noble friend says he appreciates the point, but claims that there will be no rivalry because he regards this new appeal as being of a different character and calculated to empty pockets which would never be touched by anything more noble. I do not think he is right. As a matter of fact there is no limit to what the British people are prepared to do by scraping and saving for the purpose of helping to fight the war. I should be very sorry to see Government approval given to a plan which at any rate would not contribute to that end and which, within limits, might even act against it.
Moreover, there is this further consideration. We cannot lend our savings propaganda to encourage the view that money saved during the war is intended to be spent as soon as hostilities cease. My noble friend spoke of the money being at call at a moment's notice, of the Government being in the position of having to find the money if called upon, but that is not so. All the different forms of war investment are very carefully dovetailed together, and the scheme is a far more elaborate one than that. It is one that by no means places the Government under the duty to find great sums of money just because the war is over. This scheme would have that result and the more it succeeded, the more it would have that result. If the manufacturers of the country, with their sales organizations, Send their canvassers down every street to book from everyone who may be induced to agree priority orders for every sort of commodity, this would be the means of bringing into the hands of the Government money which would have to be surrendered when the war ends. That is a very serious prospect to so old-fashioned a fogey as the British Treasury. That is the first consideration.
The second consideration is this. Before we can decide whether a scheme like this is one that ought to be encouraged and approved, we must have a clear view of the importance of a consistent post-war economic policy. My noble friend quoted—he quoted very much to the purpose—the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that we shall need to maintain for a time after the war a considerable measure of control over our economic life. 525 We shall need to do more than that. We shall need, as far as we can, to make sure that in the post-war world the priorities go, not to the quarters that have paid to buy them, but to the quarters where, on a view of our economic and social needs, they ought to go. That is quite a different thing. The best priority for the future is not necessarily a priority of supplies to manufacturers who have got orders which have been obtained in this way. I would not myself expect, after the war is over, that there will be anything but a tendency to boom for a time, but what we have to see is that the first supplies of material and labour released from war purposes go to the production of the civilian goods which are most needed. It appears to me to be quite inconsistent with that to give to manufacturers, of high sales potential and special powers of appeal, the right to say "The Government have authorized that our customers shall be supplied in front of everyone else."
My noble friend spoke as though further difficulties would be avoided, because after all, he said, there must he some special arrangements made for poor people. I am coming to that in a moment. But his proposal is not at all limited by saying that only a priority certificate is to be given to an individual who can prove that he really must have the articles. It is to be given to the individual who has a good many pounds to spend, who chooses to buy twice as many or three times as many things as are necessary. The priority would be there for the manufacturer to supply him with them.
That brings me to the last reason, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not mind too much, because the reason is one which he has already very forcibly mentioned; at any rate it is by far the most fundamental one. This scheme appears to the Government and appears to me really to involve a very grave measure of social injustice. It means that the people who at this moment have the resources are going to make sure that they are the people who are going to get the supplies. It consequently means that the people who have not got the resources may whistle for supplies until those who have come in before them are satisfied. The words "to him that hath shall be given" occur in the Scriptures, I think in a connexion which is not altogether clear, 526 but at least in the matter of future policy there can be no doubt at all that this scheme is at once condemned when it is seen to be one which is calculated to give to people who already have resources preference and priority above all those people who have not got resources at all. Of course this objection has been realized. I could not help seeing that my noble friend was approaching it, may I say, a little gingerly, because he knows quite well that this is one of the main objections that have been taken to the scheme in America. The suggestion was of course that we must provide a special little place for the discharged soldier.
§ LORD BARNBYI must interrupt the noble and learned Viscount—not a little place for the discharged soldier. Throughout my speech I laid emphasis on the fact that provision would have to be made in liberal measure for the discharged soldier and the unfortunate person. The emphasis that I laid on this has been disregarded.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORLet us work that out. Provision must be made. It it is not a very difficult phrase. It must be stated in money. Who is to provide the money? Or take the second difficulty. There are discharged soldiers who will have some resources and other discharged soldiers who will not have resources. If these two people are to be on a parallel then the whole notion of priority disappears. There is nothing left in it at all. The whole essence of priority is that the people who have resources shall get at the head of the queue while other people shall be kept behind. I say that is in itself the greatest possible social injustice, and it is because it is that, as Well as for other reasons, that, as I understand it, this scheme has not found favour in the United States. Certainly Mr. Norgenthau has denounced it. Let me assure my noble friend that neither on this nor on any other subject do I wish to be obstinate. If it would help the matter to pursue his speech into the metric system and malnutrition I should do it with all the goodwill in the world, but as it is it seems to me that there only remains for me to say that you do not prove that a scheme is right by claiming that it is a novelty, and that the considerations I have most respectfully put before your Lordships should perhaps induce the House to think that this is not a well-founded plan.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEMy Lords, before Lord Barnby replies perhaps I may say a few words as representing that great national War Savings Campaign which is now engaged in a quite tremendous effort, to raise the sum of £650,000,000 for the further prosecution of the war. Lord Barnby made reference on three occasions in his speech to the efforts we are making, and suggested that his plan might be complementary to, though not identical with, ours. I may say at once that this is no novelty to us. It is interesting to reflect that two years before the war one of His Majesty's present Ministers said to me: "If you want to get more savings out of the people, and in the war that is bound to come"—he made a good shot there; you will want a lot more—"you have got to sell priorities." This Minister is still a Minister of the Crown rendering most valuable service, not in this country. We asked ourselves whether it was possible that we could use this argument of priorities among the many arguments that are used to ask people to lend their money to the State for the prosecution of the great cause for which we are fighting. When I say "we," I mean not only all those connected with Lord Kindersley but the many civil servants and other economists who advise us. I can assure Lord Barnby that, having considered this suggestion, we rejected it unanimously because of those considerations, amongst others, that have been put before us to-day by the Lord Chancellor.
Two arguments against it are worth stating briefly in this House on behalf of the great movement upon which, we are told, the Chancellor of the Exchequer relies so much for the financing of the war. The first is that it seemed that it would be unfair to some people when the war comes to an end, for there will be people who have done pretty well out of the war and others who have not done well. This in itself is bound to cause bitterness; but you will add to that a far greater bitterness if you give those people with wealth a priority by which they can obtain the things that people may want so badly—a bed to sleep on, a wireless set as a luxury, and the actual tools of a man's trade. If that were to happen it would cause much bitterness. The second reason is that, in appealing for those £650,000,000 now and all the millions to follow, we do not want to say: "Lend 528 it to the Government now to help us win the war and when the war is over have a jolly time and spend it at once." Everybody knows that to do that would cause infinite dislocation. What we want to do is to say: "It is good for you to know that you have this nest egg to help you when the war comes to an end. Nobody quite knows what things will be like then, and it will be a help to you then, won't it? If we may give you advice, it is that you should not be in a hurry to spend it." This priority plan is an encouragement to spend it at once. For those two reasons, therefore, we rejected the scheme without, it should be observed by my noble friend Lord Barnby, rejecting altogether some of the arguments in its favour which he has pointed out.
I suggest, if I may, that it would be a good plan if the noble Lord were to concentrate his great abilities on supporting the present plan by which we say to the citizen: "Lend all you can to the Government. Then you can get your own priority when the war is over by being in control of that small amount of capital you yourself have saved, always remembering that you would do much better if you exercised that control decently, kindly and gently, waiting for the poorer people to have a chance." I would end by saying with deep respect to my noble friend, who I know cares much for the welfare especially of the poorer classes, that if he were to go on with this agitation he would confuse the issue of the great appeal we are trying to put over, or, in more homely language, he would queer the pitch. I beg him to use his talents to support the present National War Savings Campaign.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I am very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for reminding the House that there is no novelty in this scheme. I would reassure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that I am under no illusion about that. It is an old suggestion, but many suggestions, like daylight saving, became very old before they were adopted. I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for refraining from what he might have said, but for his generosity, about choosing this particular moment for the debate. I had intended drawing attention to the point in my opening speech, but it escaped my 529 memory. Of course, it is not really necessary to remind your Lordships that circumstances sometimes compel one to bring forward things which otherwise one would refrain from doing in a particular week. My noble friend Lord Mottistone emphasized that the appeal should be to all, "Lend what you can." That is very proper and very right, but I think he overlooked the fact that my appeal is based upon the belief, reiterated throughout the country by authorities that must be respected, that means should be devised to induce people to put out still more efforts. I think the coal miners—I am casting no aspersions upon them—might possibly produce more, and if they produce more they will earn more. Give them a character and let them earn more.
I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the moderation of manner in which he dealt with me. He might quite easily have dealt with me much more severely. I know that the advocate of a new theme is often a martyr. I had anticipated leaving this Chamber in the spirit of being a complete martyr. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor's indulgence. The noble and learned Viscount said that such subscriptions would not be lent for carrying on the war. I refrain from embarking on an economic controversy with so eminent an authority as the noble and learned Viscount, but I suspect that when the Government get the money that does not necessarily mean that it has been decided how the money is going to be spent subsequently. It seems to me there is very little difference in the case of a man who cashes a War Savings Certificate and spends the money inopportunely. The articles to come within this scheme would be carefully selected and would not be left to be dealt with indiscriminately. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor emphasized that this scheme suggested a social injustice. I could not refrain from interposing a reminder about provision for the discharged soldier or people who may be unfortunate. If you do not have this scheme, how are you going to prevent somebody with money grabbing something from somebody who has not got money? The noble and learned Viscount scoffed at my idea. He might have consulted the views of the Treasury. I am glad he let the cat out of the bag that he bad not consulted the Treasury.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI cannot let there be any misunderstanding on this 530 point. I was speaking on behalf of the Government and naturally in a case like this I have been in communication with the Treasury. I merely made the remark that I thought one or two observations might have occurred to me without consulting the Treasury.
§ Lotus BARNBYI am sorry I misunderstood what the Lord Chancellor said, but if the idea is looked on with disfavour by the Treasury it might still be reconsidered with a view to exploring its possibilities. I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.