INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND THE LOAN. (Hansard, 30 January 1946)

§ LORD BEAVERBROOK
had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government how they reconcile the statement of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in the House of Lords on January 23, 1946, that the projected commercial conference had no relation whatever to the American loan, with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in another place on 12th December, 1945, that the loan and the commercial proposals are "all interdependent…all essential parts of the whole scheme", and the statement of Mr. Vinson, United States Secretary to the Treasury, on 24th January, 1946, that, as an additional consideration for the loan, Britain has agreed with the United States on the principles that should be followed by the proposed International Trade Organization; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my hope that I have not misled the House in any of my speeches on Bretton Woods, the Loan Agreement and the commercial proposals. I am very conscious of the danger of speaking without reference to 91 a text, but I do not think that I have blundered so far. Several statements made by me, however, have been denied, and it is my intention to clear up all statements and statistics that are questioned, or to make an adequate apology to the House for misleading it. There was such an issue on Wednesday last between the Secretary of State for the Dominions and myself. Speaking on agriculture, I declared that the commercial proposals inflicted upon our agricultural industry a limitation of production. We are required to confine our production to a limited output not exceeding our pre-war production, or some other basis termed "the previous representative period." The noble Viscount replied that the Government's policy was price stabilization. We were talking on two different issues. I addressed myself to limitation of production—the old restriction policy to which we are so accustomed—and he spoke about Government policy for State purchase and subsidy, directed to the stabilization of prices in Great Britain.
However, it is not the purpose of my Motion to-day to return to these issues. I am concerned with the charge of misrepresentation directed against me by the noble Viscount. No doubt he meant innocent misrepresentation, but it is necessary to clear up the issue. On January 23 (Column 1084 of Hansard) he said this: … so far as this commercial conference is concerned, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, that it had no relation whatever to the negotiations for the loan. The loan was not agreed to or discussed with this as a condition. That is an entirely truthful, honest statement. This was not a price for the loan; it had not relation to it. On December 12 last Mr. Marlowe in another place addressed a question to Sir Stafford Cripps. His question was this: May I get this point clear, because I am certainly not clear about it? Could we be told whether acceptance of these proposals is a condition of the loan or not? The right honourable and learned gentleman has referred to them as a basis for discussion, but it has not been made clear whether these have been taken into consideration as a condition of receiving the loan, or whether they are quite independent, and whether we are bound to accept these proposals before we get the money. Sir Stafford Cripps answered: They are not quite independent. They are dependent, in this sense, that both we 92 and the Americans desired to come to a conclusion about Article VII at the same time as we were concluding Lend-Lease and all the other matters and the loan, and they are all interdependent. We cannot, at this stage draw out and stick to two of them and drop the third. The third being the commercial proposals. Mr. Marlowe put another question. He said: If we were to say 'No' to these proposals, should we get the loan or not? Sir Stafford answered: I have just said that we cannot draw out from any of these agreements and leave the other two, or whatever it may be, standing. They are all essential parts of the whole scheme. Then there is the statement of Mr. Vinson, United States Secretary to the Treasury. Speaking in Virginia on the 24th January, the day after the delivery of the speech in this House by the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, Mr. Vinson said—and here I quote from the hand-out of the Treasury in Washington— Repayment of the loan and interest is not all the consideration or benefit which the United States receives under this financial agreement. Britain promises in addition to repaying the loan with interest to remove currency restrictions, to avoid trade controls which would discriminate against American products, and on top of this Britain has agreed with the United States on the principles that should be followed by the proposed International Trade Organization to improve world trade practices. That is, of course, the commercial proposals. I do not wish to labour my complaint. It is easy enough, as I know full well, to make an error in debate, particularly when the Secretary of State does not slavishly follow his manuscript like so many of us do. I quite understand and in moving for Papers I hope to have the opportunity on this occasion of withdrawing my Motion with good grace. I would like to avoid the usual nonsense of declaring the Minister's explanation unsatisfactory and, at the same time, declining to go to a Division. I beg to move.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)
My Lords, I am sure that we shall all feel confident that the noble Lord, whatever phrases he may use, will withdraw his Motion in a graceful manner. On that, I am sure, our expectations will most certainly be fully justified. I would 93 like to remind the House once more of what I said. The noble Lord has quoted me, but in order to make the matter clear from my point of view I will read the passage again. It appears in Column 1084 of the Hansard Report for January 23: I would like to say, so far as this commercial conference is concerned, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, that it had no relation whatever to the negotiations for the loan. The loan was not agreed to or discussed with this as a condition. That is an entirely truthful, honest statement. This was not a price for the loan; it had no relation to it. That statement stands as true to-day as when I made it. It is an entirely correct statement.
May I now just refer, if the noble Lord will allow me, to what he said? I take it that the noble Lord's point is that the commercial agreement was a sort of price for the loan.

§ LORD BEAVERBROOK
The proposals.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
Wait a minute! Let us say a consideration for the loan. I will read what the noble Lord said. It appears in column 1075. Referring to the United States authorities the noble Lord said: But they say: 'Sign here now. Sign here for Bretton Woods. Sign there for the commercial proposals.' And then becomes apparent the full meaning of this loan from the United States—this borrowing of £1,000,000,000 at 1.65 or 2 per cent. interest. We agree in consideration of the loan (1) that duties will be reduced; (2) that Imperial Preferences will be wiped out; and (3) that agriculture—that is agriculture in Britain—shall be limited to a production comparable, in all probability, to the pre-war output or at most to 10 per cent. in excess of the pre-war production It was in reply to that group of statements that mine was made. And I say—to use the noble Lord's own words—that the loan was not negotiated on condition that duties will be reduced. It was not negotiated on condition that Imperial preferences will be wiped out. It was not negotiated on condition that British agriculture will be reduced. None of those considerations entered into the discussions at all. We would never have consented to a loan on those terms. Of course not.
But the noble Lord, quite rightly, wishes to know more clearly, if he can, the meaning of what I said in relation 94 to what others have said. Of course, I am not responsible for what others say, but I do recognize how important it is that the statements should be in accord. I am responsible for what I said to the House. I have read it, and I say that it is correct. It is very easy to quote, shall I say "in bits," I would refer to the noble Lord's question. He quotes some words from an answer by Sir Stafford Cripps. As, he puts them, they are to the effect that the loan and the commercial proposals are "all inter-dependent…all essential parts of the whole scheme." It is, obviously true that, if the commercial agreement enabled us to do trade on a better scale than we did before, we should be more easily able to pay interest on the loan. The purpose of entering into a commercial agreement was to help to improve international trade; and, so far as international trade is improved, of course it is easier to pay money that is due on the loan. But that is quite another matter from suggesting that this commercial agreement with these implications was a condition of the loan. I can assure the noble Lord—and I, myself, was on the Committee that dealt with these negotiations for the loan from start to finish—that never at any time was the loan conditional upon the acceptance of this commercial agreement or upon anything outside.
Now I come to Sir Stafford Cripps. He said: They are not quite independent. They are dependent, in this sense," that 'both we and the Americans desired to come to a conclusion about Article VII"— that is the reduction of trade barriers— at the same time as we were concluding Lend-Lease and all the other matters and the loan, and they are all inter-dependent. We cannot at this stage draw out and stick to two of them and drop the third. Later he said: …we cannot draw out from any of these agreements and leave the other two, or whatever it may be, standing. They are all essential parts of the whole scheme. Now what he said was quite correct, and it does not in the least conflict with what I said. I was referring to the negotiations applying to the loan agreement. Of course the better we can do in all these international matters the better able we shall be to pay the loan. In that sense, these things are all inter-dependent. But my statement was, and is, that the negotiations for the loan were on their own, and 95 were not made conditional on these other matters.
Now I would refer to the noble Lord's quotation from the statement made by Mr. Vinson, the United States Secretary to the Treasury, on January 24 of this year. I quote: As an additional consideration for the loan Britain has agreed with the United States and so on. I have not received a full report of Mr. Vinson's speech, but I am taking the quotation I am going to read to the House from the Daily Express, which I am sure would quote anything from Mr. Vinson's speech which might be appropriate to this contention. I think that is a fair way of putting it. I am reading from the Daily Express of January 25. It says: On the top of this (repayment of the loan with interest and removal of currency restrictions and trade controls which would discriminate against American products) she (the U.K.) has agreed with the U.S. on the principles that should be followed by the proposed international trade organization to improve world trade practices. I looked for the particular words quoted in the question, namely, the words "as an additional consideration "—that is to say, it was a consideration of the loan—but I cannot find them in any report of Mr. Vinson's speech. They are not even in the report given in the Daily Express. But of course they are the vital words. They are the words that matter, and that justify my contention. It was not a "consideration." They were separate negotiations—both of them, I am happy to say, fruitful.
Of course I cannot help but wonder—if you will allow a little rejoinder on this loan—if the noble Lord really adheres to what he said. I was going to cut it out and paste it on a bit of paper for the House, but I discovered it was spread so widely over the Daily Express of January 24, on the front page and on the back, that, if I cut it out, there would be nothing of the paper lét. So I thought I had better do the best I can and bring the whole paper. What the noble Lord has said and contended—what is really the case between us—is this, and I will quote the spicy bit. It says, that the Americans instructed us to: Sign here now. Sign here for Bretton Woods. Sign there for the commercial proposals. 96 Then there is a long piece about the decline of British agriculture. Well, I read that, and I could not help thinking of that verse from Omar. I wondered if the noble Lord gave it the attention it deserved. Your Lordships will remember the verse: The moving finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. I cannot but think that if the noble Lord reflected over this description of these transactions, he would be glad to wash it out. At all events, I do not think it is particularly useful to take little pieces from what different speakers have said. As I have been reminded, a very appropriate person can quote Scripture for his purposes sometimes, if he likes to take the proper bits, and truth is many-sided. I think the right thing to claim and to do is to take what is on record as a whole, and not to pick out odd sentences or phrases in order to see wherein my statement and that of the President of the Board of Trade are different. If anyone reads them as a whole I am sure he will see that they are in accord. I do not think I said anything incorrect and I adhere to it all.

§ LORD BEAVERBROOK
My Lords, the Secretary of State has said that truth is many-sided. It is indeed. If his statement in Hansard is an entirely truthful and honest statement it is to be approved by everyone. The contention I made was that the loan was negotiated on condition that the commercial proposals should form part of the bargain and that is the evidence given by Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Vinson. The evidence given by the noble Lord in this House is something to the contrary and now he defends himself by saying that truth is many-sided. I find that the noble Lord's explanations in this House are always interesting because we always differ. He has served with no less than four Parties. He was in the Liberal Party, then in the National Liberal Party, then he went back again to the Liberal Party and now he has gone to the Socialists.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
No.

§ LORD BEAVERBROOK
After all, he stood as a Liberal after Lloyd George's Government. He has served four Parties. More than that, he has served the Tories 97 on occasions. He was Chairman of the Agricultural Marketing and Propaganda Reorganization Commission for Eggs and Poultry. He was Minister of Munitions. When I spoke of scrap the other day he thought that scrap was some kind of second-hand machine. Half our steel output depends on scrap, but the noble Lord, who had been Minister of Munitions, thought that scrap represented some kind of second-hand machine. When he wrote a book he wrote in praise of scrap, but the other day he spoke against scrap. He was himself made the Chairman of the Agricultural Marketing and Reorganization Commission on the very eve of or a few days after, the day that a duty was put on poultry. In this House a few days ago he denied that there was any benefit or value in agricultural tariffs. He was serving the Minister of Agriculture, when a quota was placed on poultry products 50 per cent. for us and 50 per cent. for foreigners. Now he denies that quotas are good, except in the case of raspberries. He is representing so many different viewpoints that he has to change them when he changes his Party. The noble Lord is always changing his own tale in politics. For myself, I always enjoy them like a merry-go-round at a fun fair. And now I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.