Sitting of 5 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  REFUGEES (GERMAN ASSETS, SWITZERLAND)
  Mr. John Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a contribution to the International Refugee Organisation out of the rich German assets in Switzerland may be expected; and what steps are being taken to remind the Swiss Government that one of the objects of the Washington Accord of May, 1946, Command Paper No. 6884, was to enable such a contribution to be made.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): A reply to the Allied request for an advance to the International Refugee Organisation
  2
  against the funds due to the Allies from German assets in Switzerland has just been given to the Allied representatives in Berne. I should not, therefore, wish to say anything more on this subject until I have had an opportunity of studying the reply.
  Mr. Foster: Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government have the object of the agreement well in mind?
  Mr. McNeil: Most certainly. I am equally certain that the Swiss Government have it in mind.

  GERMANY

    Nutrition and General Conditions
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will have placed in the Library copies of the recent surveys of nutrition and general conditions in Germany prepared by the Control Commission.
    Mr. McNeil: Reports on nutrition and general conditions in Germany, based on surveys undertaken by the staff of the Control Commission, appear in the Monthly Report of the Control Commission for Germany, copies of which are already available in the Library.
    Sir W. Smithers: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, but may we assume that those reports show the extent of the diabolical policy of the Russian Government?

    Anglo-U.S. Zone (Marshall Aid)
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has issued to the British delegation in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation relating to the proposal, in the plan submitted by the German Bizone Economic Administration, whereby the Anglo-U.S. bizone of Germany would receive Marshall aid credits totalling 1,230,000,000 dollars during the first year of the Marshall plan.
    Mr. McNeil: No special instructions have have been issued to the British delegation on this point. The total deficit shown in the Bizonal Reconstruction Plan will he considered by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation in the same way as the estimated deficits of the other participating countries. In the process, import and export estimates will doubtless have to be revised in order to relate them to the total amount of the European Recovery Programme assistance available.
    I may add that the bizonal plan does not propose that the European Recovery Programme assistance should be provided to the full extent of the deficit. In practice, a very large part of the bizone's import requirements will be financed from governmental appropriations for occupied areas.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Will it be possible to draw the attention of our delegation in the O.E.E.C. to the fact that the British people do not like the idea of Germany getting a bigger slice of Marshall aid than any single one of the Allied countries?
    Mr. McNeil: Perhaps my hon. Friend, with his well-known influence with the Soviet Government, will persuade them to observe their obligations.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the Russian Government are influential in O.E.E.C., and will he explain to the House what is the relevance of the introduction of his reference to the Russians in his answer to my very relevant question?
    Mr. McNeil: The reference is mathematical; the deficiencies in the Western area will directly relate to the implementation of the Potsdam Agreement.

    Air Transport, Berlin (Cost)
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the approximate average daily cost of transporting food and other supplies to Berlin by air; how this compares with the cost when rail, road or barge are used; and who pays this additional cost.
    Mr. McNeil: Up to date, the approximate additional daily cost for the part of the operation undertaken by His Majesty's Government is £6,000. When barge, road or rail is used the cost is met in marks and the charge is, therefore, sustained by the German economy. I regret that at present I cannot give an answer to the third part of the Question.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would my right hon. Friend say when steps will be taken to recommence transporting these supplies by road and rail?
    Mr. McNeil: No restoration of normal working could be too quick for our desires on this subject.

    Reparations (Capital Equipment)
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the request of the Marshall Aid Administrator that His Majesty's Government should agree to the retention in Germany of capital equipment scheduled for removal as reparations from the Western zones of Germany.
    Mr. McNeil: No such request has been received from the Administrator.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: As Section 115 of the Foreign Assistance Act of the United States requires that the administrator shall make the request, will my right hon. Friend be ready for it and be ready to reject it?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a purely hypothetical question.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why there is no effective participation of Germans in the policy and operation of North-West German Radio beyond the normal existence of a German committee that rarely meets and has no powers; and why

    5
    a broadcaster who was dismissed for political misbehaviour was allowed to broadcast again under a false name.
    Mr. McNeil: A German Board of Governors for the North-West German Broadcasting Institution was appointed in March, 1948. It meets monthly and I am assured that the members of the Board and the senior members of the German staff are entirely satisfied with the powers they exercise. If my hon. Friend will give me more details of the incident mentioned in the last part of his Question, I will gladly make further inquiries and communicate with him direct.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has not replied to the last part of my Question?
    Mr. McNeil: I am unable to reply to the last part of the Question because I have not sufficient detail to identify the man about whom these allegations are made.
    Mr. Sorensen: Then why does not the right hon. Gentleman say so?
    Mr. McNeil: I am very sorry; it must be my dreadful Scots accent, but I thought I did say so.

    Electricity Works, Hamburg
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the decision by an overwhelming majority of the Hamburg Town Council to transfer the electricity works to public ownership had not yet received the sanction of the Military Government although the decision was made 14 months ago.
    Mr. McNeil: Military Government sanction to put this decision of the Hamburg Town Council into effect was granted on 11th May, 1948.

    Allied Occupation, Berlin (Agreements)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish as a White Paper the text of all Three-Power or Four-Power agreements concerning the occupation and administration of Berlin by the Allied Powers and the delimitation of the sectors of the city.
    Mr. McNeil: These are international agreements, and my right hon. Friend
    6
    would have to obtain the consent of the other Governments concerned before publication. He, however, did give the House a full account of these agreements on 30th June. The hon. Member will find the text of the Four-Power statements concerning the Zones of Occupation of Berlin, and concerning Control Machinery in Germany in White Paper No. Cmd. 6648 of 1945.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: It is just because we were given so instructive and interesting a list of agreements last week that I would like to ask the Minister of State whether it is not desirable that the public of this and other countries should be able to see exactly what the Soviet Union has agreed to in the matter of transport by air, road and rail, and could he not seek the assent of other Powers for the publication of these agreements?
    Mr. McNeil: I quite agree with the desirability of everyone being fully informed on these points and I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider whether we could secure agreement to have them published.

    WESTERN EUROPE (SECURITY DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made for discussions between the Powers adhering to the Brussels Treaty and representatives of the U.S. Government regarding American armed aid to Western Europe.
    Mr. McNeil: There will undoubtedly be a constant exchange of views in Washington between the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the other parties to the Brussels Treaty and Canada concerning Western European security arrangements, and United States and Canadian association with them. His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to hold himself in readiness for such exchanges of views.
    United States association would come under the terms of the United States Senate Resolution of 11th June, the third paragraph of which as my hon. Friend is aware, recommends
    "association of the United States by constitutional process with such regional and other collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid and as affect its national security."

    7
    The Canadian attitude in regard to the matter has been clearly stated by the Prime Minister of Canada in the Canadian House of Commons on 17th March.
    Mr. Warbey: Bearing in mind that we shall be going into Recess in a few weeks' time, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that no further military commitments will be entered into until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not think that arises on this Question.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the subject of military commitments does arise on this Question, that military commitments are a matter of life and death for every citizen of this country, and that they should not be entered into except in the fullest light of public knowledge and discussion?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not want to be difficult or to be thought evasive, but I was asked what arrangements have been made for discussions, and I have replied as fully as I can upon that subject.

    PALESTINE (UNITED NATIONS' MEDIATION)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many observers, and of which nationalities, have been attached by the Security Council to the United Nations Mediator in Palestine.
    Mr. McNeil: The Mediator's staff of 98 Military Observers is composed of five Swedes, and of 31 persons from each of the three member States of the Security Council's Truce Commission in Palestine, i.e., the United States, France and Belgium.
    Mr. Piratin: In view of the statement that there are five Swedish observers present in Palestine and that the Soviet Government expressly asked for five observers of theirs to be present in Palestine, can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was not possible for our representatives to support that very reasonable request?
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman is apparently confusing two questions. The Soviet Government's resolution dealt not with the composition of Count
    8
    Bernadotte's Mission, but with its distribution. We therefore confined ourselves to support of the resolution which provided for the three participating countries.

    SIAM (BRITISH AND SOVIET EMBASSIES)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider increasing the staff of the British Embassy at Bangkok in view of the size of the Soviet Embassy in Siam.
    Mr. McNeil: The size of the staff of the British Embassy at Bangkok does not necessarily depend on that of any other Embassy. A Foreign Service Inspector is shortly visiting Bangkok and he will report on any change in the strength of the staff which may be necessary.
    Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that there are over 200 Russians in the Soviet Embassy in Siam—10 times more than the number of British in our Embassy—and is it not also a fact that from this Embassy Communist activities in South-East Asia are being directed?
    Mr. McNeil: On the second point, I would prefer to see a separate Question on the Order Paper, but I would say that the strength of the Soviet Embassy at Bangkok does not seem to me, on the figures available, to be disproportionate.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman think it was also necessary to increase the staff to stop the very considerable contraband coming over the frontier, with the consequent loss of dollars to this country?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Extra Cheese Ration
    Mr. George Wardasked the Minister of Food whether he will allow the extra cheese ration to smallholders and their sons who work on the land themselves.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) on 23rd June.
    Mr. Ward: Will not the Minister admit that the constant refusal to treat these people fairly is due to prejudice against owners of any kind of property?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.
    Major Tufton Beamish: Is the Minister fully aware that there have been a dozen or more Questions from both sides of the House over the last 12 months drawing constant attention to the inequalities of the present system and is it not really about time that he agreed to look into the whole question again?
    Mr. Strachey: As it is a differential cheese ration, there must be inequality. That is the essence of the thing, but on the merits of this case—that it ought to be extended to farmers and their families—I cannot agree that they are the most necessitous classes in the country for extra food.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While there may be a case for not giving this concession to larger farmers, surely there is no case for not giving it to those smallholders whose economic circumstances make them indistinguishable from agricultural workers?
    Mr. Strachey: There is certainly substance in that, but there would be very great difficulty in drawing a line, in taking an acreage figure below and above which farmers would or would not be eligible.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that there is a very great sense of injustice in this matter in the country and that there is a feeling that the line is being drawn between those who have and those who have not a powerful trade union to speak for them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Arising out of the Minister's answer to my question, is it not clearly understood by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who are smallholders and who are farmers?
    Mr. Strachey: The only possible way would be on an acreage demarcation.
    Mr. De La Bère: Why not do it, then?
    Mr. Ward: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Lambertasked the Minister of Food whether he will change the qualifying conditions for the special cheese ration so that self-employed builders carrying out agricultural building and repairs, where canteens or other catering facilities are impracticable, qualify.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid I cannot further extend the special cheese ration to self-employed builders.
    Mr. Lambert: Is the Minister aware that the withholding of the cheese ration from this type of builder is making it extremely difficult to get repairs carried out on isolated farms?

    Catering Establishments (Cleanliness)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food whether in the course of his campaign for cleanliness in catering establishments, he will deal with the problem of cracked crockery, which is not only unclean but spreads infection and disease.
    Mr. Strachey: Infection can be spread by any crockery which has not been properly cleaned after use, and my medical advisers take the view that cracks do not materially enhance the danger. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that caterers should protect their customers by thorough cleansing and, where possible, sterilisation.
    Mr. Janner: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that in some countries it is illegal to use cracked crockery in catering establishments? As there is now a supply of plastic crockery, should not some steps be taken here in this direction?
    Mr. Strachey: It is very much better to have untracked crockery than cracked crockery. I entirely agree with that.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very great deal of cracked crockery bequeathed by private enterprise, on what was the L.N.E.R., to British Railways, and will he do something to remedy that state of affairs on the railways?
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the finest example of cracked crockery is the Minister himself?
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Food why he has co-operated with the British Tourist and Holidays Board in issuing post-free to each boarding house proprietor in Blackpool two large tin plaques about 15 in. by 10 in., three small tin placques about 7 in. by 5 in. and four large crown posters with an explanatory pamphlet, inviting them

    11
    to wash their hands; how much this has cost; and how much tin and how much paper has been used in this campaign.
    Mr. Strachey: This hygiene campaign has my full support because it should lead to higher standards of cleanliness in all sections of the catering industry, and I am glad that my Department was able to assist by providing addressed labels. The cost of publication and postage is being paid by the British Tourist and Holidays Board.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman then accusing boarding house keepers in Blackpool of having a standard of personal hygiene below that which he would like? If so, will he withdraw that gross insult?
    Mr. Strachey: No. I make no such accusation. I would, however, call the hon. Gentleman's attention to a cutting from the "Evening Standard" of 24th June which reads:
    "The baker did not wash his hands. Ninety-three people were poisoned in Lambeth."
    Such unfortunate events do occur when a standard of cleanliness insufficient for the needs of the food trade arises. Therefore, I certainly support the campaign of the British Tourist and Holidays Board.
    Mr. Low: Is it not typical Socialism, and typical of the right hon. Gentleman that, because someone in Lambeth has not maintained the standard which the right hon. Gentleman requires, he should then accuse all the people of Blackpool, who know this trade backwards, of having a standard below that which he would wish?

    Oranges (Distribution)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food why two cargoes of oranges were landed in London and Liverpool and then sent by train to Liverpool and London, respectively; how many in these two cargoes were eventually unfit for human consumption; what was the total cost to the taxpayer; and will he take disciplinary action against those responsible.
    Mr. Strachey: I am once more grateful to the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity of denying one of those malicious untruths about my Department's methods of trading in which he specialises. No oranges have been sent from London
    12
    to Liverpool. Two hundred and sixty-five tons of oranges were needed to make up an allocation due to the London area and we sent this quantity from a cargo of 3,460 tons landed at Liverpool. The rail journey had no measurable effect on the condition of the fruit. As a fiat railway rate is paid for the carriage of this fruit no extra cost to the taxpayer was incurred.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is that flat railway rate a preferential one for the Minister of Food, or does he pay the same railway rate as ordinary commercial users?
    Mr. Strachey: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: On a point of Order. If I heard the Minister's answer correctly he referred to "malicious untruths in which the hon. Member specialises." My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether that implication on the motives of the hon. Member is in accordance with the traditions of this House, and is in Order?
    Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I noticed that remark in the Minister's reply, and I rather regretted it.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Let me finish. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) often raises points; but, after all, we differ in our opinions, and they may be, from his point of view, honest criticisms. Therefore, I regret that it should be said that he has indulged in malicious untruths.
    Mr. Strachey: I of course withdraw at once the words you find inappropriate or complain of, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to point out that I expressed my gratitude to the hon. Member for collecting and bringing to light those statements which have been made—not by him, but by someone else.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When, some little time ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that if the workers worked harder it would benefit only the bosses, was that a malicious untruth?
    Mr. Speaker: I think we had better end this question now.

    Oil (Rubber Seeds)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the world crop

    13
    of rubber seeds is reliably estimated at one million tons, that these are normally destroyed or left to rot, though they are in fact, edible and have a high oil content; and what steps his Department is taking to utilise this supply of edible oils and fats.
    Mr. Strachey: I am advised that the world crop of rubber seeds is a large one, but it is not possible to make any reliable estimate of the quantity which would be collected for crushing. An attempt is to be made later this year to collect seeds on a large scale in Malaya. If this is successful it is hoped that this potential source of oil will be used commercially in the future, since it has already been shown that crushing of the seeds presents no major difficulty. Research carried out so far indicates that rubber seed oil may be more useful for technical than edible purposes.
    Mr. Smith: May I take it from that answer, that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he possibly can, as far as his Department is concerned, to conserve the current year's crop of rubber seeds?
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider doing this through some such body as the Rubber Growers' Association, which represents the industry, and which can collect and treat the seeds without creating some enormous new body to do it?
    Mr. Warbey: Why did they not do it before?
    Mr. Strachey: Oh, yes. The Ministry of Food could not undertake the collection, but we are getting into touch with all the interested parties, of whom the Rubber Growers' Association is probably one.

    Australian Plum Jam
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will give particulars of the quantities of Australian plum jam that is to be allowed to be sent into this country from Dublin, to be sold off the ration; and why permission was given for this jam to be de-rationed, in view of the refusal to take off the ration last season's crop of plum jam in this country.
    Mr. Strachey: No arrangements have been made for jam to be sent to this country from Eire for sale off the ration,
    14
    and I am glad to have this opportunity of emphasising that it is an offence against our rationing laws to obtain preserves from abroad, unless they are unsolicited gifts.
    Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the circular which has been distributed throughout the country quoting the Board of Trade as the authority for the importation of these jams and marmalades off the ration? The quotation is made in the circular which has been widely distributed throughout the country.
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot, of course, control the actions of Irish firms.
    Mr. De la Bère: It is the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Strachey: I emphasise again that to send jam in from Eire of this type for re-sale in this country is an offence.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman, anyhow, de-ration plum jam, so that the people of Evesham may be able to grow plums? What is the good of wasting all this jam?

    Dairy, Bishops Stortford (Building Licence)
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the relaxation of the restrictions on private building announced on 25th June, 1948, he will reconsider his decision of 26th May, 1948, not to support the application of the Bishops Stortford Dairy Farmers, Ltd., for a building licence for extensions to their South Mill Dairy.
    Mr. Strachey: Although the industrial building position is still difficult, I am glad to say that it is now possible to support this application.

    Fruit and Vegetable Supplies
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that current importations of fruit and vegetables are 30 per cent. higher, and home production, in many cases, considerably in advance of prewar level; and if his is satisfied that, with few selective import controls, the present volume of purchasing power is adequate to absorb the total supplies without causing hardship to the home producer.
    Mr. Strachey: We have not got the figures for total supplies during the first half of this year, but imports and home production of fruit and vegetables in 1947 together exceeded the prewar figures by only 3 per cent. In the same period the population has increased by 4.7 per cent. I am satisfied that if prices are kept down to a reasonable level all marketable supplies can be absorbed.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures for May were 30 per cent. above the prewar average? Has he formulated any rule as to the extent to which this expansion of imports may be allowed to go?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that the figures that the hon. Member has in mind are a 30 per cent. expansion of certain imports of vegetables, mainly by private traders. I am certainly not alarmed at that expansion. I think the public has benefited very greatly from it.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country would be better in health if they could eat more fruit and vegetables than they can at present afford to buy, and will he resist this pressure upon him to keep up prices by curtailing imports?
    Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend can rely on me to do my utmost.
    Mr. Baldwin: With reference to the last supplementary question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Italian plums are coming into this country at present while the forward trade in plums is absolutely at a standstill, and that plums cannot be sold at 2d. per lb., let alone at high prices?
    Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to the more favourable season a far greater quantity of home produced fruit and vegetables is coming on to the market, and that unless something is done to market that produce in a better way than in the past the consumers will not have the full advantage of the crop?
    Mr. Strachey: I am inclined to agree that the best marketing that can be done is to get prices to the most reasonable level possible.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase to which I
    16
    referred is a tonnage increase, which refers to the totality of fruit and vegetable imports, and that the purpose of my Question was not to suggest that there should be any undue restriction, but that there should be some balance in the matter?
    Mr. De la Bère: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman give an answer?

    Tea Ration
    Mr. Henry Nichollsasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the increase in the present stocks and of the future prospects, he will consider a small increase in the tea ration to domestic consumers.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that no increase in the tea ration is possible at present.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister consider issuing a bonus to mark some special occasion, say 5th July?
    Mr. Strachey: When we have more supplies we will certainly issue them in one form or another.

    Lentils (Manufacturing Plants)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that all British plants for the manufacture of lentils are standing idle; and what prospects there are of getting supplies of raw material in the near future.
    Mr. Strachey: Until India resumes exports I am afraid there is little prospect of obtaining sufficient lentils to keep our plants working fully. We have recently purchased 1, 000 tons of Syrian lentils from the 1948 crop for June-August shipment and these will be allocated to manufacturers when they arrive.

    Basuto White Peas
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Food why his Department refused a recent offer from South Africa of 1,500 tons of Basuto White Peas at £38 5s. per ton at a time when the major pea-milling plants in this country are standing idle.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid we could not afford to buy this quantity as we had already spent nearly all the money allocated for the purchase of pulses under the South African Loan Agreement.
    Mr. Smith: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman realises that South Africa is

    17
    in the sterling area; and in view of the fact that I warned him of the situation in this trade two or three months ago, could not he have done this little action to alleviate the position?
    Mr. Strachey: South Africa is in the sterling area, but that does not mean that we do not have to pay for imports from South Africa, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we cannot afford to increase them.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister still a buyer of white peas?
    Mr. Strachey: They are, I think, bought on Ministry account, but I would like to have notice of that question.

    Sugar Allowance (Beekeepers)
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Food if he will grant a special allocation of sugar to beekeepers immediately, to counteract the adverse effects of the recent cold wet weather on the hives.
    Mr. Strachey: After consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, I have decided in view of the weather conditions to make available to beekeepers immediately up to 5 lb. of sugar per colony as an advance on the autumn and winter feeding allowance which would normally be obtainable from 1st August.
    Mr. Symonds: Is the Minister aware that this information will be welcomed by beekeepers?
    Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware that he is to be congratulated on making this grant to almost the only workers in the country who have no trade union?

    SOAP RATION
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that householders are still experiencing difficulty in getting their soap coupons honoured; and what steps he is taking to improve the supply position.
    Mr. Strachey: I shall be glad to look into any cases of people who are having difficulty in obtaining their soap ration if the hon. Member will inform me of them.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the Minister get information from his regional officers
    18
    of the difficulties in the North-West of England?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, we get information, but we have made inquiries of my food offices in the hon. Member's Division, for example, and our reports are that they are well supplied.
    Mr. Shepherd: If I give the Minister indications of a shortage of supply of household soap, not toilet soap, will he have the matter looked into?

  ROADS

    Speed Limit (Heavy Vehicles)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Transport from how many local authorities he has received protests against the proposed increase in the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): Seventy-three.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to pay more attention to this very considerable manifestation of opinion by this very large number of elected local bodies?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is not a large number in relation to the total number of local authorities. In any case, the House will have the opportunity of expressing its views on this matter before it is put into effect.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Can my hon. Friend say whether a great many of these protests came from the London area?
    Mr. Callaghan: Not without notice.

    Roadmen, Scotland (Transfers)
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Transport how many men have been transferred in 1948 from road building, maintenance and repair in Scotland; and how many have been transferred, respectively, to house building and to agriculture.
    Mr. Callaghan: The number of road-men employed by Scottish highway authorities on 17th May, 1948, was 1,527 less than on 1st September, 1947. The figures asked for in the second part of the Question are not available.
    Sir W. Darling: Was it not the intention of the Government to withdraw these men from road work in order to accelerate the building of houses and the improvement of agricultural production, and am I to understand from the reply that that result has not materialised?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, it has materialised.

  RAILWAYS

    Pension Schemes
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to issue regulations under Section 98 of the Transport Act revoking the contributory superannuation scheme of the employees of the Great Western Railway Section of British Railways and the Staff Widows and Orphans Scheme, in view of the men's liability to contribute to National Insurance.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not propose to consider whether regulations to modify existing railway pension schemes are required, until he hears the result of consultations which have been initiated by the British Transport Commission.

    Locomotives (Coal-Oil Conversion)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Transport if the decision to abandon the conversion of certain railway locomotives from coal to oil, which resulted in a loss of £3,000,000, was made before or after the railways were nationalised; and who bears the loss.
    Mr. Callaghan: The decision to halt the conversion of further locomotives after 93 had been dealt with was taken before the railways vested in the British Transport Commission. The cost of the scheme has been borne mainly by the Government but it is too early to say what part of the expenditure may result in a loss.
    Mr. Gammans: When the hon. Gentleman says the cost will be borne by the Government, am I to understand that that is another way of saying that the cost will be borne by the taxpayer?
    Mr. Callaghan: The cost is borne on the Railway Control Commission account.

    BRITISH SHIPS (REPAIRS ABROAD)
    Mr. Keenanasked the Minister of Transport how many ships, British owned, and British registered, of all tonnages, have been sent to the Continent of Europe for refitting, overhaul or repair since January, 1947, to date; and what are their names.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have no information about the period before September, 1947, but since then 10 ships have been repaired on the Continent, with my right hon. Friend's authority. I am circulating their names in HANSARD.
    Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister note that the sending of these ships abroad for repair has an effect on employment in certain ports; and may I call his attention to the fact that for a number of months now there have been over 2,000 ship repairers unemployed in Liverpool? Can the Treasury do anything to prevent the intention of shipowners to send their ships for repair abroad by refusing to give credit for the carrying out of repairs on that particular basis?
    Mr. Callaghan: The only basis on which repairs abroad are permitted is that it is not possible to do them in this country, and one of the features watched very closely is the currency position.
    Following are the ships: "Joseph Mitchell," "North Down," "New Westminster City." "Duke of Sparta," "Mantola," "North Devon," "Lord Byron," "Baron Haigh," "Tanana," and "City of Florence."
    The list does not include 20 ships carrying out repairs abroad because of damage incurred on voyage.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Test Pilots' Course
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Supply how many Americans have been attached to the Royal Aircraft Establishment for instruction on the Test Pilots' Course; and how many British pilots have received similar instruction in the U.S.A.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): The Test Pilots' Course is run by the Empire Test Pilots' School which

    21
    is not part of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, though the School uses the Establishment's airfield. Since the war seven Americans have attended the course. No school giving similarly wide and detailed instruction exists in the U.S.A.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries; and is he aware that the Civil Aeronautical Experimental Station in America would be very pleased to see British pilots there for instruction?
    Mr. Strauss: I am informed that there is no comparable school on such a large scale in the United States.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister arrange for a transfer of pilots along the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey)?
    Mr. Strauss: That is another question which should be put to another Minister.

    Canadair and Constellation Aircraft
    Mr. Wardasked the Minister of Supply whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT comparative performance figures for the Canadair and Constellation aircraft.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: As my Department has no responsibility for the development, production or testing of these two aircraft, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any claims made by the manufacturers.
    Mr. Ward: Does that answer mean that the Government have, as reported in the Press, ordered 20 Canadair aircraft without knowing what the comparative figures are between these two types of aircraft?
    Mr. Strauss: I can only repeat that my Department has no authority to test these planes and has not tested these foreign planes.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: Can the Minister say on what evidence he bases any advice which he gives to His Majesty's Government for the purchase of these Canadian or American aircraft as against British aircraft?
    Mr. Strauss: That is another question altogether. I was asked to give authoritative information about the various qualities of these American aircraft. The
    22
    only information I have in my possession is the claims of the manufacturers, and it would be wholly inappropriate for me to give that information to the House.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is there any way in which the shareholders, who are the taxpayers, whose representatives we are, can discover the basis on which these decisions are now being made?
    Mr. Strauss: When any decisions of this sort are made, they will be disclosed fully to the House.

    German Scrap Metal
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Supply what payments were made for the 857,602 tons of scrap metal brought here from Germany up to 31st May; and in what currency.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The question of payment only arose in the case of commercial scrap, which amounted to about 200,000 tons. Payment was made in sterling, but it would be contrary to established practice to disclose contract prices.

    Royal Ordnance Factories (Electrical Equipment, Orders)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Supply what orders for plant or fittings are being placed with the Royal Ordnance Factories by the British Electricity Authority.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: No direct order has been placed, but the Royal Ordnance Factories have orders for components and machined parts for power station equipment placed with them by contractors to the British Electricity Authority.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether Royal Ordnance Factories are in the position and have the capacity to make complete plants in order to supply the British Electricity Authority?
    Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, they are not equipped to manufacture heavy electrical plant.

    Steel Industry (Allocations)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Minister of Supply why, in starting period 3 on 1st July, no allocation has yet been notified by his Department to some sections of the steel industry for either their home or export trade.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Steel tube manufacturers could not be notified of their allocations until it was know how much steel would be available, both from home production and imports. They were advised of their allocations on 2nd July. Preliminary advice of export allocations was issued on 12th June and formal licences on 28th June.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that when manufacturers are kept waiting in this way for vital information it plays havoc with the home and export trade, and can he prevent a recurrence of this type of thing?
    Mr. Strauss: There were special circumstances on this occasion in view of the number of bilateral trade negotiations pending. My information shows that it has not meant any serious difficulty for the manufacturers.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the tremendous importance of this matter and the key position which allocations of steel hold in the home and export trade, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    ROYAL TITLE (ALTERATION)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to effect the changes in the Royal Title forecast in the recent proclamation.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No further legislation is necessary.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In considering that answer, has the Prime Minister borne in mind the statement in the second paragraph of the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster that the assent of this House, as of the Dominion Parliaments, will in future be required for any change in the Royal Title; and if that assent is not to be given by way of legislation, is it proposed that it shall be given by way of Motion?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has overlooked Section 7 (2) of the Independence Act, 1947, in which that assent was given.

    ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT (DOMINIONS)
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Prime Minister why the Dominions have not been consulted in regard to the terms of the Economic Co-operation Agreement; and whether any representations have been received from them in this connection.
    The Prime Minister: The question of formal consultation does not arise, as the other Governments of the Commonwealth were not parties to the Agreement. In accordance with established practice, Commonwealth Governments were kept closely and continuously informed on developments in connection with the negotiation of the Economic Co-operation Agreement, and thus had opportunity to express their views. No representations have been received from any of the Commonwealth Governments.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Does not the Prime Minister agree that this matter is certain to be of vital concern to all the Dominions; and is it not strange that since this Agreement is a reproduction of Section 115 of the American Act, there were not direct consultations in the intervening three months?
    The Prime Minister: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that they were kept closely informed. Consultation is a different matter. The fact is, they were not directly concerned in this particular Agreement.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Did any Dominion express any objection to the terms of this Economic Co-operation Agreement?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, no representations were made.

    COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS (APPOINTMENTS)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Attorney-General why applicants for appointment by the Lord Chancellor as Commissioners for Oaths are required to provide evidence that they are well affected to His Majesty's Government.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The form of certificate that the applicant "is a person of integrity

    25
    and well affected to His Majesty's Person and Government" is traditional. In the context, I do not think that this certificate could be regarded as having any political connotation, its intention being to endorse the applicant's loyalty to the King and Constitution as by law established.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the references to His Majesty's person and His Majesty's Government are clearly severable in the document; and will he give an assurance that if references to His Majesty's Government are deleted from the customary form in a particular case the applicant will not thereby be prejudiced?
    The Attorney-General: I should not be prepared to give any assurance about a particular case until it arises.
    Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say when this form of words was introduced?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid I cannot say when it was introduced, but it has been in use for a very long time.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: If such applicants were asked to display their good affection to His Majesty's Government, and did so, would not that prima facie be a case for considering them unsuitable as Commissioners for Oaths?

    LAW COURTS (APPOINTMENTS)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Attorney-General what offices or appointments in the Law Courts are made by the judges.
    The Attorney-General: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I assume that the Question is not intended to include appointments made by the Lord Chancellor. Masters of the King's Bench Division are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls alternately. The Master of the Crown Office, the Assistant Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal and Clerks of Assize are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. Registrars of the Probate Division and Admiralty Divisions
    26
    are appointed by the President of that Division.
    The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls appoint their own secretaries and each Judge of the Supreme Court has a Clerk who is appointed by the Judge himself. The Clerks of the Probate Registry are appointed by the President of the Probate Division after passing the Civil Service clerical examination. The other clerks are appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Board by the President of the Division to which the clerk is to be attached, or, in the case of the Central Office, by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in rotation.

  AGRICULTURE

    Imported Vegetables and Fruit
    Mr. Wardasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the importation from abroad of early vegetables and fruit is having an adverse effect on the home market; and what steps he proposes to take to protect home growers.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): No, Sir. Licences to import early vegetables are, practically without exception, limited to certain specified periods, beyond which home growers have complete protection against imports. I have no evidence that the demand for early fruit is insufficient to absorb available supplies, or that home growers are not getting reasonable prices for their produce.
    Mr. Baldwin: While appreciating that the Minister of Agriculture gets no assistance from his colleagues in this matter of increasing home production, might I ask whether he will have a look into this to see whether, in fact, these importations of fruit and vegetables are not having a very damaging effect on the production of home producers?
    Mr. Brown: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in both his surmises.

    Executive Committees (Fanning Operations)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture how the total acreage now

    27
    farmed by county agricultural executive committees compares with the acreage farmed by them in 1945; and if he has recently reminded committees of the desirability of transferring such land to private occupation as opportunity occurs.
    Mr. G. Brown: The total acreage farmed by committees was 190,374 acres on 31st May, 1948, compared with 232,514 acres on 30th June, 1945. Committees have recently been told that lands in possession should, where possible, be let.

    Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now able to announce a revision of the feedingstuffs rationing scheme for commercial pigs and poultry, so as to allow increased supplies to those farmers who undertake to produce more for the bacon factories and egg-packing stations.
    Mr. G. Brown: As my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 25th March, an extension of the scope of the rationing scheme to enable rations to be allowed to farmers who are not at present entitled to a basic ration for their pigs and poultry would have first consideration whenever further supplies of feedingstuffs become available. A plan to give effect to this proposal is in an advanced stage of preparation and my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement on the subject before the Summer Recess. I cannot yet say, however, whether it will also be possible to revise the rationing scheme on the lines proposed by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister take into particular account the need for supplying more protein to balance up with the extra corn which farmers are to be able to keep from their own growing?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that these proposals, which are almost ready, have taken into account the amount of feedingstuffs we have to let Eire have under the new trade agreement?

    Ploughshares
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements have been made to ensure a greatly increased output
    28
    of ploughshares during the next two months, in preparation for the autumn ploughing season.
    Mr. G. Brown: The main sources of supply of Ransome type shares are producing nearly three times what they were a year ago, and still further production is expected shortly. The other type of share that was scarcest last year was the imported Cockshutt; this share is now being made here. Production of most other types of shares has also increased since last year, and the manufacturers are generally satisfied that they will be able to meet the demands of autumn ploughing.
    Mr. Hurd: But how does it happen that the farmer who wants ploughshares today has to go from one store to another, and that retailers are not being able to build up any stock against the autumn demand?
    Mr. Brown: There is some evidence that farmers are ordering very heavily because of the experience they have had, which means that despite this enormously increased production merchants are finding it difficult to build up stocks. I would appeal to farmers not to hoard supplies; it would help things considerably if they would not do that.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the Minister look into the distribution of ploughshares? In some parts of the country they simply do not exist, and in consequence a great many ploughs are out of action. It may be that the distribution is at fault.
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend has already promised—and I repeat it now—to look into any difficulty if given the particulars.

    Harvest Labour
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture what estimate he has made of the number of workers who will be required to handle the crops this year; and if he estimates that this number will be available from all the various sources.
    Mr. G. Brown: It is impossible to set a figure on harvest labour needs, which depend so largely on the uncertain factors of the weather and the state of the crops. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave him on 26th April.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that there is a great sense of worry throughout Kent, where the farmers do not believe they will have enough labourers to help when the time arrives for handling their crops?
    Mr. Brown: If the farmers will do what they can to help themselves in building up an individually employed force, with the assistance that we are giving them we shall get by.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that in Kent we are likely to have a good harvest this year, which will mean a greater necessity for more labour?

    Economic Policy
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the drastic cuts in our imports, including food, which have now become necessary owing to the economic plight of this country, he will now make a fresh statement regarding the permanent position which British agriculture must occupy in the national economy.
    Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on this subject when seeking the approval of this House to the Order that he proposes to make under Section 95 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to enable directions to be served, where necessary, to restrain farmers from putting down an undue proportion of their land to grass.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that one does not assist in preventing farmers putting down an undue proportion of their land to grass if they are not given the necessary implements for their tractors; and why is it that we are still exporting implements for tractors which are urgently needed at home?
    Mr. Brown: I gave the answer to that very fully in the House the week before last, if the hon. Member cares to refer to it.
    Mr. De la Bère: But they are still unobtainable.

    Stanford Battle Area (Cultivation)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total acreage under cultivation in the Stanford Battle Area since this year; and the acreage under the different crops.
    Mr. G. Brown: Three thousand one hundred and eighty-seven acres of the Stanford battle area are now under cultivation, and I am circulating the separate acreage figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dye: In view of the high standard of cultivation by the farmers in this particular area, and the splendid prospects for the crops, will my hon. Friend see that at an early date they are given the chance to continue for next year the same kind of cultivation that they are doing for this year?
    Mr. Brown: That is a different question altogether.
    The acreages under the different crops are as follow:
    Oats, 130 acres; barley, 2,123 acres; rye, 517 acres; potatoes, 100 acres; lucerne, 90 acres; sugar beet, 127 acres; peas, 90 acres; and mustard, 10 acres.

    Tractors and Machinery (Imports)
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the amount in imports of agricultural tractors and machinery from U.S. and Canada for the years 1938 and 1947.
    Mr. G. Brown: In 1938, the imports from U.S.A. and Canada amounted to 11,683 tons, the value of which was £905,966. In 1947, the tonnage was 21,758 and the value £4,347,299.
    Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that there may be fewer dollars available for these purchases in future, will the Parliamentary Secretary investigate the possibilities of producing more of this equipment, either by our own manufacturers, or by American firms in this country under licence?
    Mr. Brown: A good deal of this equipment is coming into production here, which until this year had to be imported.

    German Workers
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the present principles which are applied in the case of those German prisoners of war who wish to remain in this country as agricultural workers; whether he is aware that a prisoner of war named Josef Kotik was recently informed that he must be repatriated to Germany because his

    31
    Department had already filled their quota in this connection; and whether, in view of the importance of increasing agricultural production here, action can be taken to encourage a greater number of German workers to remain here in this way.
    Mr. G. Brown: My Department were authorised to recruit 16,000 German prisoners as farm workers, with provision for this figure to be exceeded to enable farmers to retain, where essential for food production, individual billeted prisoners who had been working for them regularly. Kotik's application was rejected last February because the full quota had been recruited. I cannot trace any more recent application to my Department. As regards the last part of the Question, my right hon. Friend does not think it is necessary or desirable to increase the number of German prisoners allowed to remain here for agricultural work in 1948.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: So long as there is a shortage of agricultural labour, why not fill the gap as quickly as possible and let the farmers have the workers they urgently require?
    Mr. Brown: Because we believe that we are able to supply almost every vacancy with suitable British or E.V.W. labour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: But there is still a large shortage of agricultural labour in this country, and in that case why not fill the gap as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me details of any individual case where a farmer cannot get labour, I think I shall be able to arrange for the supply of either British or E.V.W. labour. I should like to try to tackle the problem in that way before talking about more Germans.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Westminster Hall (Repairs)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Works when the repairs to Westminster Hall will be completed.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I hope that the repairs to Westminster Hall
    32
    will be completed by October, 1949, provided no unforeseen difficulty arises in obtaining materials.
    Brigadier Rayner: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise, in view of the comparatively minor repairs to Westminster Hall, that his Department will complete Westminster Hall before the new Chamber of the House of Commons is completed by private enterprise?
    Mr. Key: I have already given the date—October, 1949—and it is certainly ahead of the date when the new Chamber is expected to be completed.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that before that date the scaffolding will gradually be removed, or is this great mass of scaffolding to remain until that date?
    Mr. Key: A great part of it will have to remain because it is necessary for the work that has to be done.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does this refer to the roof or to the window at the far end?
    Mr. Key: I am dealing mainly with repairs to the roof.

    Wildfowl, St. James's Park (Illustrated Plates)
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that the illustrated plates designed to enable visitors to identify wildfowl on the lake in St. James's Park have not been replaced since the war; and will he carry out the restoration of these aids to nature lovers in London.
    Mr. Key: The illustrated wildfowl plates have not been removed from St. James's Park. Eight of the plates were smashed during the war, but seven have been repaired. Most of the labels, however, are missing, but steps are being taken to replace the plates by new and improved designs.
    Mr. Bartlett: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that in some cases the plates are there with no names, and in other cases the names are there with no pictures? Could not the matter be put right in a day or so?
    Mr. Key: I am afraid it is not so easy as that. I have asked the special bird sanctuary committee, which I have recently appointed, to go into the question of preparing better plates for the job.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that when all these changes have been made the wildfowl will still be there?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public are extremely grateful for the excellent posters put out by the London Passenger Transport Board drawing attention to these denizens of St. James's Park?

    Royal Academy Pictures (Purchases)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Works how many pictures have been purchased by his Department from the Royal Academy exhibition this year; what is the total cost involved, and for what buildings the pictures have been acquired.
    Mr. Key: Nine pictures were bought at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, 1948, at a total cost of £234 14s. They will be hung in embassies and legations, official residences and office buildings which are furnished by my Department.
    Sir J. Mellor: Who selects these pictures?
    Mr. Key: I have the services of a part-time art expert. [Laughter.] It is a surprising thing how some people regard themselves as experts on jobs they know nothing about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It evidently amuses some hon. Members that I should obtain an expert to advise me, which I have done for the purpose of providing the best services within my power for the Department.
    Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware that if he wishes to encourage the visual arts he can go to many better places than the Royal Academy, and would it not be much better to have the advice of a whole-time expert on these questions?
    Mr. Key: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that we go to other places to secure pictures for the purposes for which they are wanted.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the pictures and artists?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has my right hon. Friend sent his representatives to have a look at the open-air exhibition on the Embankment?

    B.O.A.C. (REORGANISATION)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are the proposals for the reorganisation of B.O.A.C.; and if he will make a detailed statement to the House.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The day to day management is, of course, a matter for the Corporation, but I understand that the Board of the British Overseas Airways Corporation are considering proposals for re-organising the Corporation. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is also looking into this Corporation?
    Mr. Lindgren: Not so far as I am aware.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree, in view of the difficulties in Civil Aviation generally, that it would be a good thing to have a Debate in the fairly near future?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is not a matter for me, but a Debate was recently held in the House. No doubt a statement will be made by the Corporation when the plans are completed; and if it is of public importance a statement will be made in Parliament.

    FARM LABOUR (ALIENS)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Labour the policy of his Department with regard to the employment of alien labour on a farm, in cases where a reconciliation tribunal is of opinion that the dismissal by the farmer of his British workers was unreasonable.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I cannot condone such action by a farmer, but I am happy to say these cases are exceedingly rare. There have been only three involving six men, each of whom was happily settled in other employment. Otherwise, I should have taken all steps open to me to withdraw the foreign worker to enable reinstatement of the British worker.

    PREFABRICATED HOUSES (IMPORTS)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Health what orders have been placed for the importation of permanent prefabricated houses from Czechoslovakia; and what is the price being paid.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to a Question from the hon. Member of South Blackpool (Mr. Roland Robinson) on 3rd June, of which I am sending him a copy.

    ANGLO-SPANISH CONSULTATIVE' COMMITTEE
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the composition of the recently-established Anglo-Spanish Consultative Committee; and what are its objects.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The Committee is composed, on the Spanish side, of representatives of their commercial and economic departments; our representation is provided by His Majesty's Embassy in Madrid. The purpose of the Committee is to keep the course of trade and payments under review.

    GOLD AND DOLLAR RESERVES
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net reduction in our gold and dollar reserves during the quarter ended 30th June.
    Mr. Jay: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to await the statement
    36
    which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making during today's Debate.

    AIR COLLISION, NORTHOLT
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has any statement to make on the accident yesterday at Northolt Airport.
    Mr. Lindgren: I wish to express on behalf of His Majesty's Government their deep distress at this disaster. The House will also wish me to offer its profound sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. The Chief Inspector of Accidents was on the scene soon after the accident, and preliminary investigations have already begun in association with the Royal Air Force and with the Swedish authorities, in the light of which my noble Friend will decide whether a public court investigation should be held.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the use of both Northolt and Heathrow Airports in extremely bad weather is safe, in view of the short distance which separates them?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is a question the answer to which should come from the inquiry. If the House will agree, I should prefer to wait for factual information rather than give an impression based on information now at my disposal, mainly from my Department.
    Mr. Scollan: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Ministry have decided to put in a radar, to avoid these accidents?
    Mr. Lindgren: All known radio aids and navigational devices have been installed at Northolt or Heathrow.
    Mr. Scollan: That is not true.
    Major Houghton: What instructions are in force as to the height at which planes must circle aerodromes when they have to fly in cloud?
    Mr. Lindgren: Instructions are given to the pilot from the control officer who is on duty in the control tower at the time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Standing Orders (Revision) be
exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes 170; Noes, 97.

Division No. 253.]

AYES.

[3.33 p.m.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith South)

Follick, M.

Reeves, J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Gibbins, J.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Attewell, H. C.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Rhodes, H.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Austin, H. Lewis

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Ayles, W. H.

Gunter, R. J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Guy, W. H.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Balfour, A.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Sargood, R.

Barstow, P. G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Scollan, T.

Barton, C.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Scott-Elliott, W.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Segal, Dr. S.

Belcher, J. W.

Hicks, G.

Sharp, Granville

Benson, G.

Horabin, T. L.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Berry, H.

Hoy, J.

Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Beswick, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Shurmer, P.

Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)

Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Bing, G. H. C.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Blackburn, A. R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Skinnard, F. W.

Bottomley, A. G.

Janner, B.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Jay, D. P. T.

Snow, J. W.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Solley, L. J.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

Jenkins, R. H.

Sorensen, R. W.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Sparks, J. A.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Keenan, W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Brown, George (Belper)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Stross, Dr. B.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Lindgren, G. S.

Summerskill, Dr Edith

Byers, Frank

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Swingler, S.

Callaghan, James

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Symonds, A. L.

Carmichael, James

Longden, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Mack, J. D.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Champion, A. J.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Thurtle, Ernest

Chetwynd, G. R.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Titterington, M. F.

Cluse, W. S.

McLeavy, F.

Tolley, L.

Cocks, F. S.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Collins, V. J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Viant, S. P.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Warbey, W. N.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Weitzman, D.

Cove, W. G.

Mayhew, C. P.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Crawley, A.

Mikardo, Ian

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Daggar, G.

Moyle, A.

Wigg, George

Daines, P.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Oliver, G. H.

Willis, E.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Paget, R. T.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Dodds, N. N.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Wise, Major F. J.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Pearson, A.

Wyatt, W.

Dye, S.

Peart, T. F.

Yates, V. F.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Piratin, P.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Popplewell, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ewart, R.

Price, M. Philips

Mr. Simmons and

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Ranger, J.

Mr. G. Wallace

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.

Butcher, H. W.

Eden, Rt. Hon A.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Carson, E.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Baldwin, A. E.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Erroll, F. J.

Barlow, Sir J.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Birch, Nigel

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

De la Bère, R.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Boothby, R.

Digby, S. W.

Gammans, L. D.

Bossom, A. C.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Glyn, Sir R.

Bower, N.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Gridley, Sir A.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Drayson, G. B.

Grimston, R. V.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Drewe, C.

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Eccles, D. M.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Haughton, S. G.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Hollis, M. C.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Smithers, Sir W.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Mellor, Sir J.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Nicholson, G.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Langford-Holt, J.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Sutcliffe, H.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Odey, G. W.

Teeling, William

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Walker-Smith, D.

Low, A. R. W.

Pickthorn, K.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. O.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Mr. Studholme and

Maitland, Comdr, J. W.

Ropner, Col. L.

Brigadier Mackeson

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Question put, and agreed to.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
3.40 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move,
"That this House re-affirms its support of the objectives of the Convention for European Economic Co-operation signed in Paris on 16th April, 1948, and having regard to the need for the achievement and maintenance of a satisfactory level of economic activity without extraordinary outside assistance, approves the Economic Co-operation Agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America initialled ad referendum in Washington on 26th June, 1948, and the draft exchange of notes between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America on most favoured nation treatment for Western Germany and Trieste."
The House will observe that this Motion has been drawn in rather wide terms in order to enable the House to discuss the large implications of the proposed Agreement with the United States of America. The House will no doubt need an assurance from His Majesty's Government that the Agreement is not only suitable in form to the circumstances with which it is designed to deal, but also that there is a need for the aid which can only be available upon the signature of the Agreement.
It will, therefore, I hope, be convenient if I start with a short review of our economic circumstances today, and then pass on to an examination of the situation so far as economic co-operation in Western Europe is concerned and the essential part that U.S. aid must play in that co-operation. Finally, I will deal with the actual terms of the proposed Agreement and of the Note on Western Germany, giving such explanation of the various articles as seems to be necessary in order to make quite clear what their implication is.
In our economic circumstances today our basic need is to maintain and increase our national productivity so as to enable us to balance our current overseas payments while yet importing sufficient foodstuffs, raw materials and machinery to enable us not only to maintain our existing production but to increase its volume. That we must do with the very minimum of reduction of our existing reserves, for we must still have those reserves in hand when we reach the end of the E.R.P. period both for ourselves
42
and to maintain the integrity of the sterling area. Without a considerable volume of reserves we should soon find ourselves unable to support the international position of sterling, and so slipping into the position where we could no longer function as the centre of what is today the only large multilateral trading group in the world. Such an event it is unnecessary to add would be disastrous both to ourselves and to the world as well.
We must then accept as the basis for our economic planning the need to preserve our reserves in gold and in dollars. It is the fact that these reserves have been slipping away over the last few months, and are still doing so, and that makes it essential for us to join in some plan whereby that drain, which would, if continued, so gravely damage our chances of recuperation, can be stopped. This drawing on our reserves arises from two main causes; our own unbalance with the dollar area—the U.S.A., Canada and certain other western hemisphere countries—and the demands from other countries of the sterling area arising from their net unbalance with the dollar area. We also finance the whole sterling area's deficit with what we call hard currency countries—that is countries to whom we have to pay balances in gold—and this adds somewhat though not very markedly to our gold drain.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank our fellow members of the sterling area for the understanding and co-operative way in which they have done their best, some of them under very difficult circumstances, to diminish their drawings upon the central reserves, and I may say to increase their contributions of gold and dollars to those reserves. This restraint by the sterling area countries has meant a considerable reduction in the rate of their drawings since last year. For our part, as the House knows, we also have cut dollar expenditure drastically—in a heavy and often painful manner. Altogether, therefore, we have reduced the problem of the drain upon the sterling area to more manageable proportions.
In the Economic Survey we estimated that if we received no E.R.P. assistance there would be a drain on the reserves of £222 million in the first six months of this year. I should here tell the House that we have already received—just

43
before the end of June—the first very welcome payment of dollars under E.R.P. arrangements. This receipt was the equivalent of about £22 million, and forms part of the reimbursement for purchases in the second quarter of this year. The total amounts of grants in respect of the second quarter will be £75 million. That refers to grants as distinct from loans; the maximum amount offered for loan during this period is equivalent to £25 million.
The actual result of the six months' operation is that the net drain on our reserves, disregarding E.R.P. aid, which I have mentioned was £254 million. In the first quarter the drain, as I told the House in April, was £147 million. So in the second quarter it was £107 million or more than 25 per cent. less than in the first quarter of the year. If we take into account the E.R.P. payment so far received the second quarter's drain was £85 million, and that for the whole of the half year £232 million. That is dealing with the question of the amount of the drain or drawings.
I now come to the actual level of our reserves. Hon. Members will remember that our reserves of gold, U.S. and Canadian dollars stood at 31st March last at £552 million. During the second quarter we drew nearly £2 million on the Canadian credits. Apart from an amount of £4 million, which India drew from the International Monetary Fund, there was no further reinforcement of our reserves. In the result, including the actual E.R.P. receipts, our reserves stand at the moment at £473 million. There will, of course, throughout the E.R.P. period, be some lag in reimbursement, but we hope that even so we may be able to retain our reserves at about the £500 million mark. The reimbursement for the second quarter's dollar expenditure has not all been received as I have stated; there is still to come an amount of £53 million of aid in the way of grants, together with such amount of loan as is arranged.
It is, of course, impossible to forecast the exact movement of our reserves over the next few months. Obviously a great deal depends upon the amount and the timing of E.R.P. receipts. In addition, however, there is the complication resulting from movements of world prices. If prices in the dollar area continue to go
44
up and are followed as they probably will be, by prices in other parts of the world too, we shall find our reserve position more difficult, and we have to take this into account in framing our dollar import programmes. We also have to avoid getting into a severe unbalance with the non-dollar world. It is possible that, with good harvests and an absence of the adverse conditions of last year in the way of drought and flood, we may see some reduction in world prices, and also in the exceptionally high prices we have had lately to pay for some raw materials. Hon. Members will appreciate how these heavy increases in prices have affected the cost of our imports over the first few months of this year. Indeed, an excess over the estimated drawing on our reserves is largely due to that fact.
In other words, these facts prove that we could not hope to maintain either our present standard of living or our present level of production unless we were able to get some share of that outside aid which has been so generously offered by the U.S.A. to Europe. It is in order to assure ourselves of that help that we are asking the House to approve the agreement which is now before it. Despite this aid however, there can be no relaxation in our own efforts to attain a balance. We hope and expect to increase the volume of our exports still further, provided we get no unexpected setbacks, as unfortunately we have during the month of June, and we hope that a greater volume of our exports will go to the hard currency countries, particularly to the Western Hemisphere, and most particularly to Canada whence, of course, much of our dollar foodstuffs are drawn.
We are reviewing our import programme to see how far, if at all, that can be further pruned down without damage to our production. By one means or another, we must see that we do not draw further upon our reserves. We shall not be able to arrive at final decisions upon exactly how we are to achieve that end until we know what it is we can expect to get by way of grant-aid and loan from E.R.P. for the next year, and those figures have not yet been settled.
What I have said is, I think, sufficient to show two things, first, that we must continue all out to produce and export all we can, especially to hard currency areas; and, second, that without E.R.P.

45
we should have to face such an immediate cut in our imports as would make it impossible for us to maintain our living standards or our production, and so would set us right back in our attempt to balance our overseas trade. E.R.P. is in fact an essential pre-requisite to our own speedy recovery.
I should here, perhaps, say a word about the division of E.R.P. between grant and loan. Of the total amount of assistance approved by Congress for the first year, an amount not exceeding, in the aggregate, one billion dollars has been approved as loan, and, roughly speaking, four billion dollars as grant. All we know definitely at the present is that, so far as the first three months are concerned—which have now passed, of course—we have been offered 300 million dollars in grant and 100 million dollars in loan. It has not yet been finally decided upon what terms, either as to interest rate or date of repayment, the loan will be made. These matters, are now under urgent consideration in Washington.
So far as we know at present, the amount of the loan for each country will have finally to be settled bilaterally between that country and the E.C.A.—the administrator of the economic aid. I hope that this will be a negotiation on the amount and terms of the loan only, and will not affect the amount of the grant, but that matter is still undecided. Our aim is to restrict the use of loans to items of capital equipment or goods capable of quick conversion into capital items which will earn their keep and help us to repay the loan in due time. I shall inform the House as soon as these loan negotiations are concluded, and let hon. Members know what has been arranged.
I should perhaps here mention one or two internal economic matters that have an indirect bearing upon this question of E.R.P. aid. As the House will see when we come to the Agreement, there are a number of things which we state we will use our best endeavours to accomplish, particularly in Article II. These relate to our internal economy, and are in fact the main elements of the policy that we have been carrying out over the last three years, and which we are most anxious to see carried out in other European countries. They are, indeed, the necessary conditions for a stable and visible economy in Europe. I might perhaps
46
state how we stand as regards some of these matters.
We have, of course, an over-balanced Budget with a large surplus, which was, as the House knows, designed to help in the process of disinflation. I was asked the other day by some hon. Members what was the difference between disinflation and deflation. As I understand it, disinflation is the reduction of an undesirable degree of inflation to whatever point is considered necessary or desirable in the circumstances of the time. Deflation is not merely the removal of undesirable inflation but is the creation of a positive degree of deflation below the normal, in order to accomplish some particular end. If I may take the simple analogy of a motor tyre, if it is pumped up too hard you disinflate it to the right level, but when you get a puncture you deflate it altogether. We want to disinflate our economy and not to puncture or deflate it.
This process of disinflation has hardly started as yet and it is extremely difficult to bring it about while world prices are still rising. We have, however, largely held the position, and there are signs here and there of some slight measure of disinflation. This is an essential factor, as the House knows, in our ability to export our goods and we must go through with the process, as I said on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, even if it has some unpleasant consequences for us.
The same degree of restraint on all hands is required as was necessary when the White Paper on prices, profits and personal incomes was published in the Spring. The response to that paper has been, I think, remarkable considering we were asking for voluntary restraint and not trying to impose restraint by law. It is a signal proof, I think, of the intelligence of our democracy. But we must continue intelligent and reasonable if we are to be able to get through with the level of E.R.P. aid that is likely to be available and, what is even more important, if we are to bring about a balance in our overseas trade within the next few years, as we must do. This is certainly no time for letting up in our efforts.
Now let me say a word about co-operation with Western Europe. Our co-operation with Western Europe is fundamental to the conception of E.R.P. We have undertaken in the Convention

47
which was signed last April in Paris to do our utmost to help in this co-operative effort to rehabilitate European economy so that it can carry on without exceptional aid from outside—that is the expression which is used to signify the objective of the co-operation—just, indeed, as it used to carry on before the war, and also with the objective of strengthening and reinvigorating Western European democracy. That was not a lightly given promise made just to enable us and others to enjoy E.R.P. aid. It was and is our genuine belief that without such co-operation Western Europe, including our own country, would be long delayed in its economic recovery and would gravely suffer in its political and moral strength in world affairs.
We have played and are playing today our full part in the O.E.E.C., the committee which is guiding this co-operation, which is faced with many new and difficult problems. Co-operation is easy to talk of but much more difficult to carry into practice. We are now beginning to get down to the practical application of this economic co-operation and we hope that by the time we have got the most complicated matters relating to E.R.P. settled, in the form of programmes and so on, some time this Autumn, we shall also have reached some agreement as to practical plans for co-operation in the economic sphere. These matters cannot be rushed; there are so many considerations affecting the economy of each individual country, including our own, that it would be folly to try to embark upon any considerable co-operative effort without first giving full consideration to all the factors and then working out schemes for implementing the conclusions which had been arrived at. We have a picked staff in Paris working on these problems, and we hope that in a few months' time practical and valuable results will start to flow from that work. I want to make it quite clear to the House and, indeed, to the whole world that we are in this co-operative work with Western Europe in order to make it a success, not on paper, but in actual economic results.
I now turn to the Economic Co-operation Agreement which is in Cmd. 7446 and the second White Paper, Cmd. 7447, which deals with Western Germany.
48
Taking first the Agreement, I would emphasise once again what I said in my statement to the House last Tuesday. It was agreed that the most practical way of arriving at this Agreement quickly, as was necessary, was to have a small negotiating committee in Washington, made up of representatives of the participating European nations, to work out with the U.S. Administration a common form of agreement, which could then be applied—with slight variations if necessary—to all the participating countries. This left it free, of course, for any particular country to put forward its own special case or special considerations, and that we have freely done so far as this country
is concerned.
The result of this procedure is necessarily that some of the clauses of the Agreement are more applicable to some countries than they are to others. It may be that some people will think that it was unnecessary to include some of the articles so far as we are concerned, doing things, for instance, that we are already doing. That may be true, though the same considerations do not necessarily apply as regards the circumstances of other participating countries. The provisions of all these articles will reinforce the undertakings already given under the European Co-operation Convention which, as I have already said, was signed in Paris.
There is one other remark of a general character which I should like to make as regards our approach to this Agreement. The Congress of the U.S.A. has laid down in the European Co-operation Act certain requirements as to the content of the bilateral agreements, of which, of course, this is one. Those, agreements have to be entered into as a condition of any country continuing to receive E.R.P. aid after the 3rd—now in effect it is the 6th—of July.
Some people have suggested that those requirements are unreasonable. I ask them for a moment to put themselves in the place of the members of Congress or of the ordinary United States citizen. The citizens of the United States are taking a step, unexampled in world history, to give away vast quantities of goods for which they will have to pay. Whatever view we may take as to whether this will in the long run be of help to them or how necessary it is for their own economy at the present time, we

49
must recognise that it is an action of great immediate generosity and enlightenment to offer to undertake such a programme, and they are fully entitled, as we should feel ourselves entitled in like circumstances, to take steps to ensure that their aid achieves the aim it is designed to accomplish. That is not only reasonable but prudent, and no participating country can have the slightest objection to such a wise precaution, indeed they should all welcome it, provided the provisions insisted upon do not in any way infringe the sovereignty of the participating nations.
Upon this last point the United States negotiators have shown themselves most understanding and His Majesty's Government are satisfied that, as the result of the negotiations, a form of agreement has emerged to which no valid objection can be taken. I should in this respect like to express our appreciation of the very skilled and effective part that our Ambassador in Washington and his team of negotiators have played.
I now come to the details of the Agreement and I will run through the various articles with such comment as I hope may assist the House in their understanding of the document. It would perhaps be convenient to hon. Members if they were to have the document in their hands. The Preamble sets out the joint desires of the two Governments as regards the carrying out of the E.R.P. Programme, and stresses the need for Western European co-operation to make it effective. I emphasise once again that E.R.P. is essentially a scheme designed to help Europe as a whole and not merely to assist participating countries individually.
Article I consists of three paragraphs. In the first the Government of the U.S.A. undertakes to assist us by making available aid either to the Government or any trader designated by them, where goods are bought by private contract and not through Government buying organisations, in accordance with requests submitted by us and as approved by the Government of the United States of America. That will, in effect, be approval by the Administrator to whom that task has been delegated by the Government. The assistance is to be in accordance with the Economic Co-operation Act, or any amendment to it, and is to be limited as set out in the Act.
50
In section 2 we state our reciprocal obligations that, individually and in co-operation with O.E.E.C., in accordance with the Paris Convention, we will exert sustained efforts—and those are the operative words—to enable ourselves and Europe to become independent of extraordinary outside assistance within the term of the Agreement, that is, before 30th June, 1953. We also re-affirm our intention to carry out the general obligations of the Paris Convention, and to continue to adhere to the purposes and policies of the Economic Co-operation Act. Those are the general obligations, and they make it clear that we are determined to make the O.E.E.C. successful and effective, which is, of course, our wish and our intention.
Section 3 deals with what have come to be called off-shore purchases, that is, purchases made by us with E.R.P. dollars from third countries. We undertake to make such purchases on reasonable terms and at reasonable prices—a provision that I am very glad to see in this Agreement—and so to arrange that any dollars we thus spend are spent in accordance with any arrangement made between the United States and the third country. If, for instance, the United States agree with such a country, maybe Canada or the Argentine, a price level at which a certain class of goods are to be sold or above which they are not to be sold, then we will not pay more than that price; that is the agreement stated in this section. This, too, is, I think, a valuable provision to prevent international profiteering out of E.R.P. aid.
Article II is in many ways the most important article in the Agreement, as it lays down our obligations—and those, of course, of other participating countries—as regards the requirements of Congress contained in Section 115 (b) of the Economic Co-operation Act, which deals with the provisions that are, where applicable, to be inserted in the bilateral agreements. The opening words of Section 1 of Article II are most important because they define our obligation as regards all the various matters dealt with in all the paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I would, therefore, like to read them:
"In order to achieve the maximum recovery through the employment of assistance received from the Government of the U.S.A., the Government of the U.K. will use its best endeavours. …"

51
It is to be remarked that this does not bind us to any specific act at all; it states that we will do our best to achieve certain objectives, but we are complete masters in our own house as to how we can best achieve those ends.
Section 1 sets out that we will use our best endeavours—to repeat the introductory words—to adopt or maintain the measures necessary to ensure use of all our resources, and then specifies certain of those measures in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) which follow. I here draw attention to the word "maintain," because so far as we are concerned, but not necessarily in the case of other countries, it is rather a question of continuing our present policies than adopting any new ones.
Sub-paragraph (i) includes measures to see that commodities and services furnished under E.R.P. are used for the purpose for which they were obtained—not misused, that is to say—and for the general purposes outlined in the schedules which we furnish with our requests for aid. It will be necessary, therefore, for us to see that those schedules cover the uses to which we desire to put the goods, including, in the case of some raw materials, our desire and need to export the goods made from them. An interpretative note on this sub-paragraph which appears on page 12 of the document makes it clear that amongst other things the purpose of this sub-paragraph is to keep goods off the black market.
Sub-paragraph (ii) deals with follow-up procedure, and is in conformity with the Convention of O.E.E.C., and I think I need say no more on it. Sub-paragraph (iii) deals with our assets in the United States of America, and stipulates, first, their identification, which we have, of course, done long ago, though some other countries have not, we believe; second, that having identified them, we should put them into appropriate use to assist the European recovery; but, third, that nothing imposes any obligation upon us to dispose of such assets.
Now if this stood alone, it might require us to mortgage those assets or deal with them in some similar way, but we have already, of course, as the House knows, done a great deal long ago in that direction, more I think than any other
52
country. We therefore sought an explanation of the views of the United States Government upon our obligations under this sub-paragraph. The U.S.A. Government stated, and agreed that I could so report to this House, that it is their view that the measures now in effect in the United Kingdom adequately fulfil the obligations of His Majesty's Government under this paragraph, which is therefore directed to the maintenance of existing measures rather than the adoption of any new ones.
Paragraph (b) states generally that we will use our best endeavours to promote our industrial and agricultural production on a sound economic basis, and to carry out any production targets fixed by O.E.E.C., on which body of course we shall have already agreed any such targets, because all decisions there must be unanimous. These, again, are our avowed objectives and add nothing to our existing policies. The paragraph further provides that in the case of projects contemplated to be undertaken by the Government of the United Kingdom in substantial part with E.R.P. assistance, we will communicate to the Government of the U.S.A. detailed proposals for those specific projects. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable undertaking if those projects are substantially to be financed by E.R.P. aid.
By paragraph (c) we undertake to use our best endeavours to stabilise our currency, establish or maintain—in our case it is, of course, maintain—a valid rate of exchange—
Mr. Boothby: What is that?
Sir S. Cripps: —balance our budget, maintain internal financial stability and generally maintain confidence in our monetary system. These are all objectives that this Government has emphasised over and over again, and that are accepted, I think, generally by the whole House and the country; and, as I have said, we are of course the masters as to how we should maintain these most desirable principles. I hope that other participating countries will adopt the measures necessary to attain the same ends. If they do it will greatly help European co-operation.
Mr. Boothby: Who decides what is to be "a valid rate of exchange"?
Sir S. Cripps: We decide. We say that we will maintain "a valid rate of exchange." The important word as far as we are concerned is "a," especially when one looks at what is happening in some other countries. Interpretative note number 2 explains that the objective of balancing the Budget does not preclude short period deficits if it means a policy involving a balance in the long run. That also is obviously consistent with our policy.
Paragraph (d) again sets out an objective enshrined in the convention of Paris and, indeed, generally accepted as desirable, that is co-operation to bring about a freer exchange of goods, the objective being to get as much multilateral trade in Europe as possible.
Section 2 of Article II relates to the effective use of European manpower, particularly as dealt with under Article 8 of the Paris Convention. Here we state that we will accord sympathetic consideration to proposals made for the largest practicable use of manpower available in any participating country so as to make the most of European resources. We have probably done as much as, or more than, anyone else along these lines by way of introducing E.V.Ws., employing Poles and so forth, and we shall, of course, be glad to continue to look at this problem with sympathy and with a desire to help.
Section 3 binds us, in the matter of the prevention of restrictive practices which might interfere with European recovery, and it binds us to take such measures as we deem appropriate to prevent, in co-operation with other participating countries, such practices. This fits in with the provisions of the Havana Charter on this subject and with our own Bill which is now passing through Parliament and leaves us to decide what we shall do in the event of any such case occurring. Interpretative note number 3 elaborates what is meant by business practices and arrangements in this paragraph. Note 4 makes it clear that we shall only take any action after such examination or investigation as we regard as appropriate to that case.
I now turn to Article III. This deals with the case where, under Section III (b) (3) of the Economic Co-operation Act, the Administrator may guarantee up to a total of 300 million dollars over the
54
whole period of the aid, investments made by Americans in projects in the participating countries the objects of which is to further the objects of E.R.P. We agree to consultation as to such projects in the United Kingdom—that, of course, covers the acceding Colonies as well—which are subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government, under Section III (b) (3), and in the event of any such guarantees being given and the Government of the U.S.A. making payments of dollars under them to any American citizen and having assigned to them sterling in return, we say we shall recognise such sterling as the property of the U.S.A. Government, which seems to me to be a natural consequence of such a series of events.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Does it mean it is remittable?
Sir S. Cripps: No, it is not remittable. It is sterling belonging to the United States. The United States will themselves have done the remitting operation by paying the guarantee of dollars to the American investor.
Now we come to Article IV. This provides the machinery whereby the sterling equivalent of any grant aid is to be dealt with, and only grant aid—our Loan aid, in this case. The commodities or services granted will, of course, be sold in this country for sterling. The sterling equivalent of the dollar price paid for the goods will be paid into a special account at the Bank of England in the name of His Majesty's Government. The balance standing to the credit of the account will be published as a separate item each week in the Bank return. The sums paid into the account will consist, as I have said, of the sterling equivalent at the par value agreed with the International Monetary Fund—at present 4.03 dollars to £1. The sterling equivalent, on that basis, of the dollar cost to E.C.A. in the U.S.A. of the goods and services provided on a grant basis. The amount will, therefore, not necessarily be the same as the proceeds of sale received in this country where the goods will be sold in accordance with the ordinary price structure of the country. It will be the equivalent of the dollar amount paid for the goods.
Under the Article up to 5 per cent. of this fund will be allocated for expenditure by the Government of U.S.A. upon the local administrative services of the U.S.A.

55
in connection with E.R.P. and for expenditure by the U.S.A. under Article V upon strategic materials. The effect of this latter provision is in effect to decrease the amount of grant by 5 per cent. because, up to that amount we shall probably be providing for sterling those goods for which otherwise we should have received dollars in the normal course of trade. In addition further sums will be made available out of the special account if necessary in connection with the costs of transport in the U.K. of relief supplies and packages under Article VI.
That leaves a balance of roughly 95 per cent. in the account to be drawn on under proposals made by His Majesty's Government and agreed by the U.S. Government as provided under Section 6 of Article IV. We plan to establish a close link between the machinery for depositing sterling in the special account and the arrangements for drawing out of that account. The particular avenues of disposal are indicated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 6.
Though purpose (c), "the effective retirement of the National Debt," comes third in the list, as I indicated when I spoke in the House about the matter earlier, we give it first place. The Economic Co-operation Act lays down "internal monetary and financial stabilization" as the first of the approved purposes to which the special account shall be put, and these words are reproduced in this paragraph of Article IV. This purpose can be most easily and effectively carried out by the extinction of Government Debt, either short-term or long-term, according as the internal monetary situation may require. The total amount of sterling to be paid into the special account will be very large and the bulk is bound to be applied in debt redemption, for which of course we already have the necessary Parliamentary authority.
I am glad to say that it has already been indicated to us that the United States Government share the view that first place should be given to debt extinction, and that the special account should be managed from the start so as to give continuous and continuing effect to this policy. We have in fact discussed with the United States the general principles of the use of these funds. In the course of these discussions the United States
56
recognised our strong budgetary situation and our present desire to combat inflationary tendencies in our economy. I am sure therefore that the United States will promptly agree to any proposal for the release of funds in the special account for the purpose of cancelling in present circumstances, the floating debt. This will obviate an undue accumulation of funds in the Bank of England, and any undesirable repercussion on the credit structure of our economy. I may point out that this special account cannot be opened until after the Agreement has been signed. In the meanwhile, the funds which have accumulated are being held by the Paymaster General on suspense.
Section 7 deals with the disposal of the balance remaining after 30th June, 1952. This final disposal will require ratification by the U.S. Congress. We see no reason, however, why the principles governing drawings before 30th June, 1952, should not apply equally to the balance when the time comes. In these ways the sterling equivalent of the grant will be dealt with in such a way as to assist the objects of the Agreement and of European co-operation.
I now come to Article V, which is again a very important Article. It deals with materials originating in the United Kingdom for which purposes the acceding colonies are also included, which materials the Government of the U.S.A. desire to have for stock piling or other purposes, as a result of deficiencies, or potential deficiencies, of its own resources. It is right that in view of the large amount of materials to be supplied to us and other participating countries we should help to make available to the U.S.A. commodities of which they are or expect to be short.
These materials will be paid for in dollars, or their equivalent, except in so far as they can be bought with the 5 per cent. of the special sterling account which I have already dealt with under Article IV. We agree to facilitate the transfer upon such reasonable terms and in such reasonable quantities as we subsequently agree with the Government of the U.S.A. such materials as they require, due regard being had to our own reasonable requirements for domestic use and commercial export.
The interpretative note number 5 makes is clear that such reasonable use includes the maintenance of reasonable stocks and

57
that commercial export may also include barter transactions. That note states that actual agreements negotiated under this article might appropriately include provisions for consultation—on the pattern of the Havana Charter—in the event of those stockpiles being liquidated, which might otherwise obviously cause trouble to world markets. We agree also to promote increased production of specific materials if this should prove necessary. Under section 2 of the article we agree, if so requested, to negotiate a plan of minimum availabilities to the U.S.A. of such materials at world market prices so that the U.S.A. may get a fair share of such materials.
We also agree to negotiate, where necessary, arrangements providing their nationals with equal treatment as compared with out own in access to such materials. That would of course apply almost exclusively to the colonial territories. It has long been our normal practice to extend such equality of treatment to the United States and, indeed, to other foreign firms, and under such arrangements we should need to do no more than undertake to continue this normal practice for a suitable future period. Finally, we agree to negotiate an agreed schedule of increased production of such materials if necessary on the basis of the United States taking a fair share of them. Any such arrangement, however, is to be on a long-term, and not on a short-term basis for the obvious reason that we might get landed with a largely expanded production for a short period which it would then be difficult to dispose of.
Mr. Oliver Stanley: This share of the increased production, I gather, will be transferred free to the United States of America, and not paid for in dollars?
Sir S. Cripps: No, it will all be paid for.
Mr. Stanley: What is the meaning then of "in consideration of assistance furnished" by this Agreement?
Sir S. Cripps: We are undertaking various obligations as regards access to raw materials and that is the reason for that particular phrase "in consideration of assistance" they have given us. That is a mere general phrase. It does
58
not mean that they do not pay for them. The only provision as regards not paying for them in dollars is the one under Article IV not Article V. Otherwise they pay in the ordinary commercial way for the goods.
Under section 3 we agree where the materials originate outside the United Kingdom, and that means outside the acceding Colonies as well, to co-operate to implement the purposes of the Article. That would mean that if for instance a British company was developing certain rights in South America we would to the best of our ability see that the United States as well as ourselves had access to those raw materials. To this Article the United States Government attaches, understandably I think, considerable importance, and we feel it is reasonable that there should be provision for their continued access to raw materials as a small return for all the help they are giving to us and to other European countries.
Now I pass to Article VI—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In regard to Article V, will the Chancellor explain how the stock-piling programme of the United States is limited to 5 per cent.? He indicated a tie-up between the stock-piling programme and the 5 per cent. mentioned in Article IV. There is no mention of a percentage in Article V.
Sir S. Cripps: It is not a tie-up at all in a direct sense. What Article IV says is that 5 per cent. of the special account in sterling can be used for two purposes—paying their current expenses for their representation, etc., under E.R.P., and also for acquiring strategic materials under Article V. Strategic materials are the goods which they will require for stockpiling purposes, or they may want them because they have no stocks at all and want to use them. There is no limit to the amount they can ask for or which we agree to let them have under Article V, which is not related at all to Article IV. It is only a question of how much of what they get they can pay for in sterling. The rest they will pay for in dollars.
I can deal with Article VI very shortly. Section I is to encourage visits by United States citizens to Europe, which we all desire and welcome as a means of getting

59
dollars. Section 2 deals with facilitating relief supplies from non-profit relief agencies and relief packages coming into this country from the United States of America. Interpretative note 6 points out that Article VI raises no assumption that existing methods of dealing with these packages are not adequate. We naturally desire to do all that is practicable to facilitate the generous impulses of American citizens towards people in this country. Therefore, we have no objection to doing what we can to help them.
I now turn to Article. VII. The first section is a general arrangement for consultation upon any matter relating to the application or carrying out of the Agreement at the request of either party. That is a common form in an agreement of this kind. All that it means is that if either side is disgruntled or thinks that the other side is not doing what it should do there can be consultation about it. By section 2 we undertake to provide the Government of the United States with all necessary information in a form and at times indicated by them after consultation with us covering those matters arising out of aid and set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the article.
It is made clear in the interpretative note that this does not cover minor projects or, which is more important, confidential commercial or technical information the disclosure of which would injure legitimate commercial interests in this country. We think that with this safeguard there should be no difficulties under this section. If there are we can of course ask for consultation about them under the first section of the article. Under section 3 we agree to assist the United States Government to get information as to the materials they may wish to obtain under the provisions of Article V. That is only providing that we will help them to find out the goods available which they might require for stock piling and other purposes.
Article VIII deals with publicity for the E.R.P. scheme and recognises that the whole subject matter of European recovery requires constant explanation and publicity to help in its success. Otherwise, I think the article speaks for itself. Article IX which goes with interpretative note 8, provides for the recap-
60
tion here of the special E.C.A. Mission of the United States of America. We are very delighted to welcome it here under so able and experienced an administrator as Mr. Finletter, as it will be of the greatest help to us in discharging our part in all the programming and other arrangements that have to be made. May I also add how fortunate we are to have so distinguished and statesmanlike a figure as Mr. Averell Harriman as the European head of the E.C. Administration? Under section 2, the members of the Mission, on nomination by the United States Ambassador, will be given appropriate diplomatic privileges. We also agree to extend the appropriate courtesies to the members and staff of the Joint Committee of Congress on Foreign Economic Co-operation and with them give them necessary facilities. We shall be only too happy to do that, and I hope that we have always done the same in the past.
Article X is a mutual provision for the term of the Agreement, whereby both Governments agree to submit to the decision of the International Court of Justice claims espoused by either Government on behalf of any national for damage arising as a consequence of Governmental measures taken after 3rd April, 1948. In both cases this is limited by the terms of the declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court under Article 36. All domestic remedies must of course first be exhausted. The declarations under Article 36 referred to are the following: First, that of the United States, dated 14th August, 1946. Among the classes of disputes reserved from the scope of this declaration are:
"disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America as determined by the United States of America."
The reservation of the United Kingdom is that dated 28th February, 1940, which was, as a matter of fact, a renewal of the original declaration of 1930. This declaration reserves
"disputes with regard to questions which by International Law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom."
These are the two reservations as regards this reference to the International Court, section 2 states that in lieu of going to the court such claims can by agreement of both Governments go to an arbitrator.

61
That cannot of course happen without the agreement of both Governments, and in the case of the United States of America also ratification by the Senate, as is made clear in interpretative note 9.
I come to Article XI. This is the interpretation article and is only of importance in so far as it brings into the definition of the United Kingdom those territories dealt with in Article XII. This latter article must be read with the text of the note appearing on page 13 of the White Paper and they both deal with Colonial accession.
There is a reference in the article to a schedule which is not printed as it could not be finished until the last minute, obviously. However, all Colonial Governments have signified their willingness to accede, with the exception of Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras, the Federation of Malaya, Gold Coast, Jamaica, Leeward Islands, North Borneo, Northern Rhodesia, and Trinidad, all of which require more time for local consideration by their local legislature, and so on. We have no reason whatever to suppose that any of these Colonies not be willing to accede—indeed, it is possible that some of them will have given their assent before the end of this Debate.
Sir Arthur Salter: Will these provisions as to stock piles originating in the United Kingdom technically apply to similar quantities originating in the Colonies as those Colonies accede?
Sir S. Cripps: Certainly. As I have already stated the "United Kingdom" in Article V covers all acceding Colonies. Apart from this list, which we shall attach when it is ready as a schedule to the Agreement, we can subsequently notify adherence of any other territories for whose international relations we are responsible. The note on page 13 points out that we cannot give a complete list at date of signature and stresses the special case of Southern Rhodesia. We state that we expect most Colonial Governments to accede, but recognise that if some of the more important territories do not agree to participate within a reasonable period then the United States would be entitled to regard that as a matter of major importance entitling them to reconsider the form and continuance of aid to
62
the United Kingdom. That provision, of course, largely arises from the desire of the United States Government to protect itself against the consequences of the non-adherence of those territories which are the principal producers of strategic raw materials, which the United States may wish to acquire.
Finally, I come to Article XIII which sets the term for the Agreement. It comes into operation on the day of signature, which we hope will be tomorrow night, in order to avoid any hiatus in the aid. That, of course, is subject to Parliament approving the Motion I am moving. It will remain in force until 30th June, 1953—provided six month's notice is given to terminate on that date, otherwise it runs on till six months after the notice is given. The choice of this date, a year after the termination of aid, is so as to give an adequate time to work that aid out and to clear up the various matters that will be outstanding after 30th June, 1952, which is the end of the period covered by the Economic Co-operation Act. That seems to us to be a reasonable provision. But as aid is decided upon annually it might, of course, so happen that, say, next year we got no allocation at all. In that event obviously there will be a fundamental change in the basic assumptions underlying the Agreement, for those assumptions include one that we are receiving aid.
In any such event either side may notify the other and consultations are thereupon to take place as to what is to happen. If agreement is arrived at, well and good; but if the parties do not agree within three months, then either party can give the other six months' notice to terminate the Agreement. At the end of six months the Agreement will be terminated. There is, however, this exception that Article V, and the related provision, Section 3 of Article VII as regards information and materials in Article V, shall continue in operation for two years after the notice, that is 18 months after the rest of the Agreement has ended, but not later than 30th June, 1953, in any event. Article IV also remains in effect until all the monies in the special account have been disposed of. Similarly Section 2 of Article III dealing with guarantee payments remains in force until all those payments are liquidated.
Mr. Scollan: Would the Chancellor tell us if that applies to paragraph (b) of Article IV?
Sir S. Cripps: It applies to the whole of Article IV. The whole of the article remains until such time as the monies in the special account are liquidated.
Mr. Scollan: The Chancellor did say that the obligations of Article V would last two years after the Agreement had been rescinded by one or other parties. Obviously (b) of Article IV is part of that. I should like also to know about those two years.
Sir S. Cripps: I am not certain what my hon. Friend is referring to as (b).
Mr. Scollan: I refer to page 7:
"Expenditures upon the exploration for and development of additional production of materials …"
Sir S. Cripps: By section 6 of Article IV—there is a "(b)" higher up—yes. The whole of Article IV will remain in operation until the funds are liquidated. But of course the 5 per cent. will not grow any bigger if no aid is being given, because no further sums will be paid into the account. We believe that these provisions are reasonable since the benefits under Article V to the Government of the United States cannot accrue until after aid has been given to us and will therefore take a longer period for their completion. In these cases there are to be special agreements as regards Article V, though none has yet been embarked upon and it may be some time before they are. It may be argued that two years is an excessive period, but I do not think we need boggle at that period in view of the benefits that we are receiving.
Having now dealt, I am afraid rather lengthily, with all the articles of the Agreement, I sum up, so far as the Agreement is concerned, by recommending it to the House as a fair and sensible document in no way interfering with our rights to regulate our own affairs, and as designed to assist the United Kingdom, as one of the participating countries, to the maximum of effort in bringing about that recovery which we all desire and which we are engaged in this co-operative effort with our American friends and with the participating countries to achieve as rapidly as possible.
64
I now come quite shortly to the second White Paper on Western Germany. This note records an arrangement which is designed to extend most-favoured-nation arrangements to Bizonia and thus to assist her to rehabilitate herself as rapidly as possible. Under the terms of the note we and the United States of America agree to give Bizonia most-favoured-nation treatment for her imports, provided that reciprocal treatment is extended to our trade with Bizonia, for a term of two-and-a-half years, by which time we shall be able to see how the scheme works out and what, if any, difficulties it raises. There are at present no effective or significant tariff barriers in Bizonia. But if such were introduced during the two-and-a-half years the undertaking to give most-favoured-nation treatment would be governed by the principles in the Havana Charter relating to the reduction of tariffs on a mutually advantageous basis. Provision is made in paragraph 4 of the note for the levying by this country of countervailing duties on imports from Bizonia so long as the lack of any uniform rate of exchange for Bizonal currency has the effect of indirectly subsidising Bizonal exports. This whole arrangement is, I am sure, a wise and good one, and His Majesty's Government hope that it will assist in making Western Germany independent of further assistance from us or from the U.S.A.
I have now completed my review of this further step in the great European experiment of co-operation and recovery which has been made possible by the farsighted generosity of the American people. It is for us and the other participating countries to see to it that we make the fullest and best use of the opportunity with which we have been provided. We can, I am convinced, if we will devote ourselves actively and continuously to this cause, re-establish the strength and influence of Western European democracy, and there is I believe no greater contribution that we could make to the future peace of the world and the happiness of mankind. This Agreement to which I ask the House to give their unanimous approval is an essential step in the process, and one without which the immediate prospects of recovery would indeed look grim.

65
Europe and the world have too long lived in an atmosphere of destructive antagonism, and it is high time that we got down to the practical ways of economic co-operation which could do so much to ease all our tasks and which can so greatly benefit all our people. The United States of America have come forward with their great economic and productive strength to help in this new and hopeful plan which sets the eyes of the Western European peoples upon an objective that is economically sound, politically wise and morally right. Let us in this country, therefore, play our full part by contributing of our best to the plan and by exerting sustained efforts—to use the words of Article I of the Agreement—to bring about the fullest degree of co-operation that is practicable in the shortest possible time.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We have listened with great attention to a painstaking speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He addressed himself, as I think I must, to the two main questions which are before the House this afternoon. The first is, "Can we look for recovery and re-establishment of our economic life in this country within a reasonable time without American aid?" If the answer to that question is "Yes," then, of course, we must refuse the aid. But if the answer is "No," if we consider that the rapid recovery of our country cannot be brought about without this aid, then we must ask ourselves the second question, which is whether the terms upon which it is offered are too onerous or too hampering for us to accept.
I do not think that any hon. Member in any part of the House, whether he is in favour of this Agreement or not, could help feeling a certain sense of humiliation at the straits to which our country is reduced after three years of peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "And after six years of war."] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, feels a greater sense of humiliation than anyone else, because he it was who permitted the lush Government expenditure to continue. He it was who pursued a policy of inflation at home, and thus succeeded in dissipating the first American Loan, I think
66
two years before the predictions of the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He it was who pursued an expansionist policy in times of scarcity boom. In fact, he said on 15th April, 1947:
"We are entitled to say that the new Britain, represented by this House of Commons, has taken the cost of social security proudly in its stride: the money has been found. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 38.]
—and so forth. It may be that Great Britain has taken the cost in her stride, but that she could stride at all is due to the large loans which she has had from the United States of America. Yet Socialist speakers usually refer with pride to the last three years and acclaim the achievements of the Socialist Government. What they omit to say is that, for example, full employment—which it would have taken the grossest mismanagement not to secure, so great were the needs and so large the shortages in the world—the social services, and the very standard of life itself have only been sustained by huge loans from a capitalist country, the United States of America. [Interruption.] I see that hon. Members opposite are inclined to compare these three years with the three years after the Kaiser war. It is quite true that we had great trials, difficulties and sufferings after 1918: but what they forget is that during the 1914–18 war we had no Lend-Lease, and after that war we had no loans from abroad. We did not depend upon outside aid. If we suffered, at least we suffered unaided and stood upon our own feet.
The first American Loan has gone, and with it a great block of our reserves of gold and hard currency. I was glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman went so fully into the latest figures of the balance of payments. I think I am right in saying that the Government have now suspended the statement of the quarterly shipments of gold. Consequently, what he has said this afternoon will be of great use.
Sir S. Cripps: The statement is not suspended. It has not come out.
Mr. Lyttelton: I am glad to hear that. At least, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us very full figures. We must now face the question squarely: what would happen if we refused the aid now proffered to us? The Government

67
have not enlightened the House or the country in detail upon this matter, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not shirked the truth in a general way. He said, I think at a Press conference a month or two ago, that, without American aid, Britain would soon be hungry and many factories, lacking materials, would have to close. I would like to be rather more specific. I would like to ask the Government whether it is not true that, if we had no American aid, or if we refused the aid now offered, there would very soon be an 8d. meat ration, there would be at least a one-third cut in sugar and fats, serious cuts in bacon, eggs and cheese, and about 1,500,000 unemployed, to say nothing of no basic petrol and very little tobacco?
I want to make it quite clear that I challenge the Government to deny the general correctness of these figures. I admit that they can be varied one way or another, but I challenge the Government to deny their general correctness, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, who is to reply, will refer to them specifically and either confirm or deny them. These facts drive home the lesson of the past three years. They show that, from now on, without American aid—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said so himself—we should not have enough to eat and should not have the vitality or energy sufficient to maintain our production or to increase, or even maintain, our exports. Lastly, I think these facts answer, without any shadow of doubt, the question: can we look for recovery in a reasonable time without this aid? I think the answer to this question must be "No."
This seems to me to be a fitting place in my remarks in which to acknowledge in the warmest terms American statesmanship, generosity and broad-mindedness in this very distracted and divided world. I must say that, when I see the figures in black and white—that 20 billion dollars of aid is offered by the American people to the rest of the world in the next few years—I cannot help feeling that one might look in vain at the pages of history for another example of magnanimity on this scale. I scorn the arguments, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not lend himself, which are advanced by many. That
68
America is acting in this matter chiefly out of self-interest. She could, if she had wished, have given great benefits to her own people, but all that she stands to gain by this action is something above a selfish interest—it is the peace of the world. I see in Marshall Aid one of the most far-sighted and enlightened pieces of statesmanship ever given to the world by a victorious nation, especially when one remembers that she is separated by 3,000 or 4,000 miles of ocean from the convulsions which she is now seeking to cure.
Lastly, I think how lucky it is for us that the United States does not adopt the same attitude towards the rest of the world with regard to capitalism that our own Government adopts towards the rest of the world in regard to Socialism. No longer ago than last Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary was touching upon this favourite Socialist theme. He seemed to imply that sound relations could only exist with foreign countries provided those foreign Governments were of the Socialist brand. How lucky it is that the capitalist United States does not think that way about Socialist Britain, or, perhaps, they think this is only a passing and transient phase.
I should like to put it another way, so as not to rouse hon. Members opposite, but in order to bring out the generosity and disinterestedness of the United States. I would like to pose for His Majesty's Government an imaginary question and an imaginary set of circumstances. Let us suppose there were a capitalist country, a free enterprise country, a Right-wing country, which had just removed its transport system from public control back to private enterprise, which had removed electricity and gas in the same way and was contemplating the de-nationalisation of its steel industry, and was muzzling the Senate in order to bring it about; let us suppose that country had a deficit of £500 million a year with Socialist Great Britain, ruled as she is now. Does anybody think that a Socialist Government, if it had the means—and I would like to say, in passing, that no Socialist Government is likely to have the means—would make one and a quarter billion pounds available for a period of four years, chiefly by grant, to that Government? Before any Socialist casts a stone at American intentions, let him answer that question which I have just put.

69
I now turn to the second part of the main question: are the terms too onerous or too hampering? If they are, then perhaps even these consequences which I have already described might be preferable. I suppose that at least every Conservative Member of this House, in asking himself this question whether the terms are too onerous, looked first to see whether Imperial Preference had been thrown overboard. I cannot see myself that it has, or that any new obligations have been laid upon this country in this respect since we discussed the Geneva documents a few months ago. So far, so good; but I confess that I am not without misgivings. I still find in this document some obeisance to the doctrine that Europe can cure itself of its shortage of dollars—a sort of economic Vitamin C shortage, so to speak—by a policy of non-discrimination in trade. It is quite true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed, that the master words in Article II are:
"the Government of the United Kingdom will use its best endeavours"
but, if it is clear that those best endeavours must fail in these respects, I would have preferred words showing a greater sense of realism, or at least showing a knowledge that world trade is more and more becoming a mosaic of bilateral pattern. So Imperial Preference is not further assailed, but a genuflexion is made to the possibilities of immediate multilateral trade. No country would benefit more than our own if general mulilateral trade was developed, but such hopes are entirely visionary in the near future. I still fear some charge of a breach of faith by us if these principles are not attainable in the immediate future, and are contained in this document which is going to be read, perhaps, by others very soon.
On the general subject of the relations between the Empire economy and the rest of the world, I have even greater misgivings. As I understand it, the needs of Great Britain under the Aid Agreement have to pass through the Paris Committee of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation—O.E.E.C. In the working of the Agreement, there is theoretically no direct contact between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of the United States in Washington, and therefore all British requests will, so to speak, be under fire by all the other 15 nations in this Paris Committee, and, in that case,
70
can we be sure that Empire interests are to be properly safeguarded? I have misgivings on that, and that they are substantial is proved by the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself only a short time ago in this House. This was on 6th May, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"But this means that we have to contemplate some quite considerable readjustment in our economy as that co-operation develops. We may have to deal with certain industries; we may have to agree that we should not manufacture certain things; but that they will manufacture them, as they may agree that they will not manufacture some things which we will manufacture for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 1587.]
I think we require considerably more explanation than we have yet been given on this subject from the Government. It is generally held in the House, I believe—and I remember the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) saying this in the course of a Debate—that the principles of Western Union need not conflict at all with the maintenance of the present trade relations within the British Empire. This statement has seldom been subjected to analysis. I believe it to be true. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seem at least to erode the integrity of this idea and give cause for some further explanation from the Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very fully into the document, and I do not intend to go over it all myself, but to pick out some of what I regard as the main points. To begin with, I should like to welcome Article III. It seems to foreshadow the investment by the Americans of dollars in the United Kingdom or in the Colonial Empire, and it gives them the facilities for withdrawing not only the profits and interest on those investments but also the principal if they so desire it, which is one of the great bars now to any form of investment in Great Britain and the Empire. In fact, I was sorry to hear that the sum was limited to 300 million dollars; but when that has been invested, no doubt, consultations can take place.
I believe that one of the commonest errors into which we are apt to fall is to think that this immense disparity between the Western and the Eastern hemispheres can be cured in terms of current trading or

71
by any interchange of current commodities. I believe that there must be private capital movements from the Western to the Eastern hemisphere. There must be private capital moving to seek profit in this hemisphere if we are ever to get back to an equilibrium or a balance.
I want to turn to those points upon which I still have anxieties, in spite of all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said to try to allay them. I still think that the greatest blot on the Agreement which we are discussing is that we do not know—I am sure it is not the fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—what proportions of the 1,320 million dollars are to be by way of loan and which are to be by grant, but I think from what he said that it would be a reasonable assumption, looking at the proportions which we have already received, that about 25 per cent. will be by loan and 75 per cent. by grant. I think that was the tenor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks.
But that is not quite all. It is one thing to incur more indebtedness to the United States and to put that with the debts which we already owe; it is one thing to do that, and put the future strain upon sterling if the dollars are at our disposal and are spendable entirely under our own control. But in addition to our not knowing what proportion is to be by loan and what proportion is to be by grant—and I am not blaming the right hon. and learned Gentleman—we do not know yet what proportion is to be given us in spendable dollars and what is to be sent to us in kind or commodities. I think that is a serious blot on our understanding of the Agreement, and I hope the Government will address themselves to that question.
I turn to Article V. Some of our greatest anxieties and preoccupations on this side of the House are concerned with this article, especially as it applies to the acceding Colonies. In the first paragraph it is clear that only a sale of our raw materials upon reasonable terms is contemplated. The proviso which permits the reasonable requirements of the United Kingdom for stockpiling for strategical purposes—I think the phrase "for domestic use" clearly includes stockpiling for strategical purposes—and commercial export of such materials,
72
which includes barter, is a wise provision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that five per cent. of the deposits mentioned in Article IV can be used for the purchase of raw materials for stockpiling. But the amounts concerned are fairly large. It means that £13 million worth will be available to the United States for the purchase of these raw materials—raw materials which, I would remind the House, would otherwise have earned us that amount of dollars. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said so this afternoon.
I must say that parts of Section 2 of Article V are still a little obscure to me, notably Section 2 (c). I am relieved to hear, what I did not understand when I read it, that there is no question of the dollars standing to the credit of the United States being subsequently remittable from this country. I hope that in carrying out this article we shall not get back into some of the complications of Lend-Lease which bedevilled us during part of the last war, and with which difficulties I am only too familiar. Of course, the Lend-Lease principle, that we would not compete in exports with materials which we had received free from the United States, is unexceptionable, and nothing would appear to be fairer; but, in fact, the opportunities for misunderstanding were almost limitless. I hope that any raw materials which we have to transfer to the United States under this provision will be subject to a very—
Sir S. Cripps: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that this came under Article V, 2 (c)?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes.
Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I do not understand.
Mr. Lyttelton: I may have misread the words, in which case the right hon. and learned Gentleman can put me right, but I understood that there was to be
"an agreed schedule of increased production of such materials where practicable … and for delivery of an agreed percentage of such increased production to be transferred to the United States on a long-term basis in consideration of assistance. …"
To me that means that there is to be some relation in the transfer of these raw materials to the United States—some percentage, for example, representing the proportion of aid given by the United

73
States to secure this increased production. If it does not mean that, the drafting is very bad, but that is how I read it. At any rate the right hon. and learned Gentleman can clear it up. If we read those words in the terms which I think they mean, they mean that we should get into a sort of Lend-Lease discussion as to what proportion of American aid is contained in the materials to be transferred. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seized of my point, and perhaps he can allay my anxieties about it.
I would also like to express the hope that arrangements concerning exports of warlike material—we used to call them munitions—will be the subject of a separate agreement, and that the present Agreement will not be used as a means of controlling what I might call the defence aspects of international trade. I share Mr. Hoffman's view that the export of jet engines to Russia was a folly. Nor is it in the least a defence to say that those engines were out of date or obsolete when they were exported. Everyone knows that one of the great difficulties which had to be overcome in the manufacturing of gas turbines was the metallurgical problem, and 10 years of research had certainly gone into finding the right alloys which will stand up to these very high temperatures. Therefore, it is really 10 years of research and not obsolete engines which we are exporting when we sell them to Russia. I think it would be a mistake if the export of contraband of this kind—munitions of war—were going to be regulated under this Agreement, but what Mr. Hoffman said did seem to show that was the present intention. I do not think it should come under this Agreement and I think a specific Schedule, which will cover this matter, should be separately negotiated.
To sum up, I think it would be fair to say that although many obligations are imposed upon us, wherever they are clearly stated—or after the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—they appear to us to be natural and understandable. I think the United States has shown very great restraint in this Agreement, and if their restraint is in any way due to the persuasion by our representatives in the United States and our new Ambassador, in particular, or to the efforts of the American Ambassador in London, I think they have earned our
74
gratitude and our congratulations. But, in the main, our thanks must be due to a country which is in a position to impose onerous and restrictive terms but which has not sought to take advantage of her position.
That we should be reduced, largely by the ineptitude and mismanagement of our own Government, to a position where we are almost entirely dependent on the good will of the United States is a matter which grieves and humiliates every British subject who thinks straight about these matters. I am not saying at all that the Socialist Government succeeded to an easy heritage in 1945, but what I am saying is that almost every action which they have taken since has aggravated our position and has damaged our national fortunes. Today, we should be not discussing this; we should be emerging from some of our postwar difficulties; actually we are in a far worse case than we were when the last shot was fired. I shall vote for this Agreement, but I shall vote for it reluctantly—
Major Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious statement—
Mr. Lyttelton: I shall not give way. In a moment the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) will be making his own speech. I am just finishing.
Major Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious statement that this country is now in a far worse case than it was immediately after the war. Is he prepared to substantiate that most serious statement?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am prepared to substantiate it. I have already substantiated it, in the words which the Chancellor himself used, but which I am not going to read again, when he said Britain would starve and our factories would close, without more American aid.
I shall vote for this Agreement—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members will have their opportunity soon—but I shall vote for it reluctantly and with some sense of humiliation. It is not without significance that yesterday, on 4th July, the United States celebrated her Independence Day, and that we are discussing this Agreement on 5th July. May I express the hope that

75
at a not too-far-distant date we may also, on a 5th July, celebrate our own independence.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Norman Smith: The deplorable conclusion of the speech we have just heard proves that the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has no contribution whatever to make to the solution of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I rejoice that his right hon. and gallant Friend the junior Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is on the Front Bench with him because, in proving the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot wrong, I propose to call his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities as a very material witness.
The only constructive suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot was that Americans should be given every opportunity to invest their capital in this country and in its Colonies.—[An HON. MEMBER: "To exploit us."] What he does not understand is that the facts of geography, which have made America so independent of the rest of the world, prevent America from carrying out a policy of overseas investment on a scale sufficient to overcome the dollar shortage in the rest of the world. In the 19th century, when this country occupied the position of economic primacy, there was no sterling shortage in the world because this country was able to undertake a very large and comprehensive policy of overseas investment, and we were able to do so because the facts of geography rendered us dependent on the rest of the world for a supply of raw materials and foodstuffs, for which reason we were able to take interest payments from other countries.
We were able to do more than that. We were able to stand very substantial losses on our overseas investments, whereby our overseas investments became, in fact, not loans but gifts. That puts the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot wrong when he says there is no precedent whatever for what America has done by way of making substantial gifts to the rest of the world. There is such precedent. Before 1914, Great Britain gave away at least £2,000 million of capital goods to the rest of the world.
76
That, on comparable prices and values might fairly be compared with Marshall Aid today.
Great Britain did that. I have used the figure of £2,000 million, which was the figure given by the late Lord Mancroft when he was Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, a Conservative Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I believe the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the junior Member for the Scottish Universities has put the figure at twice that amount since he was returned to this Parliament in a by-election. Whether that is right or wrong, certainly I can call the right hon. and gallant Member as witness for the case I am about to make in opposition to the case made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot. I can call the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as a substantial witness for my case that America must, in the circumstances of the world, indulge in a programme of "give-away," Marshall Aid is "give-away." I do not object to Marshall Aid; we want it, because we shall do very badly if we do not get it. I object very strongly to the conditions which are imposed, but I will come to that in a minute.
I will deal with the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities. He agrees that America, in the world in which we find ourselves, must, in fact, indulge in a tremendous policy of "give-away" economics. This is what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wrote in the London "Evening Standard" of 30th September, 1943. With your permission, Sir, I will read the quotation, which is very short:
"After the war the output of the U.S.A. will be one-third higher than it was at the tip-top of the boom levels of the last year in peace. All that new output as well as the old will have to be set running along the channels of peace. A new United States, one-third the size of the present, all market, will be needed to soak up this great output—and that in a year and a half or less. You will never handle that vast problem by foreign trade. Give it away—yes! Leaselend—yes, if neither lease nor lend means what it says. Long-term credit—yes, again, if the word does not mean what it says, for this is to be a credit which must bring neither debit nor audit. Free Trade is no remedy. It is only the internal market that will be able to engulf goods and services at the rate which post-war machines can deliver."
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does not the hon. Member realise that is saying that, if the United States

77
uses that material at home, it can all be absorbed? Everybody knows that, and that is what the United States are voluntarily renouncing at the present time.
Mr. Smith: Everybody knows no such thing.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member must not call me as a witness, because I deny the interpretation which he puts upon my words.
Mr. Smith: I am calling the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as a witness in support of my case, that in the conditions in the world today, we have to think in terms of the economics of "give-away" and not in terms of the economics of buying and selling or of investing.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Once for all, does not the hon. Member, with whom I have often discussed this matter, admit that we have to agree that giving it away at home is the simplest way to deal with it, and that if the United States had liked to do that, none of this surplus would have arisen?
Mr. Smith: For the United States it would be neither simple nor easy to give away at home the surplus involved, and for this reason. Mr. Hoffman said the other day, "We in the United States believe our economic system to be the best the world has ever known." That is the economic system of capitalism. The industrial potential of the United States is so tremendous that if the United States were to contemplate giving away to her own population anything like the production of which that country is capable, the standard of living of the American people would be raised to such a tremendous degree that capitalism would break down for the excellent reason that the workmen would no longer have any incentive to toil for any employer.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. Gentleman really ask the House to agree to the theory that the United States could not raise their wages and could not thereby absorb the sums of which he has been talking, and that the raising of wages would make American workmen stop work? What utter rubbish.
Mr. Smith: The level of technological achievement in the United States is such
78
that if that country decided to share out all its production, the standard of living of the working class would be raised to such an extent that the capitalist system could no longer function. In any case capitalism could not give away to workers its output in that way without violating the rules of capitalism. The right hon. Member for Aldershot displayed a glimmer of the right sort of intelligence when he said that, in the circumstances in which we are, it is quite impossible to have a balance of current trade between the Eastern and Western hemispheres.
I submit that the whole idea behind this Marshall arrangement is this. The Americans appear to believe that by 1952 or thereabouts Europe will have got back to what the Americans deem to be a normal condition of things, namely, that Europe will be able by her own efforts to earn all the dollars she wants. I submit that, owing to the facts of geography, that is not true. Britain in the 19th century could take imports because geography denied to us the things which we needed.
I submit that by 1952, no matter how successful Marshall Aid will be, the countries of Europe, including our own, will be able to balance their overseas trade accounts, if at all, only by exercising the utmost economy and the most superlative parsimony in spending such dollars as they may be able to earn. When the aid programme is completed, there will still be a dollar shortage. Indeed, according to geography, the dollar shortage must of necessity last for ever. That being the case, it is surely the duty of this country to plan its economy in such a way as to arrange that, so soon as may be, Great Britain, the Dominions and the Colonies shall be independent of dollar supplies. If we are to do that, we cannot at one and the same time observe the conditions which are imposed upon us by this Marshall Aid.
All the more true is it because, as my right hon. and learned Friend disclosed to the House today, roughly a quarter of the entire aid available to Europe is to be by way of loan. If we are going to incur a Marshall loan over the next four or five years to about 1952, we shall have to find £40 million or £50 million worth of dollars per annum for Keynes and Marshall interest, over and above what is necessary to find by way

79
of dollars for current trading. There is not an hon. Member of this House who honestly believes in his heart that it can be done. It cannot be done. The dollar shortage is perpetual, for which reason a multilateral economy based on convertible currencies is necessarily chimerical.
This penetration of the British Colonial Empire by the United States is the key to the entire Agreement. The letter on page 13 proves that. That letter—as, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend was most scrupulous to inform the House—means in effect that if, for any reason, some important British Colonies do not come in, the entire deal is off. The whole idea of our long-term colonial development should be to render us independent of the dollar economy. Instead of that, we are subordinating our colonial development to America's need instead of giving primacy to our own. It is all very well to say that our reasonable requirements will be allowed for. But who will define reasonable requirements? The definition will be done in Washington and not in London—in all probability, by a Republican administration backed by a Republican Congress.
Then again, as, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend hinted, it may well be that if we do not watch it, this colonial development for stockpiling for the Americans may leave us in some Colonies with a distorted capital equipment, a capital equipment having no reason for existence once American requirements have been satisfied. Lastly, what is to be the effect on the Dominions on this business of colonial stockpiling and American penetration into our Colonies? Once we subordinate our own economy and that of our Colonial Empire to the economy of the United States—as we must under this Agreement—we leave the Dominions, economically speaking, up in the air. They will have no option but to subordinate their own, with the result that it is no longer practical for us to think in terms of the policy we ought to be thinking in terms of—creating a viable economy to comprise not only this country, the Dominions, and the nations of Western Europe, but also their respective colonies. Under this business of Marshall Aid, the terms and conditions are harsh and unconscionable and would have the effect of diverting the whole of our economy.
80
I am alarmed at the financial strings attached to this. Who could be anything but alarmed? Articles II and IV set out the financial conditions by which we have to abide. We have to stabilise our economy, maintain a valid rate of exchange. What is a valid rate of exchange? Who is to define a valid rate of exchange? As I see it, two factors enter into the computation of a rate of exchange. The first and obvious factor is and ought to be the comparative purchasing power—purchasing power parity: "What is my currency worth in my country, and what is his currency worth in his country?" That is what it ought to be. That is one important factor.
At a time like this, when this country is deflating very drastically with a Crippsian Budget, thereby sending up the purchasing power of its currency, while America, on the other hand—although the capitalist economy of which the right hon. Gentleman boasted—is giving free rein to business acquisitiveness, and inflating, sending up prices, one would have thought that the effect of those divergent tendencies would be to send up the pound in term of dollars. Unfortunately, along comes the other influence which is the instrument of power on the part of the American financiers. Whereas the economy of the Eastern hemisphere is in decline, while that of the Western hemisphere—not because of capitalism, but because of immunity from war and because of the bounty of nature and the facts of geography—is in the ascendant, obviously there is a general demand for Western currency—which, indeed, was why we had the breakdown of convertibility last summer. That sends up the dollar and when the dollar goes up, because of the law of supply and demand, it falsifies the rate of exchange, prejudices the economy of this country, and makes it impossible to predict how long a time a loan will last.
The Economic Secretary in February, 1947, made a statement, which was widely quoted, that the American Loan would last until the middle of 1949. I had that thrown up at me at a village by-election meeting in Brigg the other day by a Conservative heckler, who did not belong to the village but who probably went round working for headquarters. I am an ingenious person and I had an answer ready for him. I turned it back on him,

81
particularly to the delight of the farm labourers present at the meeting. But the Economic Secretary fell down because applying the law of supply and demand to the valid rate of exchange makes it work the wrong way. So long as the Americans give rein to business acquisitiveness, we are going to have prices rising over there, and the rate of exchange becomes invalid.
We are asked to balance our Budget, though there is an interpretative note, according to which we may have an occasional deficit if we want to, though we must balance over a period of years. This, of course, interferes with our internal affairs and the power to control our own finances. There is in this country a large and growing opinion that the Budget ought not to be balanced, and for this reason. In any country where the population continues to rise while productivity, due to technological reasons, continues to increase, there must be a constant increase in the monetary supply. That periodic increment of the monetary supply comes into existence as a debt owing to the bankers, because they provide the necessary additional money by augmenting total deposits through loans. Such increases average over a very long period some 3 per cent. per annum of the total deposits.
Suppose that an Englishman, desiring to free his country from the power of the bankers, desires, instead of the increment being found in that way, that it should be found by an annual Budget deficit, which is a perfectly fair thing to ask for, and which tends to undermine the power and influence of the bankers—an object which my hon. Friends on this side would applaud, if they understood it, which they do not—America can come along and say, "No, you are bound by the terms of Marshall aid to balance your Budget." That is why I object to a condition like this. It is foreign interference with our internal financial matters.
Under Article IV we are required to do something else to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. This is gross interference with our financial independence. Article IV says that there shall be a special account in the Bank of England, into which there shall be paid the sterling equivalent of all the proceeds of Marshall Aid goods. I do not object to that. Nor do I object to the fund being used for
82
the amortisation of debt; but I object to foreigners dictating what kind of debt shall be amortised. They do that, when they say:
"Effective retirement of the national debt, especially debt held by the Central Bank or other banking institutions."
That is floating debt, and they single it out for two reasons. First, if we amortise that sort of debt, there is no benefit to the taxpayer. The interest on it is so small as to be negligible, but there is a direct deflationary effect; and American bankers, true to form, believe that that which is deflationary is praiseworthy. Too many right hon. Members on these benches believe that, and the entire party opposite believe it; they believe it, because deflation is the mother of unemployment, and unemployment is the mother of servility in the minds of the working-class. I am against anything deflationary, and this sort of debt retirement is deflationary. My right hon. and learned Friend said that in certain circumstances it would be long-term debt that would be amortised. But what of the stipulation
"debt held by the Central Bank, or other banking institutions"?
We would not be allowed to amortise long-term debt carrying interest at a rate of 2½ or 3 per cent. We could not do that, because that would be to convert bonds which are frozen, into cash which is liquid, and that would be inflationary and against all the rules.
I find that these financial conditions are harsh and unconscionable. I think, however, that I understand why they exist. There is something else about the floating debt which the American bankers know and the British bankers know. Whether the House of Commons know it or not, I do not know. There is really no moral obligation on any Government to repay its floating debt. Any Government may rightly and properly, without violating any ethical canon, simply cancel its floating debt out of existence for the reason that, in the case of bank-held floating debt, the lender does not part with what he lends—he merely creates it. The American bankers know that, and they want to protect the British bankers against the sort of attack which may come from people who think as I do. The American bankers have Alberta just across their frontiers, and in the light of

83
that they are anxious to impose on us harsh and unconscionable financial conditions. I have an objection to Colonial penetration and to financial strings.
There are many sections in this Agreement to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, not always so frankly as he might have done. There is, for example, section 3 of Article I about offshore purchases. We are required, as he said, to take steps to ensure that the purchase of certain things from areas outside the United States shall be effected at reasonable prices. But there is nothing about reasonable prices in respect of purchases in the land where Marshall aid originates. They do not apply to their own country the criteria which they apply to Canada or the Argentine. Article II, section (1, a) says that we are to have the use of Marshall Aid for
"purposes consistent with this Agreement."
That rules out using Marshall Aid dollars for current Dominion deficits, and that is, therefore, a direct slap at the sterling area. That is a very mischievous Clause.
Article II, section 1 (iii), deals with British capital assets in the United States. As my right hon. and learned Friend insisted, we are not required to sell these. I suspect, and I should like some guarantee on this, that if we are not required to sell them, we shall have to use them as collateral for dubious loans which the ordinary American commercial bankers or the World Bank would refuse to underwrite. I suspect that that is the reason for this section, and I think it a mischievous section. I regret that we should fall for it.
But the thing goes much further than this. We are required under paragraph (b) to submit to the American Government detailed proposals for specific projects in connection with our own basic industries. If we propose to expand basic industries with goods delivered under Marshall Aid, how can we disentangle what we do with Marshall Aid goods from what we do with other goods. The quantity of steel available from Marshall Aid resources may bring the total quantity to X plus A. We may use A somewhere else, but if we use X we shall be indirectly concerned with Marshall Aid. We have nationalised coal and transportation, and we are proposing
84
to nationalise steel. As for food, we have taken that off a business basis and put it on a basis of service. Under this Section, we are required to submit to the Americans any project whatever for expanding these basic industries. Now, that means saying goodbye to all hopes of raising the standard of life of our people through expanding our basic industries sufficiently to make possible a much higher all-round output. Otherwise, why are these basic industries mentioned in this Article?
I will refer only very briefly to section 2 of Article II, which refers to displaced persons. "The Times" this morning had a leading article contrasting our own record in that respect very favourably with that of the Americans. Who are they, that they should impose that sort of condition upon us? Let them do their share with displaced persons before they ask us to do any more.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the hon. Member not aware that they have just agreed to take over 200,000?
Mr. Smith: I am also aware that President Truman chided Congress for behaving in so niggardly a fashion over those 200,000.
Section 3 of Article II prevents us from fostering monopolistic control. Now, hon. and right hon. Members opposite have often argued—and I, as an objective, genuine, reasonable man, am prepared to admit that their arguments have been cogent—that nationalisation involves monopolistic control. That does not frighten me off nationalisation; but I think hon. Members opposite have some cogency in their argument when they make that case against nationalisation. Monopolistic control? Well, why are we inhibited from fostering monopolistic control? That might mean that we are inhibited from expanding our steel industry. Under this section it would be possible for the Americans to say, "If you nationalise steel, you make it monopolistic; and if you propose to expand it, what you are doing is upsetting the joint programme of European recovery." They might argue because Western Germany is included in this scheme, that Western Germany's contribution should be by way of expanding her steel output, so that if we expand our productive capacity in Great Britain we

85
are going to upset the whole balance of European economy. If they did that, it would mean that we should be saying goodbye to the great hopes that we have of presently raising the standard of life in our country, which we can do only by expanding first the production of our basic industries.
There are other objectionable conditions which I find very frightening. I cannot help looking at section 3 of Article VIII, which provides for the most elaborate publicity on all this. All this elaborate publicity which we are required, in the days ahead, to give to Marshall Aid contrasts ill with the hush and the rush that have characterised the handling of this business ever since 3rd April. I am glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend return to the Chamber; I have waited for him to come in before making what is in the nature of a quite objective personal charge against him. I say that this business has been subject to hush and rush. The terms of this Agreement are substantially identical with those laid down in section 115 (b) of the European Recovery Act of Congress. I think any reasonable- minded Member will agree that is so. Now, last Tuesday my right hon. and learned Friend came to this House and gave the House eight days' notice to approve this Agreement: just eight days' notice. He then said:
"For the convenience of the House, I am having that Section reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 2022.]
That is what he said; it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Tuesday. And he did have section 115 (b) reproduced. Why did not he cause it to appear before? It was printed 12 weeks ago. Was it because His Majesty's Government did not want any discussion on this?
But it is not only my right hon. and learned Friend who has offended: the British newspaper Press kept it dark for 11 weeks. Not until 18th June did the "Financial Times" come out with section 115 (b) in full; it had not appeared until then. I have ascertained that before 18th June Lobby correspondents discussed section 115 (b) with officials in Government offices: but their papers printed nothing. When I used to earn my living in Fleet Street, it sometimes happened that the Government of the day
86
would send a request round to editors, advising them to ring down on certain news. The classical example was in 1936, when Fleet Street printed none of the news, which was appearing day by day in France and America, about the events leading up to the Abdication. Did anything like that happen this time?
Sir S. Cripps indicated assent.*
Mr. Smith: You know, some of my right hon. and learned Friend's answers appear to be rather pragmatical than related directly to absolute truth. On 7th April I asked my right hon. and learned Friend in very plain English: "Are there any strings to Marshall Aid?" Not only did he reply that there were no strings, but he used the word "fantastic" as applied to my suggestion that there were strings. The thing had been in existence four days; there is a cable under the Atlantic; we have got a diplomatic set-up in Washington; but I went about, on the strength of the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend, telling audiences that there were no strings attached to Marshall Aid. Little Simpleton believed it, because Little Simpleton had great confidence in the integrity of his right hon. and learned Friend. I must confess, that confidence has been a little shaken, and in future I shall feel tempted to examine very closely every perceptible facet of any answer which my right hon. and learned Friend may give at any time to any Member of this House.
Never before have I asked the House to listen to me for more than 20 minutes, and I must now ring down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Well, I know that other hon. Members want to speak. But I must say this in conclusion. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) referred to the fact that yesterday, Sunday, was Independence Day. Geography has, in very truth, made the United States independent of the rest of the world. Geography and what has happened in the last two or three decades have made us very dependent, for the time being, upon the rest of the world. We are not independent; we are not suppliant; but we are indigent.
We have got to have this aid, and I know it. If we do not have this aid, we cannot maintain full production. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said
* See Col. 226, lines 3–24.

87
in that respect was true, without any qualification; there was no pragmatism about that; it is true. There are hon. Members of this House who think we should look to Russia. We cannot do it. Russia has nothing to give away, for the very reason that we have nothing to give away. I want all the trade we can have with Russia; but that trade must necessarily be of the nature of an exchange of goods and services for goods and services. Russia is not in a position to give us anything. That is her misfortune, and ours.
We want something over and above what we can get by exchange. We want gifts, commensurate with the great gifts this country gave to the rest of the world in the 19th century under the operation of our overseas investment policy, which involved losses on the tremendous scale indicated by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). We want gifts now, commensurate with the inestimable gift of liberty which the rest of the world, including America, enjoys very largely because of sacrifices of British blood and British treasure—our disproportionate sacrifices in the late war. We want those things. The common people of America, I know, do not grudge us those things. The common people of America wish us well. I know that that is so. But if one looks a gift horse in the mouth, one sometimes sees that it is a Trojan horse; and the generosity of the common people of America contrasts very greatly with the calculating statecraft by which the rulers and financiers of that country are imposing conditions on to this aid, which they know we must have.
I believe very sincerely, and with all the intellect I have, that the hope of the world lies in this country's teaching the rest of the world how to combine individual liberty with economic abundance. I believe that. Russia cannot do it, because in Russia the individual human being is subordinated to the one-party State. America cannot do it, because they worship this inhuman law of supply and demand. Only Great Britain can do it, in conjunction with her Colonies, the Dominions and the other nations of Western Europe. Because of that, and because I think the conditions attached to this Agreement fatally impair any hope of building up Western Union, I ask the
88
House to join with me in opposing those conditions and in asking His Majesty's Government to re-open negotiations for the reconsideration of conditions which are obnoxious and burdensome.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Hollis: This is not a very joyous occasion; it is a highly actual occasion. I think it best that Members should keep their attention very closely to the particular propositions we are invited to consider. There are three major respects in which the situation today differs from the situation at the time when we were discussing the American Loan. The first, which has not so far been referred to, is that today we are debating this matter in a very much more immediately critical international situation, and, legitimate as it may be to argue that one country may without unfriendliness refuse the economic assistance of another, I do not think anyone can seriously doubt that if we rejected this Agreement it would be taken by other Powers as a sign of an Anglo-American rift, and might have most serious international consequences. It is no good arguing whether they have a right to make that interpretation; and I do not think anyone would seriously doubt that they would not do so.
The second factor is one which the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), whose speeches I always so greatly enjoy, a little overlooked. The hon. Member said that he wanted to have Marshall aid, but that he did not want to have Marshall aid on these conditions. He overlooked the fact that the situation today is different from the situation at the time of the loan in this respect, that the American administration is only negotiating under authority given to it by an Act of a Congress which has already passed away, and therefore there is no scope for modification of the aid beyond the terms of that Act, and that, therefore, rightly or wrongly, we must take it or leave it. That is the way these negotiations have been carried on.
The third strand of the hon. Member's argument, in his criticism of fixing the rate of exchange and of the threats to our Imperial position, was to suppose that were we to reject this Agreement we should then be entirely free people. That is not the situation at all. Both the hon. Member and I were opposed to the loan, but rightly or wrongly this House accepted

89
it, and rightly or wrongly we accepted Bretton Woods, Geneva and Havana, and all the obligations which this country undertook under those Agreements are obligations which still stand, whether this Agreement is rejected or not. Therefore, the only serious matter to which to give our minds is not whether there are things in this paper which are inconvenient, or whether this country is tied by certain obligations that are inconvenient, but whether there are additional obligations undertaken in this Agreement which justify us rejecting it.
When we consider the desperate economic condition of the country, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that we cannot take the responsibility of rejecting this Agreement. But I entirely agree with him also, that though we must accept the fact of being in this pass, that does not mean that we must not vigorously condemn the Government which has brought us into this pass. We need not go into the whole argument whether the Loan should have been accepted or not, but I would point out that among the many voices which would not counsel rejection of that Loan there was none more responsible than that of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), but he gave the country a warning that
"unless all help and encouragement is given to those industries on which we have to depend for the development of our export trade, and unless everything possible is done to maintain the prestige of sterling and to create conditions of confidence throughout the world … I think that a breakdown is inevitable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1945; Vol. 417, c. 454.]
Our complaint is not so much that the Government accepted the loan, but that having accepted it they pursued a policy which made it mathematically certain that the loan policy would fail, and there-for this Government are to a very large extent responsible for the position in which the country finds itself today. The hon. Member for South Nottingham has tabled a Motion in which he says we have a right to expect assistance from America "unconditionally and as of right." He failed to note throughout his speech a matter which is surely of no small importance; that it is America which is giving the money and we who are receiving it. That makes a certain difference in making a bargan.
90
I have expressed at times in this House some concern about certain aspects of American policy, but let us try and see what is the American point of view on this question. First, the hon. Member quarrelled with the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that this was an unparalleled act of generosity on behalf of the American people because they were giving away very large sums of money. The hon. Member's repartee to my right hon. Friend was that British overseas investors throughout the course of the Nineteenth Century had also lost a large sum of money, and that therefore there was no unparalleled generosity here. Surely, there is a very great deal of difference between the person who deliberately and with his eyes open gives away money and the person who makes a bad investment. If the hon. Member cannot see any distinction then it is very difficult to see on what he bases his argument.
Mr. N. Smith: I learned these facts a good number of years ago from a book called "The Breakdown of Money," written by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). It is all in his own book.
Mr. Hollis: It is in my book, a very admirable book, and I thank the hon. Member for giving it publicity, but it does not alter the fact that the investments were aimed at making money but were foolishly made and therefore money was lost. I do not see the parallel between a person who makes a bad investment and loses his money, and a person who makes a gift with no intention of getting his money back.
Secondly, the Americans—and the people of this country—were told that they were making a loan to this country which would be used as a spring-board and would keep it going for some two or three years. Instead, it was exhaused in little more than one year, and far from being used as a spring-board it was used as a penny-in-the-slot to start up the "Song in the Heart" of the Chancellor—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, of course. His worst enemy would not accuse the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of having a song in his heart. Instead, it was expended after little more than a year, and then Oliver Twist goes back

91
and asks for more; but it is not recorded of Dickens' Oliver Twist that he took that particular moment to criticise the workhouse system, or to cast aspersions on the personal appearance of Mr. Bumble. I cannot see that we can seriously object to the Americans having some say in what is to be done with their money when they are not going to ask for their money to be given back. The only serious question is whether that say is inordinate and against our honour to such an extent that we should refuse.
This Agreement has been attacked on one or two grounds. Writers in the newspapers of Lord Beaverbrook have attacked it very vigorously as a sell-out of the Empire, and we should most carefully study it to see whether our Imperial interests are in any way fatally compromised. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. I cannot see that in point of fact they are compromised by this Agreement. There are relevant articles such as section 3 of Article 2 which talk about arrangements affecting international trade and which restrain competition, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, all that the Government are under an obligation to do under that article is to take the measures they deem appropriate. Naturally enough, we on this side of the House think it highly probable that the measures which the Government deem appropriate will turn out to be extremely foolish measures. But that is a reason for getting rid of the Government, and not a reason for getting rid of the Agreement.
Again, by article V (2, b) the Government accept the obligation, when so requested by the Government of the United States, to negotiate, where applicable, the arrangements for the entry of American capital into the colonies. The hon. Member for South Nottingham was very concerned about the possibility of American capital coming into the Colonial Empire. I found it rather difficult to follow his argument, the first stage of which was that when people exported capital they practically always lost it and, therefore, it was a gift. The second stage was that it was absolutely essential that the Americans should make gifts to the rest of the world, and the third stage should then surely have been that it would
92
be admirable that they should invest in the British Colonial Empire because that would be a way of making gifts to the rest of the world.
Mr. N. Smith: Has the hon. Member forgotten the fourth stage of my contention, which was that American economic penetration of our Colonial Empire was to be financed on the strength of collateral, as represented by our investments in the United States, which we should proceed to lose?
Mr. Hollis: That does not seem to me an argument of the hon. Member. It seems to me an assertion which he would find it very difficult to substantiate.
We come now to this other matter, which we should view with great concern—whether our exchange policy is vitally compromised by this Agreement. I was no supporter of Bretton Woods; it seemed to me to be an agreement between two runaway horses to run away at exactly the same pace. I do not believe that a more stupid Agreement was ever made. I agree with the hon. Member, however, in not knowing what the words "valid rate of exchange" mean. If that is not clear it is, at any rate, an advantage, because we have at least undertaken a meaningless obligation instead of a very harmful one, such as we previously undertook. I cannot see that we have undertaken any new obligation by this Agreement.
The hon. Member for South Nottingham made great play with the obligation which the Government had accepted to balance the Budget. But the Government only accepted the obligation to "use their best endeavours to balance the Budget." And the Chancellor pointed cut that there was an annex by which when they said balance it now they did not really mean it, that they were only going to balance it "in the long run." That phrase seems to me entirely meaningless. I do not necessarily defend this traffic in meaningless phrases, but it is better than nothing. To say that the Budget should be balanced every year has some meaning. To say that it should be balanced over, say, seven years, has some meaning, whereas to say that that something must be balanced in the long run without defining how long, is, as a legal obligation, entirely meaningless. It is like telling us that if a coin is spun often

93
enough it will come down an equal number of times heads and tails; we spin it three times and it does not. "Oh," they say, "go on long enough and you will find it does." But this really means: "If you stop when heads and tails are equal, you stop when heads and tails are equal" and means nothing else whatsoever. So, balancing the Budget in the long run has no meaning whatever.
It seems to me that far from undertaking new obligations by this document, we are, on the contrary, rather less closely bound than we were by obligations already undertaken. That being so, and seeing the country's enormous need of the money, I could not give my vote in favour of rejection of this Agreement. I agree that there is plenty of general reasons for anxiety about the commercial relations between the Western and Eastern hemispheres, because of the vast surplus of American exports over imports which has existed ever since the 1914 war. I agree that this Agreement does not solve that problem, and I entirely agree in condemning the folly of the Treasury Bench and others, elsewhere, who sometimes talk as though surplus of exports over imports were a temporary phenomenon likely to be cured by 1951 or 1952. And I have, too, spoken in criticism several times of a certain slowness on the part of the Americans in realising that if they want to sell goods abroad and expect to be paid, they must be prepared to take goods in payment. But, gracious Heavens, this surely is hardly a generous moment to make that criticism. We may have been right to make it in the past. We may have to make it in the future, but when we are being given hundreds of millions of dollars it is hardly generous at this time to make it in the present. Without any sort of pride in the position to which His Majesty's Government have brought this country, and without any sort of illusion that this document contains a magic formula for the solution of all the economic troubles of the world, I shall, without hesitation, support it.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Jenkins: So far in this Debate there has been, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), a certain amount of unanimity in acknowledging the generosity of the American nation in putting forward this
94
European Recovery Programme. I am glad that that has been so. Whatever the possible argument that the Americans may be actuated by self-interest in doing this, they are, at least, actuated by farsighted self-interest. That is a great deal more rare and more welcome than shortsighted self-interest. The unanimity of approach, however, was rather abruptly broken by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who is not here at the moment. He took the opportunity to upbraid the record of the Government during the last three years, and to point out, almost with amazement, that the Americans were so tolerant as not to interfere in the internal political and economic systems of our country.
This sort of attitude on the part of Members opposite leads us to think that some of them are a little disappointed that the Americans have been so forbearing on this point, and have shown such reluctance to pull Conservative chestnuts out of the fire. The point was also made that without this aid we should be facing substantial unemployment in this country. We are not surprised that Members opposite should make that point, because it is a good debating point and prominent Government spokesmen have admitted that this would be so.
But it is unreasonable that Members opposite should go on from there to say that the achievement of the Government in maintaining full employment during these three post-war years is therefore negligible, or that the only difference on this point between the Government and prewar Conservative Governments is that we have had the American Loan, or will have Marshall Aid, and that they did not. These forms of external aid are deflationary in their effect and in themselves, apart from the special circumstances of the time, they tend to diminish rather than decrease the volume of employment. In 1935, if we had had some such aid as Marshall Aid coming from overseas, under the system by which our economy was then ordered, the effect would have been not to do away with two million unemployed but probably to create four million unemployed.
I and a great number of hon. Members on this side of the House welcome the European Recovery Programme not only because of the very necessary material help it will give to this country, but also

95
because we think it will greatly facilitate the establishment of Western Union. But it is clear, and it was made clear to a large extent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the sort of Western Union that this programme will facilitate, whatever hon. Members opposite will think and whatever sort of internal regime which the United States may have, is not a union based on free economies or laissez faire systems of Government. If we look at the draft Economic Co-operation Agreement, which our representatives have initialled and which we have before us in the form of a White Paper, we are able to see the form of agreement which is being applied to other countries. We find that Socialist Britain with its planned economy is required to do comparatively little, but it is other countries in Europe with their free or semi-free economies, which are required to make alterations in their economic programme and generally to pull up their socks economically.
Article II, which it is agreed is one of the most important Articles in the Agreement begins by saying that the United Kingdom is
"to adopt or maintain the measures necessary to ensure the efficient and practical use of all the resources available to it."
That motif of "adopt or maintain" is repeated several times throughout the Agreement. Sometimes it is "Restore or maintain" and sometimes "establish or maintain." There is no doubt that this dichotomy of phrase is explained by the fact that to a large extent, curious though it may seem, the United States is satisfied with the general framework adopted by Britain under a Labour Government, but not satisfied with the general framework adopted by other European countries the Governments of which are of different shades of opinion. In section 1 (a) (i) we have to insure that the supplies are not diverted into the black market. I do not suppose it was primarily of the United Kingdom which the United States was thinking when this Article was negotiated.
In section 1 (a) (iii) of this same article we have the proviso that the dollar resources of the citizens of participating countries must be fully mobilised. Here again I do not suppose for one moment it was of this country that America was thinking when this was put in. In section 1 (c) we have the point about the
96
valid rates of exchange and balanced Governmental budgets. Again it is not Great Britain with its Labour Government which will have to change its ways.
Article V might almost be interpreted as encouraging the Governments of the 16 nations to take part in bulk marketing arrangements, slowness in the practice of which hon. Members opposite would not be likely to say was a fault of this Government. Therefore it may seem paradoxical, but the outcome of this Agreement is likely to be that, so far from restricting the freedom of this country to work out its economic destiny, it is more likely to ensure that other countries will come up to our standards, and thus create a sort of economic basis for Western Europe which we on this side of the House regard as tolerable. For that reason I welcome it very much.
It may be true, as hon. Members on the other side of the House are very fond of telling us, that we cannot build up Western Union on the foundation of those political parties which subscribe to the Second International. I agree that that is far too narrow a basis. It is equally true, however, that we cannot build up Western Union on a system of chaotic regimes with free economies, and that seems to be recognised in practice if not in theory by the Government of the United States.
I should like for my last point to turn to the internal economic position of the country with which the Chancellor himself dealt to a certain extent. I take it that the European Recovery Programme is in itself no more disinflationary than is the system under which we have been living, that of having a deficit on one's balance of payments and financing it out of one's gold and dollar reserves. I hope that the drain on our gold and dollar reserves will stop and will be replaced by Marshall Aid. But from the point of view of the inflationary situation at home this will not make any difference one way or the other. We will still be just as much in need of the Chancellor's deflationary Budget as we would be without the European Recovery Programme.
I should like to add a little to the divergent views that have been expressed on how far we need to go in this direction of deflation. I remember on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill several

97
hon. Members on this side of the House expressed the view that the Chancellor had already gone far enough and should now call a halt. They seemed to be taking up the point of view that as soon as any hardship arose it should be immediately corrected even though it meant the Government abandoning its general economic policy. The Chancellor himself went rather far in the other direction, and in his speech on that day said:
"There is still a very great amount of under-manning in some of our most essential industries, and until that state of affairs is cured we cannot say that we have disinflated our economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 1729.]
I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that the present immobility of labour and more so of female labour than of male labour, caused very largely by the housing shortage, means that he will have to go a very long way in the direction of deflation before completely overcoming the difficulty of under-manning in our basic industries. He will indeed have to go so far that he will cause widespread unemployment and widespread hardship before that is achieved. But on the other hand I believe that one has to be prepared for a certain amount of ruthlessness in this direction. I hope the Chancellor will resist the pressure that will be put upon him every time a third-rate company in a luxury goods trade becomes bankrupt and has to close down. We have to be prepared for a certain amount of that, and, indeed, that sort of thing has to happen if we are going to bring down the general level of profits which I and my hon. Friends regard as necessary and desirable.
I hope that two notes will stand out in this Debate, and will, therefore, impress themselves on the minds of the general public. First, I hope that they will realise that hon. Members on all sides of the House are grateful to the American nation for this offer which I believe should be most readily accepted. I hope, too, that nothing that is said today will in any way give the impression that E.R.P. will, even temporarily, solve all our difficulties. Certainly there can be no increase in our imports. It should also be said quite clearly that unless things go extraordinarily well for us, in regard both to our export programme and to world prices, there may well have to be further cuts in the comparatively near future. I believe that it
98
would be churlish not to stress the first point, and that it would be unbelievably foolish not to stress the second.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Jenkins) will excuse me if I do not follow him in the last part of his speech on domestic matters. I hesitate to shatter the delightful oasis of self-deception and unreality in the matter of what America thinks of the present Government in which he lives. I suggest that the first use of the dollars that the Chancellor will get might be to pay for a trip for the hon. Member to go to America and learn the real, naked truth of what the American people, and a good deal of American labour, think of the hon. Gentleman's Government.
I am one of a fairly large band of neo-Columbi who recently discovered, or have re-discovered, America by making a trip there—my fifteenth. I think it would be wise if I tried to show the background under which this Agreement came to birth. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) talked about fuss and rush. There was a good deal of rush, first of all as the Act went through Congress embodying this bilateral Agreement, and then to get the bilateral Agreement through. What was the cause of the rush? It was simply the running out of the loan far earlier than anybody there thought would happen, or at any rate that the present Government thought would happen. There is no doubt that, in the minds of a good many people in America in many walks of life, as well as in this country, the villain of the piece is the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
If one wants the truth, it is very easy to find. When Mr. Snyder of the American Treasury came over here in September of last year, the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred went down to Southampton to meet him. He gave an interview in which he said, despite what everybody knew to be the position at that time, that "we were marching along 'singing as we go'." That gives the measure of the quite unjustifiable ebullience and optimism, the complete belief in unreality and the refusal to look at the real facts of the convertibility clauses, which led us to the brink of disaster where we found ourselves at that time. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman

99
was warned from both sides of the House and from America about where we were going and of the actual conditions under which we should not get anything like the full benefit of the loan. That being so, it is obvious that the rush under which this Agreement has to be got through the Congress and Senate was understandable. The Americans were by no means pleased to see what they considered to be the considerable waste of the resources which had been put at our disposal. Hence what the Chancellor calls their "prudence" about the new loan.
If hon. Members will take the trouble to go and find out for themselves, will take the opinion of American Labour leaders, as I did, they will undoubtedly find that that was the main difficulty. What surprises me, what strikes me as extraordinary, is that even in the six weeks while I was in America there have been remarkable changes brought about in the form of the bilateral Agreement, considering that the Act of Congress which governs it, permits, and indeed almost lays down, an agreement less favourable to this country than that which is now facing us.
Mr. Scollan: I am rather interested to hear from the hon. Member that Congress were surprised at the effect of the convertibility clauses, considering that they inserted them.
Mr. Fletcher: That point is very easily dealt with. The loan arrangement was put through originally nearly three years ago, and a great deal that was in it was experimental. How those clauses were going to work at length began to be recognised both across the Atlantic and here, and many attempts were made to get the Chancellor and the Government to see how things were going and the new turn that things had taken. [An Hon. Member: "It is not true."] It is entirely true. I challenge anyone in this House to disprove that warnings were given to the right hon. Gentleman of what would take place. Now we face a more beneficial bilateral agreement than we might have expected.
There is a certain danger in that situation because it is a manifestation of change of mood that has taken place in America. In my view, the dangers we
100
face are not so much in the actual clauses of this Agreement, which have been put in such a form that they can hardly, any of them, be fully effective, qualified as they are, but in the possibility that when the circumstances of today and the mutual danger that we face begin to pass away, there may again be a change of mind and mood which will make some of the things to which we subscribe willingly today capable of being worked by less enlightened statesmen than those with whom we now have to deal in America. That moment may well be a danger moment, and I would like to sound a note of warning about it.
I must refer to what was said by the hon. Member for South Nottingham. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. He appears to have been sitting at the feet of the wrong Douglas. The little essay on Douglas Credit which he gave had very little to do with the present circumstances. He gave one note of warning which had a certain amount of weight in it, which was the long-term effect upon Colonial development which may arise under Article V. I consider that, as they stand, Articles IV and V, and V particularly, the stock-piling article, were undoubtedly drawn up in order to be well drawn legally and fairly watertight provisions. But they took as their model a common domestic utensil. Article V is a colander clause. It is so full of holes that it cannot be made to hold water.
What is the danger of stock-piling, and of the 5 per cent. purchase of strategic material? We can all see what has happened in stock-piling up to date. The 5 per cent. itself is not a very large loss of dollars, and may amount to about £10 millions of dollars or possibly less. It may be that the 5 per cent, is provided for reasons and uses outside strategic raw material. That was not in itself undesirable but it means that the normal way by which we should provide dollars has been diminished by that amount. It seems to me that it is rather a token amount. It might possibly be used rather differently in future years.
Let us try to understand why stockpiling on this enormous scale is being undertaken in America. I believe that it is not entirely on strategic grounds that the enormous amounts of material are being piled up in America. It is not to

101
be considered purely on strategic grounds. I think it arises from the fact that America says to herself: "I am going to lend a very large amount of money, partly from generosity, partly from a very wise recognition of interests mutual with ourselves, and partly from enlightened self-interest. What am I going to get back?" That is a perfectly reasonable question. American export trade is going to be considerably restricted, owing to the dearth of dollars, or the impossibility of obtaining them in a great many countries. What she can take from us in the normal way of trade is being considerably reduced, largely because of the great increase in quality of many goods which are made in America and with which we compete. That is particularly true of textiles.
A change in taste in America is diminishing the amount of high quality goods that we can sell to her. It is a curious commentary and one worth making, that one effect of Article V may be that the total that we export direct from this country, is not equal in dollar value to the total that is exported in one raw material from one colony, namely rubber. America has said: "I shall not be able to take very much manufactured goods because my markets are changing in taste and my goods are improving in quality. The best I can get will be raw materials in large quantities." One of the great dangers of that is that the unseen weight of goods held off the market, is very much greater than those which are visible and bring prices down; and the effect of stockpiling may well be to accentuate the dangerous tendency which exists in the disparity between the price of what we buy from America and the price of what we sell to America. One of the greatest difficulties and dangers is that an economy of two-dollar wheat and 20-cent rubber is not viable and cannot last very long without eating to a considerable extent into the reserves which the Chancellor has told us exists.
One of the things that should be undertaken by His Majesty's Government in the future negotiations which will go on through the various committees that have been set up is an attempt to equate in value the prices of what we deliver in the way of raw materials for stock-piling and what we take from America. That is a difficult question but it is worth while
102
studying. It will make this Agreement, which depends not so much on the Articles as on the spirit behind them, to an infinitely greater extent a much more effective instrument.
Now let us look at what has happened in practice. That was the dream; now we must get down to business. Take rubber, where stock-piling is going on in a very large way owing to the mistake which was made at Geneva. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is not here because he appeared in a white sheet about this on one occasion. It was a mistake started at Geneva and continued at Havana. Rubber was never brought into this Agreement in a proper way. What was the result? There is now in America a stock-pile of a certain magnitude, and under the agreements which we have made with America that stock-pile is supposed to be kept entirely separate from civilian needs, as it is called. However, that does not happen. It flows over. A certificate is given that, say, 25,000 tons can be let out because it requires to be turned over and replaced. Behind that America has a weapon in the way of synthetic rubber which is being abused. One of the greatest men in the industry stated that it is chiefly a means of keeping down the price of the raw material which is our main dollar provider.
If that continues, and continues in other articles, the whole programme towards European recovery may well come to nothing. It is no use talking about European recovery and in the next breath of our colonial inheritance, as if it did not really matter, or was not an integral part of it. The vast bulk of what America is to take from us comes from the colonial territories, and unless we have a degree of prosperity in Africa, the West Indies, Malaya and the Far East as an integral part of this apparently pure European scheme, Western European recovery on its own cannot and will not take place, and this programme will be entirely vitiated.
One of the first tasks of His Majesty's Government—let them thank their lucky stars that they have had such a good deal of this bilateral Agreement—is to see that the machinery for equating what we have to deliver against what we have to take is balanced. Let them strike while the iron is hot—while there is a generous

103
mood in America, and a great increase of knowledge and sense of world responsibility, which I found in everybody, including labour leaders who are by no means against private enterprise and would far rather have their form of economy than ours. They are more enlightened to that extent than our labour leaders are. Everyone in America has a greater degree of responsibility than ever before. However, when the change comes, when the present dark clouds roll away, I do not know whether that will continue.
On the question of stock-piling, there is one other very important thing to be said. There are others in the world who wish to stock-pile too. Do not let His Majesty's Government be tardy in their arrangements for seeing that stock-piling is carried out as soon as possible. It can be done in a number of ways but one way in which it cannot be done because it gives the greatest disadvantage is, I believe, though I do not intend to go too far on this matter, by unlightened bulk purchases. America is not really wedded to that form of state trading. I believe other methods are well available. In all of them, I would utter one note of warning about the so-called "acceding Clause." It is taken for granted that all territories will accede and that it will naturally be in their interests in the long run to do so. Malaya, however, for example, may point out that she produces a mass of dollars but does not get equivalent advantages. It may be a little more difficult to get a territory to accede in such circumstances.
When a territory does accede, let it be quite certain that the dollars which are produced are sufficient in volume. Let us be quite certain that the error which crept in at Geneva and which was perpetuated at Havana is not repeated. In this instance I offer a direct criticism of American methods. I believe that to use the existence of synthetic rubber in order to keep down unduly and unfairly the price of raw rubber is an example that may well be followed unless steps are taken to see that it is not followed. I strongly urge that we should be quite frank and open about this. One of the luxuries one can allow oneself when dealing with countries with which is on such a friendly basis is to say what one thinks and bring some of these difficulties into the open.
104
The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smithy) said that this Agreement was a slap in the eye for this country. It would be impossible to think of any phrase giving a greater measure of foolishness. It is quite likely that in due course we may have to offer the other eye for a second slap. If the terms of trade run heavily against us and if the gap between what we have to sell America and what we have to take from America remains so great, this slap may not be sufficient. It was said by a man in America of considerable eminence, "Do not look upon European aid as being a slice of a cake which you can cut again whenever it suits you. It is nothing of the sort. It is one opportunity being given to you and the rest of Europe to put yourselves on your feet again. It must be regarded not as an opiate but as an opportunity."
Taking that into consideration, I end on this note of warning. Let there be no complacency and no thought that the Government have brought off a coup through the brilliant work done by the Ambassador in Washington and his team, that they have a much better Agreement than they thought, that it is a blessing for Socialism and all its works, and that they can continue to think that the export drive on its present scale and the amount of reserves we have leaves us in a state where we can relax. None of that is true. This may be generosity or self-interest or any of the things we label it, but looking at it on the figures alone, it is the narrowest possible gap through which by our own exertions through the next few years, taking into account our colonial responsibilities as well as those in Europe, we may just get to safety and no more.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. Platts-Mills: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and myself, to reject Marshall Aid, in line 1, to leave out from "That," to end, and add:
"in the opinion of this House, acceptance of the terms set out in the White Paper relating to the grant of Marshall Aid will not solve our present economic difficulties but, on the contrary, will lead to the further political and economic subordination of the country to the changing requirements of U.S. industry, and will make unemployment inevitable; this House accordingly calls upon His Majesty's Government not to ratify the Economic Co-operation

105
Agreement with the Government of U.S.A., but instead, to initiate trade negotiations of a far reaching character with the U.S.S.R. and the countries of Eastern Europe so as to avoid the threatened isolation of Great Britain, lessen dependence on the U.S.A., minimise the effect on Britain of an economic slump in America, and improve British bargaining power in relation to the U.S.A.; and is of the opinion that such an alternative policy would lead the American Government in its own interest to make credits, capital goods and raw materials available to all countries equally, without imposing onerous conditions such as are at present proposed."
Mr. Speaker: As I have not selected that Amendment, the hon. Member cannot move it.
Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not move my Amendment. Perhaps I may address to the Motion such observations as I would have liked to do if I had moved the Amendment. I was a little confused when I heard the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) disclose to the House such a picture of the ruthlessness of the attitude of American businessmen towards our country in dealings in rubber and yet heard him anxiously urging that we should accept the terms of Marshall Aid.
Mr. W. Fletcher: May I correct a slight inaccuracy? I suppose it is the natural trend of thought with the hon. Gentleman. I did not say "businessmen." The hon. Member has added the word "businessmen."
Mr. Platts-Mills: If the hon. Gentleman meant the Government, I understand that, too, but I thought from the way he was speaking that those who controlled synthetic rubber were the American businessmen.
Mr. Fletcher: That is controlled by the Shaeffer Act passed by the United States Government.
Mr. Platts-Mills: This is not an Economic Co-operation Agreement but, as was shown by my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith), it is an agreement for the economic strangulation of Britain and nothing less. If we accept these terms, we shall be yielding up our commercial independence, we shall be abandoning the last vestige of political freedom, and we shall finally be submitting this country to a colonial status on a level with that of the most humble of the 16 nations.
106
No one would reject external aid if it were genuine. There are few points on which any one of us would challenge the unhappy picture given on both sides of the House of our need, but if we look at the political realities behind it, on which one or two hon. Members have only barely touched, we find that Marshall Aid is not genuine. It offers no cure for our economic ills. It will inflame and worsen them. I commend by contrast the honesty of the draftsman of the original Act upon which all this is based, the American Foreign Assistance Act—and I ask in passing how many right hon. Gentlemen have looked at the Act and have been in contact with its terms?—where, in the Preamble, among other things he describes the Act as:
"An Act to promote the general welfare of the United States."
Superficially, of course, that is an accurate description of it, but it is only superficial.
Mr. Fletcher: Excuse me, that is inaccurate, if I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have in my hand Public Law 472 of the 80th Congress. It says: "To promote world peace"—
Mr. Platts-Mills: I would rather the hon. Member did not interrupt me—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, I am afraid the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Fletcher) cannot persist.
Mr. Platts-Mills: I have the Act and I propose to refer to the other terms of the Preamble. The hon. Member is quite right. I should have said that part of the Preamble describes it in that way. What the draftsman should have said was that it was an act for the general welfare of United States businessmen. May we look at the Agreement which the Government have put before the House tonight? Any student looking at an agreement expects at least two qualities of it: that its terms are certain and that it has the quality of mutuality, that each side has a fair chance in the agreement. I invite any hon. Member to take this to the greenest law student he can find, the merest tyro round the courts; he will reject it with contempt as being totally uncertain and totally lacking in mutuality—entirely one-sided.

107
To begin with Article I. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will give attention to the document, they will find something of value to them in it. Article I provides for assistance and line 4 of section 1 says that the assistance is to be such as is approved by the United States. Suppose they do not approve? They alone decide. Then let us turn to the principal question that arises on any contract to buy anything—the question of the price. At the moment I am not speaking of the political price; we will learn something of that as this Debate goes on; I mean the cash price. That is the most elementary requirement. There is no provision in this Agreement, or in any of the documents accompanying it, as to how the price will be fixed—I mean the price for the main purchases that we make. I agree that under section 3 the offshore purchases are to be at a reasonable price, but there is no provision for a fixing of the price, not even by the test of reasonableness, of the goods which we get from the United States.
Let us assume that they will be the world prices. But world prices in our experience in these days are defined by American prices and by no others, even for the goods we produce exclusively in the Empire, such as cocoa. This House has found to its astonishment that in Britain we pay American prices for the cocoa we produce in the Empire, though none is produced in America. What was our experience with the American loan? It was that the prices of the goods provided to us by the Americans, when we last had this kind of dealing with them—remember what the Prime Minister told us—rose 40 per cent. in the course of carrying out the Agreement, and so robbed us of a proportionate amount. Can that happen again? Hon. Members will have noticed that the "Observer" reporter in New York yesterday estimated that already, before the Agreement comes into effect, so great has been the rise in American prices since July of last year—the date at which our needs are said to have been assessed—we have lost £100 million worth of the goods that we are supposed to get under American aid.
Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman mentioned cocoa. Is he aware that the facts in that case are that the price at
108
which we sell these goods, produced in the sterling area, is the New York terminal cocoa price, and that as a result we have made £50 million profit between the price we pay the producer and the price we sell on the market?
Mr. Platts-Mills: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to emphasise my point, I accept what he has said; it is perfectly correct; otherwise his intervention was meaningless.
May I turn to Article II? As the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Jenkins) said, this is an important article. It provides the machinery. The most striking part of it, as the Chancellor pointed out, is that which requires that Great Britain shall comply with the production targets fixed by the O.E.E.C. That means production targets designated by the United States of America. I will tell the House why I say that. Everybody has observed that from the very first day in July, 1947, when the Foreign Secretary raced headlong to Paris, to try to capture the leadership in the task of shepherding Western Europe into the Marshall fold—from that day the 16 nations, first in C.E.E.C. and then in O.E.E.C., have been distinguished by one quality—they have acceded to the slightest whim of the American adviser.
The Foreign Secretary has led in this field. I first encountered this sort of leadership as a youth in New Zealand, in the meat works at Ngauranga. In that place the task was to get the sheep to be slaughtered. They climb up a slope to the top of the building where the slaughterer takes the first step in converting them into prime Canterbury lamb. The device adopted is to get the oldest wether, the longest in tooth, to go in front. He is trained to do this; day after day he leads the run up to the top of the building, and the first blow strikes the second sheep, so that the leader is saved each time. In the Marshall slaughterhouse there is no saving of the leader, there is no remission of sentence, there is no postponement—although I fear that the Foreign Secretary has deluded himself into believing that is the case.
If we look at Article II, section 1 (c), we find the provision that has most interested the House, that is the requirement to maintain a valid rate of exchange. I ventured to draw attention to this in

109
the House some weeks ago. The Chancellor had denied in May that the Americans were insisting on such a clause. On 14th June the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, when I asked him, that it was undesirable from a public point of view to disclose this matter. It was only when public interest was aroused that we were told, in the course of the negotiations, that the Americans were insisting, and that our representative, the Ambassador, was fighting back gallantly and was rejecting the idea. In spite of what the Chancellor says, in spite of what we have heard in interventions from the President of the Board of Trade, it is not we who will decide the validity of the rate of exchange, but the Americans.
I say that for this reason: If it were an ordinary question of construction of a private bargain, it would be decided by a court. In this bargain, however, with its international setting, we notice that in Article VII—the provision which the Chancellor said was a common form of agreement but which I suggest is not habitual, because we do not habitually have agreements about these matters—there is a provision for consultation about any part of the Agreement. Every part of this Agreement depends upon future negotiations and consultation. Let us glance through the articles. In Article III:
"The Government will … consult."
In Article IV, section 6, we have the main provision explaining how we will spend our great reserve of dollars in the Bank of England, in the special account; it will be:
"for such purposes as may be agreed. …"
We then come to Article V, section 1 of which states that we
"will, when so requested … enter into negotiations.
These negotiations, agreements or discussions will be between unequal parties; between those, on the one hand, who claim and possess the power to insist and those, on the other hand—the leaders of the Government of today in this country—who say they are powerless to reject the demands of the Americans and have shown that they are determined to submit. Therefore, when the Americans ask for consultation, as they will, on the validity of our rate of exchange, they will decide what is the correct rate. Not only is that
110
so, but the very terms of the article provide that we will maintain confidence in our monetary system. That means to maintain confidence in the mind of the American Administrator—not in my mind or in your mind, Sir, but in the mind of the other party to the bargain; and when the American Administrator says that he no longer has any confidence, we will have to change our rate of exchange.
I beg the President of the Board of Trade, if he is to reply, to express his view about this skeleton of Hitler's "New Order" prescribed for Europe. The essence of that arrangement was not that Germany confiscated the great industrial concerns of the subject countries. It was that German big business men bought those concerns, and said they did so at a fair price; that was how it appeared in the native currency. But the Nazis decided the rate of exchange and of course only "after consultation."
Article II (1, d) is the one about which also some weeks ago I ventured to ask questions and was told that it was not right that we should consider or discuss this in public. This is the provision that we will reduce our tariff barriers. I venture to warn the House that there is no security for British industry, once our Government is required by obligation to discuss the reduction of barriers when the other party to the discussion has the threat of the right to withdraw aid.
So far as I remember, Article III contains the first express provisions by a British Government for the incursion of large-scale American investments into the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may think that that cannot harm us, for British capitalists have long since given up trying to invest in the United Kingdom. It is some time since the British capitalist has been prepared to invest in the basic industries of Britain—[Laughter.] It is so. That is why we have nationalised the bankrupt industries, coal and the railways. Indeed, that is the basis of our approach to the problem. It is not enough to say that the United Kingdom is safe, unless we observe that in this Agreement a novel definition of the United Kingdom is introduced. As the Chancellor today pointed out to the right hon. Member the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), the United Kingdom in this definition includes every colony in the Empire. A letter

111
accompanying the Agreement, and intended to be signed by the Foreign Secretary, says that for the moment:
"it is impossible … to give a complete list of those Colonial territories which will participate in the Agreement."
What is this humbug? To whom are we suggesting that the Colonies have a right of free choice in this issue? The Foreign Secretary goes on—
"It is my understanding that most Colonial Governments may be expected to participate in the Agreement within a very short time."
Within the time that it takes the Colonial Secretary to give instructions to the Governors? As the Chancellor said, it may be by the time this Debate is over. If any of the Colonial people should object, is there any doubt that the Prime Minister will declare a state of emergency in the Colony to dispose of the matter promptly?
Article IV provides for what we have called up to now the gift or grant—the gift that we pay for in full. Here we have a most interesting description of the price of the goods and services which we get. It is not to be agreed; it is not to be a world price or a reasonable price; it is the price indicated by the United States—"the indicated dollar cost" which every now and again they will notify to us. It is a price fixed exclusively by the U.S.A. We are then allowed to use the money we accumulate in the Bank of England and Article IV (6) tell us how. We are to spend the money,
"for such purposes as may be agreed…"
by the United States. They, then, particularise certain of the purposes which we all have in mind. The outstanding purpose is the contruction of works and the building-up of enterprise to increase our production of raw materials, which then will go to the United States. This is the lot of every Colonial and subject country—to provide raw materials for the industry of the superior. Article V, dealing with strategic materials, goes on to tell us what we are to do with this great reserve of raw materials which we are expected to build up. We are to give it to the United States—or, rather, we are to ship it to them. As the Chancellor pointed out, there is no limitation to 5 per cent., as some hon. Members have
112
thought; nor is it limited to strategic purposes. The article states, precisely,
"for stockpiling or other purposes"
—for any purposes that the United States may think right. I will tell the House what the first purpose will be. It will be not for strategic purposes, but to enable the new Germany to build up her industries. From the point of view of lawyers, and, perhaps, of politicians, Article V (2) is probably as jolly as anything which we have ever read in this House. The parties recognise
"the principle of equity."
On hearing that, we think at once of someone coming with open, clean hands; of the equality that flows from equity, and its fairness. But what is the "equity" between two great capitalist Powers, battling for world supplies of raw material and for the markets necessary to their bare survival? The principle of equity applied here is that the weakest goes to the wall.
On the outside of this document the Foreign Secretary tells us that we may get it for 4d. It is not worth 2d., and mainly for this reason: Article I—over which the Chancellor skipped with great skill and, perhaps, even with some relish because he was not interrupted—provides that the terms of this Agreement are the terms prescribed by the Act on which it is based—the American Foreign Assistance Act. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite will look at their copies, they will find that Section in 111 (a) prescribes the duty of the Administrator and says,
"the Administrator may … furnish assistance … upon the terms and conditions set forth in this title"—
which are hideous enough—
"and such additional terms … as he may determine."
If the right hon. Gentleman would like more read out, he can have it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has had it."] We cannot blame these terms upon the right hon. Gentleman, nor upon the Administrator or the American people. We must blame the terms on the American rulers. Our rôle is reduced to that of a suppliant who will have to beg for mercy when it comes to consultation. The duties of the Administrator are further prescribed—as being
"to maximise the use of private channels of trade."
Would the Foreign Secretary care to explain why that passage was omitted from

113
the terms of the Agreement which the British people were allowed to see? Was it because they voted for Socialism and the Government did not wish them to know that we are committed to an Agreement the whole basis of which is to prevent any move towards Socialism? Under Section III (a) (2) it is stipulated that a minimum of 50 per cent. of the goods moving from America shall if possible move in American bottoms. What happens to the British shipping industry if the Administrator cares to decree that the whole shall move under the American flag, as indeed he may? The only certain requirement is that he must decree 50 per cent., and the rest is at his whim. He must further, by Section 112 (b) take note of the
"undesirability of permitting any expansion in petroleum-consuming equipment."
In ordinary words, that means that the American Government says to him, "Strip these paupers of their petroleum. We will use it here at home where we need it."
Finally, I mention the famous Mundt Amendment, Section 117 (d), about which I have asked questions over the last three months and have got the answer that the Government are seeking clarification. I suspect that the Government are still doing that. If they bothered to read the newspapers, they would see what it really means. What the Mundt Agreement decrees is that the Administrator, if he finds we are selling any goods to Eastern Europe containing raw materials coming from America, must cut off those raw materials. That is the express requirement. He is free to make other terms, and in the last three days Mr. Hoffman has made a ruling that if we supply any goods at all which the Administrator does not want us to supply, the whole of Marshall Aid will be cut off instantly. It is not a question of the next shipment—the whole would be cut off. No wonder that the preamble to the Act says further:
"This Act is to promote the foreign policy of the United States of America."
That is precisely what it does.
Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Member has an early copy of the Act; this is a final copy that I hold in my hand.
Mr. Platts-Mills: If the hon. Member looks at the one which I received from the United States Embassy in Great
114
Britain two days ago, he will see that that is what it says. It is an American Act of Parliament and we expect the copy supplied by the Embassy to be correct. For six months past the American people have known the truth about the Administrator's position. On 27th February in "The United States News and World Report" it was stated:
"The Administrator of the Program is to become a director of world business. He will be in a position to tell France, for instance, whether to rebuild railways or to improve highways. He can decide whether farms are to be mechanised. He will determine whether Britain or the Ruhr gets first call on coal-mining machinery. He can stop the dollar flow altogether if countries do not abide by his terms."
As though that were not enough, there is a great deal worse in this bargain than we have seen, and the worst is in the rôle to be assigned to Germany. If we examine that rôle we see the scheme which American businessmen have for the whole world. United States metropolitan industry is to supply the American home market, South American and a great part of the British Empire; Japanese industry, under American control, is to supply Asia, and German industry, under American control, is to supply the whole of Europe and a great part of the Empire.
Under the Act itself, in Section 115 (f), we see that the Administrator is required by American law to demand—indeed, this was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) in the Debate on Germany last week—that we should agree to keep in Germany all the capital goods the Americans want to have kept there. It is the end of reparations. Is this why, for the last six months, the Foreign Secretary has been unable to explain, for example, in answer to my questions, why there has been a total stoppage of allocations of reparations from the Western zone, and why on Wednesday last he could only give the lamest and most halting explanation and could not refrain from his usual abuse of the Soviet Union? We saw an exhibition of the same sorry spectacle presented by the Minister of State this afternoon when I questioned him on the same issue.
The Agreement which we have before us now for the provision of most-favoured-nation treatment for Germany is the most disastrous step we have yet taken, or propose to take. The Chancellor made it sound most respectable by referring to the Havana

115
Charter; but the interesting thing about the Havana Charter is that, except for our relations with Germany, it has not come into effect and will not come into effect. We see the reason when we see how many have to adhere to it before it can come into effect. But we have adopted it for this purpose and propose to apply it to Germany, with the result that it will sweep Great Britain from the European market.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Wilson): We have not adopted it.
Mr. Platts-Mills: The President of the Board of Trade says that we have not adopted it, but if he looks at the terms of the application of the most-favoured-nation treatment to the 16 nations in paragraph 1 of Mr. Marshall's letter (Cmd. 7447) he will see that we set up these terms only for Germany, and between ourselves and the 16 nations. We preserve in the Agreement the minimum of protection for ourselves and the home market. But whereas in the first Agreement—the Marshall Aid Agreement—"the United Kingdom" meant the whole Empire, in this Agreement "the United Kingdom" means only the home and domestic market. Only that market is protected from German invasion. This means the return of German goods and the invasion we all knew years ago. I knew it in 1913 under the "D.R.G.M." mark and after that in the "Made in Japan" mark; and that German mark will dominate European trade again. Lest there be any doubt about that, hon. Members should bear in mind what was disclosed in an answer this afternoon by the Minister of State, when he confirmed that Bizonia has asked as its share of Marshall Aid for the first year one and a quarter billion dollars and, as the Chancellor showed this afternoon, it is in the first year more than one quarter of the whole amount which the 16 nations are to get. This at least is my understanding of the figures given by the Chancellor.
Mr. Nigel Birch: Did I gather that the hon. Member is in favour of no kind of revival for Western Germany?
Mr. Platts-Mills: The hon. Member would be quite mistaken if he thought I said anything of the kind, or if he thought that the people in Britain, who
116
honestly want the wellbeing of their country, want first of all to see the recreation of a mighty industrial power in Germany uncontrolled. What emerges is that America is determined to rebuild the Western zone of Germany, and to that purpose is to be devoted the great flood of raw materials which will become available to America under Article V. That is why the hon. Member for Bury was right in saying that it was not for stock-piling and strategic purposes alone but also for other purposes. That other purpose will, I suggest, be the equipping of Germany with raw materials with which she will flood the markets of Europe. When the American capitalist slump comes, as it will, what will be the position of Britain?
The alternative is set out in some detail in the Amendment in the name of myself and my hon. and learned Friend, which I ask hon. Members to read. If the House thinks that we are not in a position in which we can argue with the Americans, that we cannot fight back against them, that we cannot resist their terms, will they bear in mind what has happened in the last few days? When it became obvious that the Americans could not get our adherence to the agreement within the time limit demanded in their own Act, they found a simple legal fiction to extend the time—there was a weekend, and we could make it the 6th. Why not the 16th, the 26th, or the next six months? The Americans are desperate to obtain our adherence to the plan for Marshall aid Without it, they cannot obtain the markets on which they are dependent for the survival of their business. If anyone cares to make a stand against the Americans on these issues, they can come back not only with steel, of which there will be virtually nothing under the plan, not only with mining machines, which will now go to the Ruhr; they can come back with fair terms, our terms, with no political strings attached. They can come back with provisions which will ensure that the Americans fix fair prices for the goods for which we have bargained.
What we are seeing in Britain in peace time is what the occupied countries saw in wartime—the surrender by the leading capitalist forces of our country to the most powerful capitalist State in the world. I can understand that the capitalist forces and classes can do this with a quiet mind. When the ruling class loses confidence in

117
itself, it loses all sense of loyalty to its own country. But that the Labour Party should hope to build Socialism on the basis of surrender to the most ruthless, most powerful, violent predatory capitalist forces that have ever existed in the world, this is the most bitter commentary on the betrayal of their promises which has been made by the party's leaders. It was a crime to negotiate this Agreement, and the greatest crime has been to conceal its true meaning from the people of this country. If the people knew its true meaning today, they would reject it. When they learn it, as they will, in the suffering it will inflict on their own flesh and blood, and in the burden on their own bodies, they will reject it with anger. And let not hon. Gentlemen go whining and saying, "We did not know." I ask the House to reject the ignominious surrender which has been negotiated by His Majesty's Government.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Maclay: Article VIII of the Agreement which we are discussing reads as follows, and having listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) I sincerely hope that Article VIII will be amply fulfilled by everyone concerned; because obviously there is real need of it.
"The Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom recognise that it is in their mutual interest that full publicity be given to the objectives and progress of the joint programme for European recovery and of the actions taken in furtherance of that programme."
If ever there was a speech full of the most dangerous and vicious distortions, the one to which we have just listened is it.
Mr. Platts-Mills: If the hon. Member will disclose one distortion and one vicious one, I will accept his opinion.
Mr. Maclay: I propose in my speech to controvert practically everything which the hon. Member has said. In following up one part of the hon. Member's remarks I shall have to take a piece out of what would have been the middle of my remarks and deal with it now. We should get clear what is the Preamble to the Act. If I understood his statement aright, the hon. Member for Finsbury was quoting from an earlier version of the Preamble but so that we can get this matter clear let me read both versions. The hon. Member for Finsbury
118
makes some play of the fact that hon. Members did not appear to have looked at this Act.
Mr. Platts-Mills: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the Front Bench had not done so.
Mr. Maclay: Then let us get this point straight. If I understood the hon. Member aright the earlier version of the Bill read as follows:
"To promote the general welfare, national interest and foreign policy of the United States through the necessary economic financial and other assistance to foreign countries which undertake to co-operate with each other in the establishment and maintenance of economic conditions essential to a peaceful and prosperous world."
I think that is what the hon. Member began to quote.
Mr. Platts-Mills: No.
Mr. Maclay: Then the hon. Member quoted from the final version and missed out pieces of it. It reads:
"To promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest and foreign policy of the United States through economic, financial and other measures necessary to the maintenance of conditions abroad in which free institutions may survive and consistent with the maintenance of the strength and stability of the United States."
That is the whole, parts of which—I assume deliberately—the hon. Member gave.
Mr. Platts-Mills: The hon. Member is entitled to assume that. I said so. I said I was giving an extract and I repeated that when the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) challenged me.
Mr. Maclay: I only hope that we have at last got the record straight as to what the Preamble states. Taking pieces out of it is pretty dangerous. But even if the Preamble contained only what the hon. Member quoted I still think that there is nothing wrong or dishonourable from any point of view if this action was taken by the United States in its own interest. We have for years been longing for the United States to realise, once and for all, that it is an integral part of the whole world and that actions in this country and Western Europe will vitally affect the United States. But that is a point which I hope to develop as I go along. Other things which the hon. Member said were so numerous that

119
one cannot deal with them all. I was most intrigued when he suggested that the Front Bench were capitalists who had given way to another capitalist nation. It was puzzling and difficult to follow but I accept that as the hon. Member's charge against his own Front Bench.
I wish to return again to Article VIII because I intended that to be the theme of the remarks which I wish to make—the necessity for definite and clear publicity about the whole of the working of this Agreement once it is signed, if it is signed. I have most vivid memories of a most unfortunate situation arising in 1940 before the United States had entered the war. It arose from lack of proper publicity as to the aims, objects and methods of working of Lend-Lease. One evening in Washington an evening paper came out with what I think are technically called banner headlines, "British run up bill for 10 million dollars in Occidental Restaurant." We then read on and found a vivid description of what was alleged to have happened. The report said that one could go into the Occidental Restaurant any evening, say between five and six o'clock, and find red-faced British pukka sahibs calling out "Waiter bring me another whisky soda and charge it up to Lend-Lease." That was a fantastic piece of nonsense but it took several weeks of hard work to remove from people's minds a lot of the doubts which it started. It is a good illustration of the need for Article VIII to be fully implemented by both Governments and at all stages, and of the best possible publicity being given to the objectives, procedure and means of achieving the objectives.
It is clear from what we have already heard in this Debate and outside that there are two schools of thought about the Agreement. Some look on it, as does the hon. Member for Finsbury, as Britain's surrendering her whole economic sovereignty. There were other suggestions of that earlier in the Debate. There are others who think, as I do, that it is a piece of magnificent, far-sighted and generous statesmanship on the part of a nation upon whom events have almost thrust world leadership. I agree with everything the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said in connection with what we should feel towards
120
America about this. But between these two extremes there are a very large number of views, and I think it is extremely important that people should rightly understand what is happening, not only in this country but in the United States, and should see that we are working towards the end and objective which everyone wants to reach.
A short time ago I happened to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) in a Debate, and now I follow the hon. Member for Finsbury. I do not know whether that makes me in any way a fellow-traveller in any particular direction, but what has puzzled me about the arguments both of the hon. Member for Gateshead and the hon. Member for Finsbury is what they really mean by what they say and by what they write down. The hon. Member for Finsbury referred to a very clear statement in his own Amendment which we cannot now discuss in detail. But he is merely saying in that that we should turn to Russia and make an agreement with them instead of with the United States.
What signs have there been of Russia being prepared to make any agreement? I am told that the hon. Member for Finsbury is a man of great intellectual honesty. I would dearly like, even at the risk of another speech from him, to know what he really thinks and if he believes genuinely that we should not turn to the United States but that if we want an agreement, we can make one with Russia. That surely would be infinitely worse even than the horrible picture which the hon. Member for Finsbury has painted of this Agreement, but I would come from the far corners of the House if I heard that he was speaking and if I thought he would explain exactly what he means about that.
To return to the United States. When we are trying to decide the real merits of the Agreement, we should remember what has happened in recent years. We have had Lend-Lease, that tremendous outpouring of resources in the common effort. Then it is well to remember, that in the last four years, before this particular Agreement came up for discussion, before the Foreign Assistance Act, the United States had already extended in grants and loans to the nations of Western Europe no less than 12 million dollars—

121
8 million in loans and 4 million in grants. That is a very big figure. Under this Economic Co-operation Act the figure I have worked out is about 17 million dollars over the next four years. The right hon. Member for Aldershot said about 20 million dollars. Either of those are very large figures.
Let us remember, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, that these things have to be paid for by the American taxpayer in two ways, not only in a sustained high level of taxation but also in the inflationary pressure which through the European Recovery Programme, is bearing heavily on the whole United States domestic economy. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) talked about inflationary pressure and implied it was the result of allowing the wicked capitalists to push the prices up. If he were present I would ask him to remember that the biggest factor over these years since the war to keep inflationary pressure on their domestic economy is the outpouring of American resources in aid to other nations.
If that is so and if the United States is putting out all this money and effort, it is not unreasonable to ask why they are doing it. I repudiate violently the suggestion that it is charity. I do not think that is in the mind of any good American and I do not think it should be in our minds. It is really insulting, both to the United States and to ourselves. During the war every one of the United Nations, according to its circumstances, expended its energy and resources in the common effort. Equally, today I believe that the best thinking in America is convinced that a similar effort has to be made if we are to achieve anything like the stable world, the economic stability, and therefore the political sanity, without which none of us can survive.
It is clear that in trying to make a united effort towards this peace, the conditions we are up against are unfortunately more difficult than they were during the war. In war time the threat of the enemy does make united action relatively easy, even between a large number of nations. But in peace, even the kind we have now, national considerations, national institutions and susceptibilities are involved in almost everything we do in the way of
122
negotiation and agreement. Between 1940 and 1945 we worked out with the United States a quite remarkable system of combined Chiefs of Staff and Combined Boards which achieved under war conditions, a most astonishingly effective concentration of man power and resources on the one objective, which was the defeat of the enemy. But we cannot use these methods today and that undoubtedly is one of the difficulties with which we are faced.
What has taken their place? I get puzzled when I try to fathom it myself. We have the United Nations, the proposed International Trade Organisation, sections of which are vaguely working now, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and now we have the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation which is the Western European counterpart of the American decision to lend her full weight and resources to the united effort to achieve economic recovery. Each one of these highly complex organisations, and the linking up of each to each, is extremely difficult to fathom. Each one of them has to work in relation to the peculiar circumstances of the various partner nations in the different forms of combined effort. They will obviously call for the greatest forbearance and understanding between the nations concerned, particularly because there is not even agreement among the experts about the real diseases from which the world is suffering and there is not a remote agreement as to the real cures.
In these circumstances it is not very remarkable that each nation should be taking careful thought as to what their contribution is to be to the common effort and what is to happen to their contribution if it is made. I will not bore the House by quoting again the Preamble to the American Act, but in those words which I read out earlier we have a most refreshingly frank statement by the United States that she recognises that the only hope for world recovery is a united effort, and that she must take her part in it, and that she herself cannot survive unless there is this effort in which she is taking her full part. I would suggest that that is not charity. Nor is it looking for a dumping ground for surplus production. It is a frank recognition

123
that isolation is now dead. The hon. Member for Finsbury smiles. If any one wants a dumping ground for surplus production do they deliberately try to build up the economy and productive power of the nations which may be their competitors?
Mr. Platts-Mills: Since I am asked, may I say that their only course is to smash into the market of every other country in the world, and that is precisely what the United States is doing. It is what we did in our turn half a century ago.
Mr. Maclay: I am puzzled to understand how that particular charge can be levelled against this Agreement when exactly the opposite is the case. There has been great difficulty in persuading a considerable section of American business opinion that this Act is not deliberately building up their competitors in all the receiving nations. It is quite wrong that that kind of argument should go out to the public. I appeal again to Article VIII—
Mr. Platts-Mills: May this go out to the public? Germany is being built for this very purpose. The United States is eschewing the European market for manufactured goods and leaving it to her new satellite, Western Germany.
Mr. Maclay: That is not a point which I propose to follow up. It is in the same class of distortion about which I complained earlier on. I have been drawn aside into some very interesting diversions but we have to look at this Agreement, as an earlier speaker has said, from the point of view of whether there is anything in it which is inconsistent with our own interests, whether there is anything dishonourable, and whether there is anything we cannot fulfil.
One asks what is really in the Agreement. One must concentrate on the question of objectives. As far as I can make out, there are four objectives. There must be united effort among the 16 participating nations. That, surely, is an objective with which everyone of us agrees. We cannot do this thing on our own, and neither can any of the 16 nations. There must be a united effort in every country. That runs all through all the arguments leading up to the Agreement, and it is in the Agreement itself. Also, each nation must accept some measure of supervision
124
of the use to which American resources are to be put. It simply would not be a reasonable document if it did not contain a provision something like that. There is nothing remotely dishonourable in accepting that provision.
Another provision in Article V is that we shall all attempt to make available resources in which America is deficient. I should have thought that that was a very reasonable suggestion in return for a contribution to the common effort of the size which is being made. The horrible dangers which the hon. Member for Finsbury held up for our attention of our being forced to do things which we did not want to do are, of course, there. The whole Agreement is full of dangers. But if one agrees on the objectives, the dangers disappear, because in the process we are bound to have continual negotiation, discussion and, I expect, argument with our American friends. A great deal of cross-learning must go on. At the moment I believe it is correct to say that internationalists in America have become relatively sudden converts to multilateralism and free trade. That is a relatively recent process. I think that some Americans are exaggerating this and that some of us, on the other hand, having been advocates of multilateralism and free trade for a good many years—even some of us former enthusiasts—are changing our minds slightly. We cannot jump straight into these things, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot said. Out of this Agreement, and the discussions and negotiations which will follow, I sincerely hope that there will be a steady process of mutual education. I, for one, would not argue that the present British Government could not benefit by a bit of education from some of our American friends. That is what I hope will come from this Agreement.
One could go through endless dangers and one could say that terrible things could happen. I believe that in the working out of this Agreement we shall find exactly the same tolerant approach that those of us who had anything to do with the working of Lend-Lease found in the working of that arrangement. There were difficulties, and some rather absurd things happened. The real test is the frankness of the exchange of opinion between the Governments concerned. I urge most strongly on the Government

125
that they should see that the exchange of opinion is full and frank on both sides. There is no need for this to be a one-way traffic. It must be a two-way traffic. When we have men like Mr. Harriman and Mr. Finletter in the United Kingdom who have tremendous experience in these matters I believe that we have no cause to fear.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Mackay: We have had a very wide discussion in the course of this Debate, but I do not think that anything we have heard has quite exceeded the extreme extent to which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) completely distorted the whole of the Agreement and the Act on which it is based. I raise this matter because I do not want to let it go unchallenged from this side of the House. While one has not sufficient time to go through the whole speech, I propose to take one or two points from it.
The hon. Member made a point of the fact that the Act, which was passed before the Agreement, was something about which we over here knew very little. The Act has been passed since 3rd April. I have had my copy for over two months and I believe that other hon. Members have had copies for some time. The hon. Member for Finsbury made the point with regard to Germany, particularly Western Germany, that it is a satellite of the United States, and that reparations were being given up for the purpose of the benefit of the United States. He read a part of the Section just as he read a part of the Preamble—not the whole of it, but just a small portion—so as to make the distortion all the more complete. I want to read the whole Section, because there is not the slightest justification for the allegation which he made. This is one example of the distortion with which the whole speech was filled line by line. The Section says:
"The Administrator will request …"
not "demand"—
"The Administrator will request the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of those countries concerned …"
It does not say "demand" or "tell" those countries. It says:
"… will request the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of those countries concerned …"
126
all those words were not quoted when the Section was read before:
"… that such capital equipment as is scheduled for removal as reparations from the three western zones of Germany be retained in Germany …"
These are the material words which, again, were not read out—
"… if such retention will most effectively serve the purposes of the European Recovery Programme."
I suggest to the House that it is rather sad that, in discussing a serious matter like this, one's mind can be so inflamed by a desire to oppose it on any ground whatever, that one goes to the extent of the distortions which that one reference indicates.
Mr. Platts-Mills: Bearing in mind that the hon. Member has asserted that I read something and omitted certain words. I invite him to remember that I merely paraphrased without even picking up my copy of the Act when I was referring to that Section. The hon. Member has been at pains to read through the Section and to suggest that I omitted part of it, when I did not even refer to the Act but merely paraphrased. He will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT that I paraphrased correctly.
Mr. Mackay: I leave it to other hon. Members. When one paraphrases one tries as near as possible to give the correct words. One does not go out of one's way to distort when paraphrasing. Often paraphrasing is done to make a Section more clear than the drafters have made it. Whether the hon. Gentleman read from the Act or from his own notes, I do not know. Perhaps one is as distorted as the other. The essential words are:
"… if such retention will most effectively serve the purpose of European recovery."
Mr. Platts-Mills: The correct words are, "European Recovery Programme."
Mr. Mackay: The Agreement is a document prepared by a number of countries for the purpose of putting Europe on its feet again. I will come back to the German question, because I was most amazed at the attitude disclosed by the hon. Member and by the way in which he dealt with the subject. One of my main points is that the whole problem which we must face is that European industry and the whole of European

127
production and trade are completely upset primarily because of the position in which Germany finds itself. I want to go on to another point. I had taken the trouble to read the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury. I had seriously looked at it, because I seriously look at the things which hon. Members put on the Order Paper and because there are a lot of hon. Members in this House who have always felt that we should turn away from America at present and look to Russia in order to be able to secure recovery both here and in Europe.
I am one of those who have always supported trade agreements with Russia. I ask these people—and I am not now so much directing myself to the hon. Member for Finsbury and the Amendment he has put down—to look at Russia and to consider her position. We must face the fact that what we are getting and what we need is relief, not aid. To a certain extent we are getting a gap filled for two or three years. We have had to go to the place from which that could be done. Cotton is one of the things we want. It is no use suggesting that we should go to Russia for cotton. Wheat is another thing we need. We cannot get it all from Russia. When we look at the whole problem of Russian production today in relation to United States production, would any sensible person looking for aid turn to a country so badly mauled about by war whose productivity is so much down compared with that of other countries in the Western hemisphere? Let the House look at the facts. During the war Russia lost 58 per cent. of her rolling stock. We want rolling stock. We need 20,000 carriages for Europe immediately. It is not likely that we will get them from Russia. Russia lost 45 per cent. of her steel production. She lost 46 per cent. of her electric power capacity, 56 per cent. of her coal. All these figures I am quoting are from Marshal Stalin, and I assume that they will not be challenged.
At the end of the war, her industrial production dropped to 42 per cent.—this next figure is not from Marshal Stalin—while United States production rose by 52 per cent. In Russia in 1941, industrial production was equal to that of the United States in 1904, and, by 1960, it will have reached a figure which was passed
128
by the United States in 1915. If we take individual figures, such as those of some of the things we want and which we are to get under Marshall Aid, we get a better picture of the position. Oil is one of the things we require. Russia hopes, according to Stalin, to produce 60 million tons in 1951, but America passed that figure in 1921, and last year America produced 270 million tons, which is more than four times the amount which Russia hopes to produce in 1951. In coal the same sort of problem arises. Over 30 per cent. of Russia's coal is burned in locomotives; 30 per cent, is burned in electric plants, leaving only 40 per cent. for industry. When we come to steel, which is one of the major factors in the European Recovery Programme, we find that Russia in 1951 hopes to produce 60 million tons a year, whereas the United States, before the end of the last war, was already producing 90 million tons annually and was getting on towards producing much more.
Obviously, it is right and proper that we should make trade agreements where-ever we can, in order to get the flow of international trade going in the whole world again. But when we are looking for a mutual arrangement that is going to secure a whole lot of relief, without which we cannot hope to continue—and this is one of the points of which hon. Gentlemen opposite took insufficient notice—we ought not to take up any particular position because the Government of any country is a Socialist Government. The Scandinavian countries have not always had Socialist Governments: the Dutch, French, and Belgians are all in that position. Why blame the present position in Britain on the Socialist Government, when the same position occurs in non-Socialist countries? In other words, we should not be looking at this matter from that point of view, but from the point of view of European recovery under the conditions operating in Europe today.
One of my regrets about this agreement is that it is not a joint agreement. The obligations of co-operation would have been ten times stronger if it had been a joint agreement and if the 16 nations concerned in these undertakings had jointly agreed to them. That is one of the worst features of the whole situation. This agreement could have been of much greater value, because the benefit

129
of it can be destroyed if one of the other 16 countries does not carry out the whole of its obligations. At the same time, I do not think anyone on the Treasury Bench believes that all the 16 countries are going to carry out their obligations under their respective Agreements.
I should not have thought that there would be much argument over the terms of the Agreement. I have listened to what has been said, but I would remind hon. Members that this matter goes back to the Convention which was signed in April last, and all the obligations which we are undertaking now were in that Convention. All these things which have been regarded as objectionable, this business of inflation and the steps necessary to maintain the stability of the country, are nothing new. We are not undertaking any new obligations in this Agreement that are not already in the Convention which has already been ratified. It is all part of the Recovery Programme, so that it is ridiculous to argue that point. We have only to look at the first eight Articles of the Convention and we shall see that all we are undertaking in this Agreement was undertaken and agreed to before. The Act of 3rd April went through before the Convention, the phrases in that Act are reproduced in the Convention, and they are now reproduced again in this Agreement.
There are some questions, however, to which I think we ought to direct our minds. I want to raise three questions which seem to me of fundamental importance. No one denies that, without the European Recovery Programme, we cannot get our country going again or enable other countries in Europe to maintain their present standard of living; but there is a great divergence of view between the European people and the people of the United States, and the amazing thing here, I think, is that many of us are on the same side as the Americans in these discussions.
The whole point is this: Is this programme something which has been conceived to give Europe relief? If that is so, it will be all right; but is there not something fundamentally wrong with the world monetary system? I want to suggest that a condition responsible for our present position is the dollar shortage, which I suggest is not a new condition, but one which existed before the war. I
130
suggest that the European position which we are facing now is a position which did exist before the war. We know that it can be put in a number of ways. We have only to look at the balance of payments figures of different European countries before the war, and we know that we in Europe only balanced our position because we sent out large quantities of gold to the United States.
We knew all about it, and we knew that, before the war, about 90 per cent. of the world's gold was there, because that was the only way in which our trade could be paid for. Of course, we used also the income from our investments to pay for goods, but after the war we lost the income from them, which left us still further short of dollars. We had dollars from the goods we sold to Netherlands and Malaya, but I do not think that anyone who has been to Texas in the U.S.A. and has seen the big plants which are being built there for rubber and tin smelting can think that we will ever get from the Netherlands and Malaya the same amount of dollars which we had in circulation before the war. Thus, the whole basis and foundation of the world monetary system has gone, and it had gone before the war began. I do not deny that Hitler and all his devastation made it worse, but he was not the real cause of our present position. It would have come about, even if we had not had the war.
It is clear, too, when we look at this situation, that we are not right in thinking that America, being a great country in production and manufacture, can now take the place which Britain took in the 19th century. I would suggest that, for purely geographical and industrial reasons, she cannot succeed in taking that place, and I will give one example which always seems to me to be important but of which nobody takes any notice, and perhaps the Economic Secretary will consider it. If we compare the United States in 1947 or 1948 with Great Britain in 1914, which are comparable periods, we shall find that Britain's external trade in 1914 was greater than her savings and that the external trade of the United States has never been greater than her savings and was not in 1947. Moreover, the savings of Britain were invested overseas and those of the U.S.A. invested at home.
This makes it impossible for the U.S.A. today to take Britain's place in the 19th

131
century. Because of her large population and her enormous productivity, America cannot afford to send her savings abroad. Britain, a small island, has to import all her food and almost all her raw materials. America is now decreasing the quantity of her imports. American imports last year were greater than the year before, but in relation to her increased production, not as great as they ought to be if we consider the quantities of raw materials required to provide for her greatly increased production. In other words, the increased production has been provided either out of raw materials which she is getting at home or out of synthetic materials, but the fact remains that there is no comparison between the positions which these two countries held.
I look at the problem with a view to discovering the answer. I do not see any answer to the problem of the dollar shortage. I do not see that America can play the part that Britain played in the past. I do not think she can lend to the extent that we lent. She is not an importer of raw materials. The Survey of the Economic Situation and the Prospects of Europe says that Europe can solve her problems, first by increasing her exports to those countries who are able to buy from her and give her dollars, and secondly by exporting direct to the United States.
The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) knocked the second of those solutions fairly on the head. Except in a few items, we cannot increase our exports to the United States in the next five or six years, and, unfortunately, we cannot sell to those countries who will be selling raw materials to the United States. Let it be remembered that the curve was going down between the wars; the world was getting less and less dollars, so that we were spending gold and getting less and less dollars all the time, and now we are in a position which is infinitely worse than the prewar days because of the enormous productivity of the United States. We must face the fact that there is a change; there is a dollar shortage. From my reading of American newspapers, it appears to me that the Americans think that if only they could tide over these poor people in Europe for three or four years, they could get back on to their feet
132
again—which is very laudable, and we should be very grateful. I only wish it were true. It is not true, and the economic facts between the two wars show that the dollar shortage is more acute than it was in those prewar days. We cannot do anything about the dollar shortage. We cannot balance the dis-equilibrium between Europe and the West.
This brings me to the second point which I wish to make. Just as the world has got upset, so has Europe got upset. Europe has got upset not only because her trade and production were upset as a result of the war, but, again, the pivots of it were broken before the war began. That is the point which hon. Members and people generally in the country do not sufficiently realise.
The Survey of the Economic Situation and the Prospects of Europe, which is a document all of us should read because it gives so much interesting information, points out one of the most important factors in the post-war period; that is, that whereas the imports of Europe—when I say "Europe" I mean Western Europe, including the Western zones of Germany, and Great Britain, of course—have increased 7 per cent. in 1947–48, the inter-State trade between the European States is 56 per cent. of what it was. Of course, the two fundamental things that are wrong are that Germany, which was the biggest exporter and the biggest producer in Europe, has not recovered anything like her position, and Britain which used to be a big importer from Europe, does not import from Europe but from the Western hemisphere. In other words, the two factors which were the basis of European economy before the war, were a prosperous Germany plus large exports.
Of the trade of the world, in manufactures amounting to 10 million dollars, Europe provided seven million and Germany provided two million—one-fifth of the whole trade of the world. Today it is so small as not to be worth thinking of. The other basis was the imports to Britain from Europe. Today we are not taking those imports from Europe because we have not any confidence in the currencies of Europe. Therefore, the whole basis of European trade has gone. The Recovery Programme, even if we have it for four years, will not make the position any better. It will help to bridge the existing

133
gap, but it will not necessarily increase any of those things to which I have referred.
May I give some figures which seem to me to be important? They can be seen in the Report on page 46. They give the pre-war and post-war trade, divided into foodstuffs, raw materials and manufactures. The years 1935 and 1947 are taken as comparable years, 1935 being a better year than 1948. It gives inter-European trade, excluding the U.S.S.R. and bringing in Western Germany. For foodstuffs, imports were 715 million dollars in 1935, and in 1947, 175 million dollars. Europe can recover that food herself. This is the inter-State trade between the European countries. Before the war they could provide for 715 million dollars of imports of foodstuffs, and 665 million dollars of exports of foodstuffs, whereas in 1947 the figures are 175 million dollars in both cases. Those factors show the bad position in Europe today. Until we get the position right, if we go on looking to the United States instead of realising that we have got to increase the productivity of Europe, we are not doing Europe a good service.
For raw materials the figures are 1,205 million dollars worth of imports in 1935 and 550 million in 1947; exports were 1,040 million in 1935 as against 475 million dollars in 1947. In the case of manufactures the figures are higher, but still the divergency is the same. Europe should not be looking to America to get manufactured imports. She should be getting those for herself, but because of Germany being in the position she is this is not being done. The figure is 2,000 million dollars in 1935 for imports and exports, whereas in 1947 it was only about 1,000 million.
The other day I read in a statement of Mr. Harriman's that there are problems in Europe arising out of what he called potential surpluses of goods in Europe. He said that there were goods in different countries in Europe which could not be brought into trade, because the other countries in Europe have not the wherewithal to pay for them. In Belgium today there is steel which could be exported to other countries, but the other countries have not got the wherewithal in Belgian francs to buy that steel. Belgium has lent some 13 billion Belgian francs to other European countries—an amount
134
which is equivalent to Marshall Aid for one year for Europe, if one compares the countries on a population or a national income basis. It is an enormous amount for Belgium, but she is now "fed up" with paper currency. She does not want to lend any more, and she does not want to take the paper currencies of the other European countries. Therefore, Europe is going short of steel. We shall either get it under European Recovery or we shall not get it at all, whereas if only we could get currency stability in Europe or one currency in Europe we would be able to buy it quite easily.
Another example is that of textiles, wanted in the Scandinavian countries. The warehouses in this country are full of textiles which the Swedes would willingly buy but they cannot buy them because they cannot get sterling or import licences. Vegetables have been rotting for some months in Italy partly because of currency difficulties in other European countries, and partly because of shortage of transport—a difficulty which would be avoided if only the barges on the Rhine and the tugs in the Belgian and Dutch ports were made available to other countries. There are many other examples. The fact remains that in Europe today there are whole quantities of material which could be entered into trade—tobacco from Turkey and Greece, which again would come off the quantities coming into Europe. Only a revival of inter-European trade can solve this problem.
I cannot deal with the German question except to say one short word. If Germany is the centre of European economic recovery, as she is, then the proposals of the Committee for European Economic Co-operation for German production in the next four years are quite inadequate. The rest of the countries will be increasing production of steel, other manufactured goods and other things, while, in the main, Germany is to be kept largely at a position 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of her 1938 level. If we take account of the land which has gone to Poland, and the raw materials which has gone to Poland, and take into account the different articles which Germans are not allowed to make by the Potsdam Agreement, we see we are laying up for ourselves a whole lot of trouble in the future because we are not permitting the biggest and most important part of Europe to recover.

135
I do not want to delay the House too long, but there are two specific considerations which we must look at. First, this dollar problem is something which has lasted a long time—at any rate, it was growing before the war—and it is a condition of the world which leaves Europe to find its own salvation. What we are getting in Marshall Aid is relief for the next four years, for which we should be eternally grateful, but it is only going to bridge a temporary gap, and the problem is to get European production and trade to a figure even higher than it had reached in the days before the war.
If we look at that position, what is standing in the way? The obvious thing—and this is a point I want to make and a point which many of us have been making for a long time—is that European integration was in tatters before the war because of its tariffs, import restrictions and so on. The co-ordinating machinery which has been set up in Paris is a Co-ordinating Committee whereby the nations are going to get together to discuss these common problems. What are these common problems? They are movement of populations, stability of currency. We undertake to keep our currency stable, but we know that French currency is not stable. We know of their double system of foreign exchange, which works well sometimes and badly sometimes. Paris newspapers report that 67 billion francs of goods under European Recovery have been received. They have banked that amount and sold the goods, which realised 37 billion francs, and that means already they are 50 per cent. down on the first quarter. That must be borne by the Budget, because they have put the money into one account and sold the goods and have got only half of it back.
If that goes on, it is going to burst the European Recovery Programme. We have, in the co-ordinating Committee in Paris, a Committee to deal with that problem—that of the stabilisation of currency—but they have no power to do it. They are only a committee co-operating to try to work out schemes. In order to put European recovery right there has to be, in the first place, complete freedom of the movement of population, and the planning of it, and complete control over currencies. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House were the Minister for Finance in a
136
European Parliament, he could control the currencies of the 16 countries—he could control the stability of the currencies of those countries. But so long as there are 16 different currencies, 16 different countries, 16 different authorities, 16 different demands being made of all sorts and kinds, there will be no stability whatever and no real solution to this problem.
What one says about currency also applies to transport. This problem will not be solved without the planning of the transport of Europe, which is an essential element in recovery; it will not be solved so long as the Co-ordinating Committee remains, as at present, without the power it would have if it were a Minister of Transport in a British Government and a British Parliament. That is a fundamental point. I plead with the Front Bench and with the Government to realise that it is relief we are going to get as a result of Marshall Aid, and to realise that the economic problems of the world are such that a return to multilateral trade and the free trade system we knew in our day will not come in this century and that Europe has to direct herself to an entirely different form of political and economic organisation if she is to survive.
Mr. Alfred Edwards: Would my hon. Friend explain one point he made in his most interesting argument? He used the argument that America could not take the place we took in the last century in investing abroad because it would cause unemployment at home if she did so. In exporting her surplus under a long-term foreign investment plan, I would expect the opposite effect—fuller employment.
Mr. Mackay: If she were to export her capital she could not develop her own industries to the extent she has been able to do, and from that unemployment would arise. To put the point in another way, she would not be able to develop her production to the enormous extent to which she has been able to develop it. The position is that Marshall Aid in Europe is five per cent. of the national income of Western Europe. American national income has increased by 75 per cent. in the last few years. Why has America been able to increase her national income to that enormous extent—leaving aside the question of war, which was obviously a contributing factor—whereas in Europe

137
we have to get somebody to give us five per cent. to make up our national income to what it was before the war? In America one has free trade, a big market and a large number of people. The point is to be found in the Act itself—the American Act, to a sentence of which I hope everybody will refer. In the preamble to the Act, or the findings and declarations of policy, we find:
"Mindful of the advantages that the United States has enjoyed through the existence of a large domestic market with no internal trade barriers and believing that similar advantages can accrue to the countries of Europe, it is declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage these countries through a joint organisation to exert sustained common efforts as set forth in the report of the Committee of European Economic Co-operation. …"
What steps are being taken to achieve that? I was one who voted for the American Loan some years ago, hoping that, in the meantime, we would take steps to organise the European market. We took no steps. The plea I want to make tonight is that, while we accept Marshall Aid, let us accept it knowing that it gives a few more years of life, and that is all. In the meantime, if we only get to work and convert the Co-ordinating Committee in Paris into a European Parliament, a European Government, with a European Finance Minister, a European Customs Minister to get rid of European Customs, and a European Transport Minister, we would be laying the foundations for something that is sound and real. For Europe is an area of the world with greater resources than almost any other and with a greater number of people—and people of very great skill—than any other. We shall not solve this problem until we realise that in future we must get together, not in a committee co-operation but in a really effective union or federation of Western Europe.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) has devoted a considerable part of his speech to dealing with the question of the integration of Europe and he certainly showed that he is an expert on that subject, because he most skilfully integrated his economic theories in his speech on Western Union. He did not, however, have a great deal to say about
138
the subject under discussion tonight—the question of Marshall Aid.
I should like to say on this subject—for I intend to oppose Marshall Aid for this country—that I would agree entirely that Marshall Aid should be available for the other 15 nations who are so very much in need of it, but I take the view that we in this country should not be in the position in which we now are, and the fact that we find ourselves there is, I think, entirely the fault of the Government. I do not think we should be accepting this assistance. There have been many expressions of opinion and much criticism during this Debate, but one thing about which there is complete unanimity is our gratitude to the United States for the offer which they have made to us. I do not think anyone in any quarter would have anything but great thankfulness to express to America for that gesture.
So far as criticisms have been made from this side of the House I fully endorse them. The only difference between my hon. Friends who have made those criticisms and myself is, that the criticisms lead me to a different conclusion. They lead me to the conclusion that so far as this country is concerned, Marshall Aid ought to be opposed. I base my conclusion on two grounds. First, I think it will operate only as a cover for the failure of Socialism—and only a temporary one at that. The hon. Member for North-West Hull really said the same thing himself. He warned the Government it was but a temporary tide-over to another crisis. My second ground of opposition is I believe that it will be a damaging blow to our Imperial interests.
We have sought American help now because we have arrived at a crisis. But under Socialism, so far as I can see—and so far as all experience has shown—there is always a crisis. If we are to accept Marshall Aid merely in order to tide over from one crisis to another then, quite clearly, this vast sum of money will get us nowhere. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite attribute our present situation to the aftermath of the war. I do not accept that as being the sole reason for our present position. I believe that our present position is due to a mixture of the aftermath of the war and a Socialist Government. It is, as it were, like mixing chemicals. One can put in a number of

139
chemicals which remain quite harmless until one adds the final acid which causes the explosion. I believe that in the conditions in which we were after the war Socialism was the acid which brought about our present position.
Dr. Morgan: Which acid?
Mr. Marlowe: In any event I wish to be consistent about this. I have expounded this theory from many platforms in the country, and I feel I can be consistent only by repeating it here. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite advance their theories on political platforms from time to time. Anyhow, that is my belief; and it is because I believe that the real turning point which led us to our present situation was the advent of Socialism, that I believe it is only logical to oppose the subsidising of further Socialism. I know, of course, that it is said that to Marshall Aid there is no alternative. I find it difficult to believe that if a doctor is poisoning his patient, the only alternative is another dose of poison.
Dr. Morgan: That is a queer argument.
Mr. Marlowe: I next ask myself, Where shall we be at the end of Marshall Aid? Shall we be one step forward from where we are now? I see no evidence that we shall be. Where is the plan to use the time which is being gained? I have not heard that expounded on the benches opposite. Even if there is a plan it must be a Socialist plan, and, therefore, I can have no faith in it. I believe that all that this aid is going to do is to bring us, probably in a not very long time, back to where we are now. In the meantime, however, the people of this country will have been lulled into a false sense of security, so that, far from there being increased production, we shall find production falling off.
Government spokesmen, of course, have really admitted themselves that this is something in the nature of a windfall. Many Government spokesmen have agreed that but for Marshall Aid there would be mass unemployment. I must remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite of their Election pledges about employment. They promised at election time that there would be full employment. If they did not know that they were going
140
to get Marshall Aid, then that fact makes nonsense of their promises; because they are now saying that without Marshall Aid there would be mass unemployment. Therefore, they must realise that their promises at the Election meant nothing—unless Marshall Aid came to their assistance.
I cannot find out how under this Agreement we are to know how the thing is to be worked. We do not know what is going to be sent us. I have no doubt that the Americans will do their best to co-operate with us in our present position, but there is certainly nothing in the Agreement from which we can get any enlightenment. Although hon. Friends of mine on this side have criticised the Agreement, their criticism leads them finally to support the Marshall Aid Agreement—only, I think, on account of our desperate situation. My deductions lead me the other way. I certainly feel that if this thing does not work out properly I, for one, must feel myself free to criticise it.
I turn now to my second point, and that is the question of our Imperial interests. I have from time to time, by Questions in this House, sought to find out whether there was any real attempt being made to convene an Empire Conference. In such attempts I have been always put off by the shambling excuse that there are difficulties in the way of finding a convenient date. I do not believe those difficulties are insuperable, as the Prime Minister and other Ministers responsible have indicated. I believe that if they had really put their hearts into calling together an Empire Conference they would have found that there are other solutions to our present problems; and if those solutions had been found in the Empire, that would have been an infinitely preferable thing.
It is true—it has been said in this Debate—that there is no specific mention of Imperial Preference in the Agreement; but, of course, no one can deny that there are provisions which enable the Americans to get into—and well into—our Empire trade. Of course, I am only too pleased that the Americans should help the Empire prosper with all other parts of the world, but I must make quite sure that inter-Imperial trade is not ruined beyond repair; and that may happen under this Agreement. I should a thousand times

141
prefer that we get the Empire together to get ourselves out of our present difficulties by our own exertions, rather than that we should have to go to seek aid from any foreign Power, however friendly. Moreover, I believe that the people of this country would also prefer that, if the matter were honestly put to them.
The whole of the postwar finance of this Government has been tending away from the Empire and Imperial Preference. I fully admit that in this present Agreement there are the minimum of strings, but I see in it a great danger to Empire trade. Naturally, the Americans, in cultivating their trade within our Empire, will wish to see all obstacles such as Imperial Preference taken out of the way. If that blow is struck at the Empire, and if Imperial Preference is ultimately eliminated, as does appear to be the object of this Government in the end, I believe that that will be a blow which will be fatal to our prosperity, and which will be damaging one of the most stabilising factors for peace in the world. In these circumstances, I feel that I must say that I cannot give my blessing to this Agreement, and I am not prepared to support a Measure which, I believe, gives a renewed lease to Socialism and does grave injury to the British Commonwealth of Nations.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Swingler: The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has run the usual line from the Benches opposite, that the Government are to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves and for the necessity for this Agreement. He might never have heard the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. Mackay), who explained the causes of the dollar shortage. Apparently, he is prepared to oppose this Agreement in order to bring the country to ruin, so as to prove that Socialism is no good. That is what I understood to be part of his argument. I feel that the argument of almost every hon. Member who has spoken from the benches opposite in this Debate, in which they have suggested that it is the Labour Government in Britain who are responsible for the dollar shortage, responsible for the squandering of the American loan, and now responsible for the appearance of Marshall Aid and this Agreement is a
142
fantastic argument. After all, it was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who, in 1944, said to an American business man that the day the war ended, this country would be bankrupt, and there would be very little for the returning soldiers to come back to. That opinion of the right hon. Member for Woodford was recently quoted in an American magazine.
Mr. Marlowe: I think that has already been quoted in this House, but does the hon. Gentleman recall that the right hon. Member for Woodford was at pains to point out that although, in an American book he was alleged to have said that, he did not endorse that he had said it.
Mr. Swingler: I have no knowledge that the right hon. Member for Woodford ever denied making that statement, which has been quoted recently on a number of occasions in American magazines and in newspapers in this country. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has not confirmed the fact that he made a statement quoted by Mr. Henry Morganthau, but he has certainly never denied it.
The statement of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in opening this Debate for the Opposition, that we in this country and that hon. Members in this House ought to feel humiliated when confronted with this Agreement and ashamed of the fact that we had to discuss the question of accepting Marshall Aid was also, I thought, a fantastic statement. When I contemplate the effects of the sacrifices that were made by this country during the war, the fact that £1,000 million worth of foreign assets were sold in order to fight the war, and the damage sustained to our economy, estimated to—1,500 million, I find no reason to be surprised at the difficulties with which this country has been faced in the past few years, or humiliated that we are in this position in relation to the United States which, after all, began not in 1945 but in the period of the war, as the result of the sale of those foreign assets and our need to draw supplies from the United States in order to be able to fight the war.
If the hon. and learned Member for Brighton had read the report on the Economic Prospects for Europe, he

143
might feel pride at the extent of the recovery of this country during the past three years. One of the things which the United Nations Economic Committee's report brings out is, that despite the enormous damage sustained during the war to the economy of Britain, and the aid given by Britain during the war and since to many other countries of Europe, this country has made a remarkable recovery in developing agricultural and industrial production. That is the conclusion of the United Nations Economic Commission's Report about the development in Britain during the past three years as the result of the policy we have pursued.
I feel that in our approach to this Agreement there are two questions to which we should address ourselves. The first question about which we are concerned is whether this Agreement and Marshall Aid as a whole is a means towards making ourselves within a period of time independent of extraordinary outside assistance. That is a point to which a number of hon. Members have addressed themselves. The second question about which Members have been concerned is whether this Agreement in any way curtails our freedom to work out our destiny in this country in our own way or in collaboration with European countries.
We listened not long ago to the brilliant analysis, developed previously to some extent in this House, by the hon. Member for North-West Hull, about the way in which the dollar problem has developed from before the war, during the war, and during the last three years. One point which he brought out in agreement with the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) was that we could not make this Agreement the means of making ourselves independent of outside assistance, by continuing to pursue a policy of trying by an extraordinary export drive to solve the balance of payments with the United States, as we have attempted to do during the past few years. The attempt by vastly increased exports from the United Kingdom or from Western Europe to solve this problem of the unbalance of payments with the United States, is something which simply cannot be achieved.
144
Already there are signs of a crisis looming in the export markets in the Western hemisphere owing to the heavy competition from the more powerful manufacturing industry of the Western hemisphere. Although we have made in the last 12 months tremendous efforts to develop our export drive, if we look at the figures of the balance of payments of the last few months and compare them with the Autumn of 1947 and previously, we see that the gap opens a little one month, closes a little the next month, but is still running now at the same level as in September and October of last year. Although we may be exporting far more and the value of our exports to the Western hemisphere may have been increased, at the same time, owing to the rise in the cost of primary products, we pay more for necessary imports of food-stuffs and raw materials from the United States and we do not close the gap.
Therefore, I suggest, and I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Hull, that we must pursue a solution of our dollar problem by concentrating on both buying and selling in the non-dollar countries and in tackling the problem of general European recovery, rather than throwing our whole effort into pursuing the mirage of hope that by some particular date we shall balance our payments in the Western hemisphere. As he said, the greatest drag during the past few years and today in the problem of the dollar shortage is the slowness of general European recovery and that is what appears in the report of the European Economic Commission on Europe. Europe's share of world trade has fallen very considerably. It is very much lower than the level prewar—I believe 17 per cent. compared with the prewar 30 per cent.—and trade between European countries is at a low level.
Therefore, every country in Europe is looking for materials and foodstuffs which can be bought from the United States of America and is faced with this dollar problem. The greatest danger in relation to that is that we shall be unable so to direct our trade and to increase it with non-dollar countries and to assist the general recovery and increased production of other European countries, as to make ourselves continuously during the next few years more and more independent of the need to buy so many goods in the

145
Western hemisphere. I do not want to repeat what was much more ably said by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull about the European position, but I agree with him that unless there is a European plan to raise production generally as a part of this system of Marshall Aid and unless all the efforts of all countries concerned, including Britain, are concentrated more on the development of trade between European countries than of trying to solve Europe's adverse balance of payments with the Western hemisphere by exports, Marshall Aid can be simply a self-perpetuating process and the need for more aid and more relief from the Western hemisphere will continue.
That point was well brought out in a leading article printed in "The Times" on 6th April commenting on the United Nations Economic Commission's Report for Europe. It said:
"This should be the first and essential purpose of the European Recovery Programme—to enable the countries of Europe to help themselves by trading freely together and furnishing again each other's needs."
Later on it said:
"Nothing comes out more clearly from this survey, with its emphasis on European trade, than the heavy price which Europe will pay for the blocking of its commercial arteries by the 'iron curtain.'"
It was stressed throughout this analysis of the United Nations that only by the increase of agricultural production, in particular, in Europe and by the supply of the necessary capital goods in exchange for the many other products of Western Europe, could the European countries as a whole, work towards becoming independent of dollar aid.
This Agreement, and the points made about the efforts of Governments in order to pursue the aim of making themselves independent of outside extraordinary assistance, emphasise the need for the policy that has been pursued during the past few years by the Labour Government of this country and the need for not relaxing, as the Chancellor said this afternoon, in the pursuit of that policy. In connection with that I should like to quote an extract from the White Paper on full employment published by the Coalition Government and presented to Parliament by the then Minister of Reconstruction, Lord Woolton, in 1944. It expresses so clearly the policy which has
146
to be pursued, or rather, to be continued, so far as hon. Members on these benches are concerned. There are a number of paragraphs dealing with the situation likely to occur in this country in the aftermath of the war. On page 9, the White Paper says:
"The third danger is that production of unessential goods may interfere with the production of essentials. In order to direct the efforts of industry towards the right tasks in the right order, it will be necessary to establish certain broad priorities and to enforce them for a time by means of the issue of licences, the allocation of raw materials and some measure of control over the labour and staff required for industry. There are three main reasons why this must be done:
(a) During the war we have obtained a large proportion of our imports first by the sale of our foreign assets and later by lend-lease or on credit. This process cannot continue indefinitely; and if we are to be able to buy the imported food and raw materials which we need to maintain our standard of life, we must expand our export trade. An export drive is thus of paramount importance, and home demands must not be allowed to divert the resources needed for exports."
I believe that extract from a White Paper, to which the right hon. Member for Woodford recently directed our attention in a speech which he made outside the House, is a thorough justification of the home policy which has been pursued by the Labour Government during the past few years, and has brought down upon the Government so much criticism from the benches opposite. I quote it to reemphasise in relation to this Agreement what the Chancellor said about the need to continue the policy of priorities, the allocation of raw materials, and the measure of control over the labour and staff required for industry that were advocated in that White Paper.
In that connection I should like to sound one note of warning. I believe that this Agreement is an opportunity to reaffirm the necessity for achieving the objectives set in the Government's Economic Survey for 1948; and not merely for achieving the standards set there, but, if at all possible for surpassing those production standards, which in many cases were set as minima, if we are to move along the road of general European recovery. I believe that still the signs are that during the first few months of this year, and at present, the vital industries of the country are lagging behind in the productive effort. In

147
particular, we are lagging behind in the recruitment of labour for productive industry.
This is a subject to which I have frequently come back when I have spoken in this House, because I believe it is of vital importance. It was emphasised in the Government's Economic Survey that if this country this year is to continue without relaxing the policy of making ourselves independent of extraordinary outside assistance, we must achieve the standards set by the Government in regard to recruitment and production in the basic industries. One of the most urgent needs there is a considerable degree of manning up. Minimum standards were set for the most important basic industries on which the whole of our export trade depends, such as coal, textiles and agriculture, and while in the first six months of this year in general we have nearly achieved those standards, it is only because of the extraordinary efforts to recruit European voluntary workers or Polish soldiers from the Reconstruction Corps into those industries. I would like to give the actual figures, but I do not want to detain the House any longer. If, however, hon. Members will analyse the amount of the manning up in those industries which is due to the exceptional efforts of the Minister of Labour in recruiting immigrants, they will see how dependent we are becoming on displaced persons entering this country. I believe that is a hazardous situation and that further efforts by the Government are required as regards incentives in those industries, to make these productive jobs more attractive, otherwise we shall live in an illusory situation as a result of getting Marshall Aid.
9.0 p.m.
Brigadier Peto: It is customary nowadays for hon. Gentlemen on the back benches of the Government to do all they can to discredit my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). They quote things said about him, whether true or untrue, and they try to prove that what he said was that this country would be bankrupt after the war. There is no doubt whatever that, had the right hon. Gentleman been the head of the Government which had to negotiate a loan, as was done by the present Government in 1945 not only
148
would he have got considerably better terms, but he would have made that loan last considerably longer and would have spent it a great more deal wisely.
There is no shadow of doubt, for instance, that, at this time of tension between us and the U.S.S.R., he would not have approved of the sending of 50 or 60 jet fighters, with our most modern engines, to Russia; anything more absolutely insane could hardly be imagined. Nor would he have sent them to other countries behind the Iron Curtain. He would have spent the loan, when he had it, very much more wisely than on schemes of nationalisation or in allowing it to be filtered away into other countries. I would ask hon. Gentlemen, therefore, when speaking about my right hon. Friend, to treat him as the country as a whole treats him.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said that he voted for the loan but was about to oppose the present E.R.P. measure. I voted against the loan for various reasons which I gave at the time. They were that I did not feel that 48 hours was a sufficient time for a person of my intellect to consider it; secondly, that I did not feel any confidence that the Government would spend it wisely; thirdly, that I had no confidence that the Government ever intended to repay it; fourthly, that I had grave doubts about its effect upon Imperial trade. Many of those same feelings are in my mind today about E.R.P. under the Economic Cooperation Agreement. It is prolonging the fool's paradise in which we are now living instead of facing the issue, which sooner or later we must. In addition, under Article V of the Economic Agreement, there is bound to be some effect on our trade with our Commonwealth and Empire. That effect cannot be for the good. To some extent it impairs the sovereign rights of this country and of our Commonwealth to trade as freely as we should like with the countries therein.
After due consideration, and having given the matter considerable thought during the past weekend, I have come to the conclusion that I must support this loan for the following reasons: firstly, out of sheer gratitude to the United States for their extraordinary generosity in spite of provocations and the way in which their large loan was spent; secondly, because,

149
as is laid down in Article I (2), it tends to encourage sustained efforts towards recovery and lasting peace. In my opinion anything that will help towards recovery and for lasting peace should not be opposed. Article IV (6) says that it will ensure:
"productive activity and international trade and … the development of new sources of wealth within the United Kingdom."
Those are principles which I hold very dear. I am, also, delighted to see that under Article II (1) (ii), the use of the loan is very carefully guarded. The way in which it will be used is under careful observation. It will not be spent on nationalisation, but "on industrial and agricultural production on sound economic lines." It is worth while reading the last three or four lines of that paragraph:
"when desired by the Government of the United States, to communicate to that Government detailed proposals for specific projects contemplated by the Government of the United Kingdom … including, whenever practicable, projects for increased production of coal, steel, transportation facilities and food."
So the United States will have the last word as to whether the loan under this Agreement can be used for the nationalisation of steel, land and so on—
Sir S. Cripps: I do not understand what the hon. and gallant Member is arguing. How can a loan in dollars be used for nationalisation?
Brigadier Peto: In the same way that the previous loan from the United States was used to assist this country in nationalising the industries which have already been nationalised.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will the hon. and gallant Member give examples?
Brigadier Peto: Did they not help us to balance our Budget? Did they not help to keep up our currencies?
Mr. John E. Haire: What has that to do with it?
Brigadier Peto: Lastly, one of the minor reasons why I would not oppose this loan is that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) is prepared to oppose it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with Article VI "very speedily." He said that this is an Article we welcome and desire to encourage. It says:
"The Government of the United Kingdom will co-operate with the Government of the
150
United States in facilitating and encouraging the promotion and development of travel by citizens of the United States to and within the participating countries."
Living as I do in a constituency in which there are hundreds of hotels dependent very largely on foreign travel and on the tourist trade, I welcome that paragraph, if it means that the Government are to assist seaside resorts to some measure of prosperity. They have had no encouragement from the Government since the end of the war. There has been needless delay in derequisitioning, needless delay in settling claims, increased wages for hotel staffs and increased prices of furniture usually bought in foreign countries, increased taxation which prevents people taking their holidays far away and just as they were at last getting started, the petrol ban came on. No petrol at all is better from the point of view of North Devon than a little petrol, because a little petrol only enables people to take their cars to localities around the East Coast. There is the fact of no visitors from abroad, and in many cases—
Mrs. Leah Manning: If they lived in Somerset could they not then go to North Devon?
Brigadier Peto: If they lived in Somerset they would not necessarily take their holidays in North Devon. [Laughter.]
Mr. Carmichael: What have the Government to do with that?
Brigadier Peto: May I tell hon. Members that in many cases hotels in my constituency are facing ruin? If they consider that to be a matter for laughter I cannot say that I agree with them. The hotels have had no encouragement of any sort, financial or otherwise. They have had promises made, particularly in the case of ex-Service men—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think that matters to which the hon. and gallant Member is now referring have anything to do with the Motion before the House.
Brigadier Peto: I was referring to that matter in connection with the promise or hope of assistance which is given under Article VI to those catering for the tourist traffic. If you rule that out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will naturally bow to your Ruling. I shall support this

151
measure with grave doubts as to the efficiency and skill with which the Government will spend the money they get.
9.12 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I was interested to find that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) agreed with me in supporting this Agreement, although his reasons seem to be very different from mine, and some of them seem rather quaint. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of argument. Earlier today the Chancellor pointed out that the co-operation of the countries of Western Europe is fundamental to our conception of E.R.P. That cannot be stressed too strongly. If assistance were given from any source whatever to any countries, and if there were no increase in the trade between those particular countries as compared with today, all possibility of success would vanish. That is obviously in the minds of those who conceived this measure.
If we are to judge by the Agreement as we have it before us, there is a good deal of altruism expressed in the words. What has disturbed some of us, perhaps not only on this side of the House, has been that the Agreement has been rather like a baby at whose birth two or three midwives have attended. The ultimate result of the delivery has been beyond the expectation of the midwives themselves in beauty, general appearance and health; and the only complication has come from the relatives who from time to time have made pronouncements before the delivery and these have differed very materially from one another. For example, according to some observers Marshall Aid has divided Europe into two camps. The reasons for this are to be seen in my cumbersome analogy. For instance, we first had a pronouncement from the President of the United States on 12th March, 1947, when he spoke of the assistance which must be, and was, given to Europe for the "containing of Communism and Russian influence" and in order to give military aid to Greece and Turkey. That was one type of pronouncement.
Later, a good deal later, we had the speech of Mr. Marshall. This was considered by other observers to contradict
152
the essence of the first speech because the words were finer, more exalted and seemed more liberal. Those of us who have listened today to the Chancellor would be in agreement that there has been a great change in the attitude of the American people and Administration from those early days. At least, that is my view. But in between these two pronouncements there was another. That was by Mr. Dean Acheson on 8th May, 1947, speaking at Cleveland, Mississippi. If I quote a few sentences from it, we can get some understanding why countries in Mid-Europe and the Soviet Union took a certain attitude towards this matter as the result of that speech. He said:
"These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorised, and your Government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest."
I think the House will agree that it would be easy for the Soviet Union to seize upon sentences of this type, and perhaps translate them out of their context, and not realise how far the American Administration has to bring its people along to agree to this type of action. Most of us believe that the American people have found it somewhat novel and new. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have already expressed far better than I can, that this was a new divergence for our American friends and that they have come in with this great scheme in a way which is strange and unaccustomed to them. Further on in his speech, Mr. Dean Acheson said:
"Since world demand exceeds our ability to supply, we are going to have to concentrate our emergency assistance in areas where it will be most effective in building world political and economic stability, in promoting human freedom and democratic institutions, in fostering liberal trading policies and in strengthening the authority of the United Nations. This is merely common sense and sound practice. It is in keeping with the policy announced by President Truman in his special message to Congress on 12th March on aid to Greece and Turkey. Free people who are seeking to preserve their independence and democratic institutions and human freedoms against totalitarian pressures, either external or internal, will receive top priority for American aid."
I think the House will agree that it would be possible to construe that as meaning that American influence aimed at preserving and expanding its own markets and foresaw the possibility of influencing the internal regimes of other countries who are receiving American aid. If that be

153
accepted as a premise and hypothesis, one can quite understand why it was that the Soviet Union used all its influence to prevent countries on its borders from entering into this Agreement. The arguments that we can imagine coming from that side were bolstered up by evidence at that time. One factor was that the Export-Import Bank refused at that time a loan to Czechoslovakia for the buying of cotton. Secondly, they pointed to the refusal to make use of the Economic Commission for Europe which is a United Nations committee and the establishment of a new piece of machinery.
It is part of my thesis to show, if I can, that this type of misunderstanding can be fatal to the good prospects of Europe, fatal to ultimate peace and fatal to the ultimate outcome of any help that may come from any great country to any other country. We have heard from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) a very zealous, one-pointed exposition of what he considered to be the worst possible aspects of this Agreement. Allowing for what I think were the grossest exaggerations on his part, it must be admitted that countries in Europe, and not only in Mid-Europe and the Soviet Union, have felt sceptical at times, and have certainly felt worried as to what strings would be attached to the Loan and the Agreement. If they had been more patient, their realisation of it as it exists today would have given them a greater feeling of security.
But in any event, whatever they may feel, some good has already come. It is a strange way of putting it, but I think it is true that two great Powers have tended to bid against each other. One bid comes from the West, to the countries of Western Europe. The Soviet Union, realising that Marshall Aid was offered, has bid to the countries on its own borders and has had to offer a quid pro quo. This shows itself in the possibility of increased prosperity in those countries that lie on the borders of the Soviet Union. I think it was the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) who asked for a possible example of anything which the Soviet Union might ever have done for another country which was not selfish. I am not sure of the exact word—
Mr. Maclay: Those were very nearly the words.
Dr. Stross: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give him some examples? If he will look at the Agreements which Russia has made, since Marshall Aid was offered, with Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and other countries, I think that he will find that they are as humane and as good as could possibly be effected. Obviously the Soviet Union today is not a great and wealthy country like the United States of America. She has not in any way attempted to do to countries on her borders what was done by Nazi Germany. I was also amazed to hear the hon. Member for Finsbury suggest that this Agreement had any semblance to the method which Nazi Germany used for Central Europe, because, in my view, nothing could be further from the truth.
Again, on the other hand, the Soviet Union exports raw materials to countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia and receives from them a proportion of manufactured goods made out of those raw materials, only to such a percentage as will guarantee leaving those countries with a steadily higher standard of life for themselves.
Major Tufton Beamish: Absolutely untrue.
Mr. Maclay: The Soviet Government are undoubtedly humane and have certain very clear objectives in everything they are doing.
Dr. Stross: That remark does not take us very much further. There was an interjection from the opposite benches in which the word "untrue" was used. Therefore, I will quote some figures.
Czechoslovakia has just made a five-year agreement with the Soviet Union without any interchange of cash but with a transfer of goods from Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union, and vice versa, estimated in value at 500 million American dollars. When one realises that before the war the total export and import trade of Czechoslovakia with Russia was less than 1 per cent., one sees that it has been stepped up to roughly 10 per cent. and that the increase between the countries of Middle Europe in the intra-zonal area, plus the trade with the Soviet Union, reaches about 40 per cent. import and export, leaving up to 60 per cent. for trade with the rest of Europe and ourselvesr—

155
when one realises that, and also the fact that the Soviet Union exports cotton to Czechoslovakia and takes back only 13 per cent. of the manufactured output in cotton goods, leaving that country raw materials for her export trade to us or to any other country which wishes to have them, I think that the hon. Gentleman who says that what I am saying is untrue is probably grossly mistaken.
Mr. Molson: Are we to deduce from this sudden increase in trade that it is greatly to the advantage of Czechoslovakia and, if so, could not that agreement have been negotiated without the coup d'etat in that country?
Dr. Stross: These agreements have been going on for quite a long time and preceded the coup d' etat. As for the first part of the question, the answer is that their economic advisers pointed out, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, that the terms which they are receiving are distinctly favourable as compared with what they got from other countries in other parts of the world. I have to accept that, and I think the hon. Gentleman must accept it, unless he can prove the contrary.
Mr. David Eccles: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that there are no consumer goods in the shops in Prague, and that everyone in Prague at Whitsun said that the goods had gone to Russia, and that that was the common and usual explanation?
Dr. Stross: One possible explanation seems to me to be that, in view of the present situation and of the sudden, and I hope temporary, decrease of trade with the West, it might be that the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says, and that they have exported all they could lay their hands on to the Soviet Union to pay for the corn which, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, they had to have as the result of the drought.
Major Beamish: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how he explains the fact that there are also no consumer goods in Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland, in all four of which countries I have recently been?
Mrs. Leah Manning: Absolutely wrong; quite untrue.
Dr. Stross: I think the short answer to that, which I hope will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman—although I hear expressions of opinion that he is not correct in what he says—is that we have also in our own country been short of consumer goods. If I might be allowed to resume, I have already stated that the treatment which the Soviet Union offers to the countries on her borders, partly, I think, as a result of having to bid against the results of Marshall Aid, is to the benefit of countries on her borders. In the same way, we have a right to expect that the assistance we are to receive as a result of this Agreement will be greatly to the benefit of ourselves and Western Europe, and that, as a result of these two regional areas of Europe facing each other, each with a right to expect an increase in total production and a right to expect an increase in trade between the two areas, I think it might well be that, as a result, the Agreement will become, not a weapon for dividing Europe into two parts but a method of building a bridge between the two parts of Europe for the ultimate good of all of us.
When Nazi Germany made trade agreements before the war—and an example was the one she made with Roumania in 1939—she expressly prohibited any increase in heavy manufacture. If I remember rightly, she demanded that some factories should be dismantled, that on no account were they to import from any country anything which Germany could supply, and that they were not to import at all without German permission. When, in the Autumn of 1939, Roumania attempted to buy silos from us in quantity, she was expressly forbidden to carry out this transaction. That is the last sort of thing that we ourselves can afford from anyone who offers assistance to us, and the last sort of thing that mid-Europeans could possibly afford from the Soviet Union.
There is a tremendous similarity—although it seems to meet with some criticism from hon. Members opposite—between what is happening between the Soviet Union and the countries on her borders, and what is happening between America and the countries in Western Europe—namely, that the basis of each plan is similar. For example, there must be increased production and a raised

157
standard of life; secondly, that there should be suitable division of labour to stabilise markets and prevent or reduce unwholesome competition between country and country, and excessive duplication of manufacture; thirdly, that there should be encouragement of trade between the countries of each zone, between the two zones and throughout the whole of the world. If that be the essence of the Marshall Plan, it is my view that it can do nothing but good. It should be accepted in this way, and it may well help to give stability and world peace.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he has been saying, because, like my hon. Friends who have spoken before me, I came here to talk about the Economic Co-operation Agreement between this country and the United States, and not about the lack of economic co-operation between Western Europe and Russia. I might just say that all the facts which the hon. Member has just adduced are completely contrary to any information which I have received in the last few years.
I welcome the chance of joining in the general praise for the great generosity of the American people in making this Agreement. I was glad to hear the words, albeit somewhat frigid in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that generosity, although he got but small support from his side of the House. That, however, I think is understandable because one of the things that is getting home to the people of this country is that the whole system of Socialism is being maintained, as has been so well pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), by these American grants. We have the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) going about and saying that the country is proudly taking the new social services in its stride, omitting all reference to this tremendous outpouring of generosity from the great free enterprise systems on the other side of the North Atlantic—not only from the United States, but also from Canada.
I think I am right in saying that of every three meals we eat in this country
158
one is given to us free, without effort on our part, by people from across the seas, our Dominions as well as the U.S.A. It is coming home to hon. Members opposite that the people in this country are beginning to understand this. Therefore, the applause of hon. Members was as frigid as I expected when the Chancellor uttered those words, in recognition of this great generosity of the people of America.
There may well be a certain amount of self-enlightenment about the American attitude. I am very glad that this should be so. It shows that the phase of isolationism, which has been abroad in the United States for so many years, is passing, but it would be a very great mistake for hon. Members opposite, as I have heard them, trying to maintain that without Marshall Aid the whole of American economy would collapse. That is complete and utter nonsense. I do not make myself out to be an economist, but those who talk to people on the other side of the North Atlantic will know that there are many who would only too willingly see exports of everything stopped for say two years in order to knock the top off their own inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) well pointed out that it is this policy—the manufacturing of these goods, receiving payment for them, and yet handing them out overseas with no equivalent return—which is causing this very great inflationary pressure in the United States, and I hope hon. Members will study that fact and not go round making themselves and the Government look even more stupid than they are, by saying that the whole American economy would collapse without the giving away of this material free.
One hon. Member was talking about full employment. It was like the Prime Minister in his broadcast the other day saying: "I have decided on full employment; my Government have decided on full employment." Even the Minister of Health said that without American aid there would be 1,500,000 unemployed. How then can the Prime Minister get up and say, "I have decided on full employment"? The real facts are that full employment in this country is being sustained by the generosity of this great free-enterprise, capitalist system which hon. Members opposite decry at every possible opportunity.

159
There are two points I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade who, I believe, is to reply. The first refers to Article 3. As I understand it, in the original Economic Co-operation Act in the United States there were very rigid conditions laid down. It is not for the Administration there to negotiate with the Administration here on these terms. They were laid down very rigidly by Congress in the original Act and one of the Articles—I am afraid I cannot remember at the moment which it is—laid down that private enterprise in general and not only Government monopoly corporations in this country should receive financial help and capital goods.
How are we to ensure that this aim is achieved? How are we to ensure that a private company which wants to develop some capital project has access to this assistance? I make no secret of this fact to the House—I have on several occasions said I have the privilege to be a director of a primary producer company overseas. If we cannot get capital goods for a particular project—we cannot do so at the moment except by going through some Government agency—how are we to ensure that these private companies, on whom I, personally, believe the whole future of Britain depends, can acquire capital goods without the risk of being turned down by some Government agency?
How is the United States Government to ensure that private companies are able to have a fair say and to put their case before an impartial arbitrator, and not through some Government Department which will, as I see it, in many cases—I do not say all cases—attempt to divert goods for its own use? I think this is a most important point because I am quite convinced, as I have always been, that it is only through the endeavours of private enterprise that we shall get this country straight again. If they are to be denied the capital goods which it was the intention of the original Act to give them, I think we may as well kiss goodbye to any hope we may have of getting under weigh the economy of Britain and the area still under her economic control.
The second point I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade arises
160
from Article V (2). What are the terms and conditions of United States participation in Colonial development? Personally, I have always welcomed it. I am quite certain when we see the tremendous task of capital reconstruction which has to be done in this country and in Europe, it is beyond the capacity of industry in Britain and Western Europe to produce the capital goods for the development and reconstruction not only of Western Europe and Britain, but also of the territories overseas. I, therefore, welcome very much this participation of American capital in these tremendous undertakings, but can the President of the Board of Trade or the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, when the moment comes, give us some indication about this, because I believe it to be one of the most important practical tasks to which we must turn our minds in the near future.
As I said, in the company in which I am personally interested, we have been trying to get a heavy tractor and bulldozer for some time. We cannot get it because all are being picked up and taken off for Government monopoly schemes. Not only are American aid dollars being used for that, but dollars earned by the production of this particular company. Therefore, we are not only denied access to materials, but deprived of our earnings that we could use to buy tools with which to get on with the job. Then hon. Members opposite say that private enterprise cannot do the job, and so we are not only injured but insulted. If the United States could be brought into partnership with this country in this development work, as we helped Argentina in the nineteenth century, it would be productive of government; but I hope we shall not treat the United States afterwards as Argentina has treated us.
Incidentally the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the magic words "over-production." I have been taunted on many platforms by Socialists and told that there is no such thing as overproduction but only under-consumption. So I am highly delighted to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk of the danger of over-production. I am not quite clear what he means by this. Does he mean that under Socialism alone we shall never have sufficient production, and that he is frightened that, with American capitalism that free enterprise inside our economy, the Americans will produce a

161
great deal so that there will be over-production? If this is so, then he will have to deal with that problem which plagued so many administrations in the past. I am highly delighted that it should be on record that these words should have fallen from the lips of a Socialist Chancellor, that this is one of the things which we have to face in the future. Socialism creaks along in an era of restriction. It will be interesting to see how it works in an era of competitive surpluses.
It is, I believe, vital that there should, be an early effort to get an overall agreement. It seems to me the Government intend to give development rights to American firms in certain areas in our oversea territories, while at the present moment to my knowledge, certain British firms are being deprived of existing land and rights. That does not seem a very good thing to do. I shall watch that. I make no secret of the fact that I have an interest in this. If I had not, I should not know that these things were going on. It is only by being involved in day to day management that one finds out what this Administration is up to behind the scenes.
Finally, I would utter a word of warning on the text of the "Note on the most-favoured-nation treatment of Western Germany." It has been said that if Germany had not made "war with weapons" on us but had waited till 1917 or 1943, she would have had us beaten economically. I think some of us involved, as I am myself, in commerce with Western Germany would warn the Government that if we open our gates to a flood of German produced goods, there may be a very deleterious long-term effect on the trade and industry of this country as time goes on.
There is more than sufficient to be done by every productive machine in this country and in Western Europe in the next 10 or 20 years to repair the devastation caused by the war and to undertake overseas developments; but that work must be done in a practical manner, otherwise instead of working with German industry in a complementary manner, as I believe we can and should, we shall find ourselves struggling with German industry in a form of cut-throat competition and destructive struggle, the blame for which will be chargeable to this Government.
9.40 p.m.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) started the Debate by saying he felt humiliated. Having heard the contributions from his hon. Friends of the Conservative Party, I hope he feels more humiliated. The Tories are in the same despicable and divided state as they were when we debated the American Loan. One half are following the "Daily Express—Daily Worker Axis" in opposing the policy outright, and the other half, for various curious reasons, such as that they want more petrol, or more American tourists in their hotels, are unwilling to support the Government's Motion and yet not willing to vote against it. The only thing upon which His Majesty's Opposition have been united so far this evening is in the endeavour to carry on a smear campaign and to try to prove that the fact that this country has a dollar deficiency is due to the present Government. Can any hon. Member opposite put his hand on his heart and say that if we had had a Conservative Government in this country during the last three years, we should not now be facing a dollar deficiency? They know perfectly well that the situation would have been no better.
The other attempt which hon. Members opposite have been making is to show that the Americans have no faith in the present Government of this country, and that if the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) had been Prime Minister we should have got very much better terms. I ask them to look at the American evidence on this point and the evidence of the American commercial counsellor in London who, when speaking before the Senate on American aid, said that Great Britain had made
"an outstanding effort in increasing production."
I ask them to look at the evidence on the United Kingdom presented in the general E.R.P. reports on the 16 nations to America. The independent American technical experts said:
"The reconversion of British economy after July, 1945, was smooth and rapid.
"The post-war record of industrial relations in Great Britain has been very good.
"The United Kingdom plans for the period covered by the Recovery Programme contemplate a steady progress towards a balance in international payments."

163
These are the independent testimonies of American experts to the American Government on which the decision to grant Marshall Aid to this country has been based. If hon. Members opposite will be honest with themselves they will drop this smear campaign and recognise that in the face of tremendous difficulties since the end of the war this country has made a magnificent production effort, that our production today is higher than it was in 1938—
Major Beamish: What about coal?
Mr. Hughes: Our general production is higher than it was in 1938. Our volume of exports today is far higher than it was in 1938. The Government and people of this country accepted a high degree of abstention at a time when the Tory Party opposite were sneering at the Government for its austerity campaign and pleading for more luxury goods, an increased petrol ration and things of that kind which, if they had been carried out, would have made our economic international position far worse than it is today. It is time that they dropped this hypocrisy and faced the economic fact that this country had a dollar deficit in 1938 before the war, and that the war inevitably made it far worse.
May I come to the immediate terms of the Agreement? I believe that the Agreement shows enlightened self-interest on the part of the Americans in granting, and on the part of this country in accepting, it. It is in the interests of America, as it is in the interest of this nation and Western Europe, that we should co-operate to get Western Europe and this country, as the Agreement says, in a position where they can
"become independent of extraordinary outside economic assistance within the period of the Agreement."
There are no illusions on this side of the House that that will be an easy task. As an article in this week's "Economist" points out, it is a matter of considerable doubt whether the European nations will be able to balance their dollar accounts by 1952. But it gives a chance at least to this country to strike a balance. It gives us a chance, if trade is able to recover, if, above all, it is possible to get reasonable price levels established in the dollar
164
area as well as in the sterling area, if it is possible to get some healthy restoration of trade between the East and West of Europe, and further, if this Marshall Aid Agreement is not so implemented that the Americans drain too deeply the resources of the receiving countries.
The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) made one point with which I agree. It is right that someone who is in favour of this Agreement should make this point. Marshall Aid will fail unless the rising prices in America as well as in the offshore countries can be brought under control. The general level of prices in America today is 15 per cent. higher that it was a year ago and the index of the prices of industrial goods has risen over 145 per cent. since 1939. At the present time a new increase in the price of American steel is taken for granted and it is anticipated by the Federal Bureau of Labour Statistics that there will be a steady rise in food prices between now and November in America. If that kind of thing goes on, it will make nonsense of the dollar figures of Marshall Aid. In fact since July last year there has been a cut in the value of Marshall Aid, owing to rising prices in America, equivalent to the cut Congress made in the total allocation. If that goes on the value of Marshall Aid will diminish very seriously. It is a weakness of that Agreement that although in Article I (3) it provides that offshore purchases will be effected "at reasonable prices and on reasonable terms," there is no similar provision for the goods which are to be supplied from America.
The second point on which I feel considerable reservations is Article V. It provides for a schedule of minimum availabilities of materials, originating in the United Kingdom, required by the United States, either in absolute quantities or in percentages of production. It provides equal right of access for American and British nationals, and provides that we shall draw up a schedule of increased production where practicable in the United Kingdom and that an agreed percentage of this shall be transferred to America on a long-term basis. This article has to go on for two years even if the general agreement is terminated before it has run its full course. It is true that this is all to be done after all due regard to the reasonable requirements of the United

165
Kingdom for domestic use and commercial exports, including stocks and barter.
It may be that there are considerable advantages to the Colonial territories in this Article. It is quite clear that at the present time we are failing to carry out our development and welfare plans and the economic development of the colonial territories because of our desperate shortage of capital goods and skilled technicians. It may be that supplies of capital goods and technicians from America, from dollar sources, will be a valuable help in that respect. Under the Loan Agreement it will be possible to get finance for colonial development at cheaper rates than would have been possible through the International Bank for Reconstruction. I understand that some of the blocked sterling accounts may also be available for colonial development. It will probably tend to strengthen and maintain the prices for colonial raw materials, and so benefit the colonial revenues and producers.
That is the credit side of the case, but there are also serious dangers, and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a few questions to which I hope he will reply at the end of the Debate. We have set out on a colonial policy by which we want to develop our colonial territories towards economic as well as political independence. If we are to carry that out, it is important that there should be an increase of capital development from within the Colonies themselves rather than by extra-territorial firms. It is important that there should be an increase in the amount of production in the Colonies from inside and not from outside exploitation. It is important that we should get an increasing percentage of colonial technicians and managers as opposed to foreign technicians and managers. I do not want to see those important aspects of Colonial policy weakened by anything which happens under this Agreement.
Therefore, I ask, are there any indications so far as to what materials are involved under Article V, and what quantities or percentages are likely to be considered as equitable or fair within the terms of the Agreement? I also want to ask what consultations have taken place with the colonial Governments on the effect this Agreement will have on their trade and on their economy; how much increased
166
production will be demanded, and what will be the effects on the recurrent costs which have to be borne by the revenue of those territories; what safeguard will there be to see that there is not an undue drain on the scarce raw materials which are to be extracted? I think it was the right hon. Member for Aldershot who said that he believed in profits being made in colonial territories and being taken out of those territories. I want to see an increasing proportion of the profits made under colonial development put back into the Colonies and not taken out of them. I fear the political repercussions that may be involved if large numbers of American technicians, with different views from our own people on the colour question, flood, for example, into West Africa.
These are some of the difficulties that I foresee. Another point on which I would like assurance is that there will be rather greater safeguards for the colonial economies in the event of America at some future date wanting to unload or liquidate her stock piles than are provided for in the Havana Agreement. As I read it, Article 32 of the Havana Agreement simply says there will be four months' notice if such unloading should take place. That would not be much consolation to a colonial Government, which has vastly developed its economy and which needs some safeguard on prices for the future. I saw in the "New York Herald Tribune" that the French had asked for, and secured, some modification of Article V. I have not been able to get a copy of the French Agreement, but I would like to know if, in fact, any modification has been secured by the French, and if so, whether it would apply to this country as well.
We on this side of the House enter into this Agreement with no illusions. We realise that we are undertaking serious responsibilities; that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, under the Marshall Plan there will be less dollars available for expenditure by this country in the years ahead than there were in the years which lie behind; and that we can only make a success of this agreement if we carry on our productive effort on the lines which this Government has initiated with such success during the last few years.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Snow.]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

STANDING ORDERS (REVISION)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the re-arrangement and re-drafting of the Standing Orders so as to bring them into conformity with existing practice."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Leader of the House a question which I asked him last Thursday? Will it be competent for this Committee to consider the question of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. The matter that will go before this Select Committee is really one of editing and considering the order and the sequence of existing Standing Orders. The Committee will not be charged with the duty of considering changes in the Standing Orders and I am afraid that the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would involve a material change.
Sir William Darling: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Motion to adjourn the House was moved before 10 o'clock? Is that in Order, Sir? Hon. Members, in their anxiety to continue the Debate—
Mr. Speaker: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member is talking about. We have not moved to adjourn. On the previous Business we have agreed to the Motion "That the Debate be now adjourned," and now we have gone on to the next business.
Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Leader of the House a question regarding the Select Committee? I understood him to say that we are only to meet and edit the existing Standing Orders. I do not know exactly what that means; whether we can cut out or amend some of them. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why this Committee cannot take into consideration the question of the Scottish Grand Committee and its place of meeting?
Mr. Morrison: The Standing Orders have now existed for over no years and the only point we are suggesting here is that it is desirable for a
168
Committee to consider the editing, the sequence and the order of the existing Standing Orders. It is not proposed to introduce any amendments or new principles into them. It is merely a matter of codification, of editing and revision on the basis of the existing Standing Orders. Therefore, any question of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh—which would, of course, make a material change in the Standing Orders—will be outside the scope of the Select Committee. Therefore, I am afraid that the answer to my hon. Friends from Scotland is that it would not be competent for the Select Committee to deal with those matters and that, if they wish to raise them, they should be raised in some other way.
Mr. Scollan: In the event of the suggestion that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Scotland, or of a change in Standing Orders, being out of Order, may I remind the Leader of the House that he led us to believe that we were to be given six days for discussion whereas we are getting only six 2½-hour meetings.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it would be within the competence of this Select Committee to consider Standing Orders as affecting other Select Committees, such as that on Estimates?
Mr. Morrison: It can be taken by the House that the Committee will not change the substance of the Standing Orders in any particular. I am not saying that that should never be done, but that is not the purpose of this Committee. No question can arise on this Motion for the Select Committee, of recommending any change in the substance of the Standing Orders. It is merely a matter of editing or sub-editing, whichever hon. Members prefer to say, and re-arranging the order and the sequence of them and that sort of thing. There is no question of changing the substance of the Standing Orders. Therefore, none of these things arise. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Members from Scotland, I doubt whether I should be in Order if I proceeded to deal with it.
Mr. Cooper: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Select Committee will hear evidence on proposals affecting the Standing Orders?
Mr. Speaker: The Motion only says "Re-arrangement and re-drafting." That is not "hearing evidence"; it is mainly technical procedure.
Sir Ian Fraser: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to justify the setting-up of this Committee? It does not seem that a case is made out for a Select Committee if its function is merely to edit or sub-edit and re-draft. Does that mean that the Standing Orders are incomprehensible, very long or unreadable? Is the purpose of editing merely to make them readable by laymen instead of by lawyers? Is any shortening of procedure proposed? If nothing is proposed in the way of altering the wording, what is the purpose of the Committee? Alternatively, is the right hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive me for saying so, slipping through some alteration in our procedure? Is he seeking to cut short our procedure for some purpose? I do not feel he has justified the setting up of the Committee if it is as innocent as he makes it out to be.
Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that I have nothing up my sleeve. It is a perfectly straightforward job. What has happened is that the Standing Orders have existed in many forms for more than 100 years. They have been amended from time to time and changed in various respects, and there comes a period when revision and editing are necessary. The hon. Member was once a member of London County Council, as I was. I forget whether he was a member of the General Purposes Committee, but if he was he will remember that about once a quarter the Clerk of the Council put forward amendments to codify and make intelligible the ad hoc amendments. I do not compare Parliament with London County Council, although I have just been there, but it is the same sort of problem. The hon. Member will remember that from time to time the committee recommended the council to revise the standing orders and that did not raise controversy.
It is that kind of thing we are doing, except that these are House of Commons Standing Orders and not local authority standing orders. It is a matter of tidying up and making things more orderly and logical in presentation but without a
170
change in substance. Just as I have had to resist my hon. Friends who wanted to bring in matters which involved questions of substance, so I can assure the hon. Member for Lonsdale that no change in substance is required and he can be assured I am not trying to "pull a fast one" over the House. Indeed, he has known me long enough to know that I would not attempt that.
Ordered:
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the re-arrangement and re-drafting of the Standing Orders so as to bring them into conformity with existing practice."
Ordered:
"That Mr. Bowles, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Eric Fletcher, Mr. Leslie, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Mathers, Major Milner, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charles Williams be members of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That three be the quorum."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

NEW ZEALAND GIFT (FAIRFIELD)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Molson: I rise to complain of the action of the Ministry of Food in intercepting and converting to their own use 3,224 lbs. of prime beef from Fairfield, New Zealand, intended as a gift to Fairfield, Derbyshire, and of the high-handed inconsiderate and arbitrary manner in which this has been done. Early in 1948 it became known to my constituency that a community in New Zealand were planning to send a gift of beef to Fairfield, Derbyshire. There was no personal link between these two places and the idea apparently was a spontaneous and generous desire on the part of a small community in New Zealand to do something to help what they regarded as the parent community in the old country from which they had taken their name.
Therefore, they wrote to the county police of Derbyshire and, through them,

171
they were put in touch with the Vicar of Fairfield, who organised a committee to organise the distribution. He got together a representative committee consisting of the Buxton town councillor who represented Fairfield, a police constable, two ministers of Free Church denominations, two butchers who undertook to cut up the meat free of charge, and above all the assistant food officer of Buxton, through whom they arranged to have available the machinery of the food office of the borough. It was, in fact, a representative committee and was planned efficiently. The Minister of Food has prevented it from operating.
The gift from Fairfield, New Zealand, consisted of this quantity of 3,224 lb. of New Zealand beef and it was decided by the Fairfield committee that it should be distributed to those people in Fairfield who were 60 and over. There were 900 of them, and therefore they would each have received about 3½ lb. of beef. Mr. Senton, the hon. secretary of the Fairfield Parents' and Teachers' Association, New Zealand, wrote to the Vicar, Mr. Saunders-Williams, on 29th March, as follows:
"I now have pleasure in telling you that 3,221 lb. of prime beef were shipped aboard the steamship 'Empire Star' which sailed for London on the 19th inst. This consignment will be taken charge of by the Ministry of Food, Overseas Gifts Allocation Centre, who will deliver the goods to you."
Such was the belief of the simple-minded New Zealanders in the reliability and honesty of the Ministry of Food.
The letter goes on:
"Now, perhaps I should tell you a few details about Fairfield, Hamilton, New Zealand, and its school and the people who make up the community. …
There follows an interesting account of a thriving New Zealand community of farmers who were anxious to establish contact with Fairfield in the mother country. The letter goes on to ask about Fairfield, Derbyshire. The secretary writes:
"I should be deeply grateful if you would send me a few details of Fairfield—population, nearest large town, local industry, etc. A few photos would be an added attraction; of course I have reasons for this, I would like to keep the school executive interested in your township and any mail I receive will be placed before them, and exhibited at the Quarterly general meetings or monthly meetings, to let the folk see that their efforts are appreciated."
172
I have quoted freely from this letter in order to show that the organisers of this generous gift in New Zealand were anxious to know about Fairfield, and that it was in order that Fairfield, Derbyshire, should benefit from the generosity of Fairfield, New Zealand, that this gift was sent.
When the cargo of beef arrived in London it was seized by the Ministry of Food and converted to their use. No notification was sent to Fairfield and after waiting for some weeks the Vicar of Fairfield wrote to the Ministry of Food asking what had happened about this cargo of beef which they had been expecting to receive, and which the people aged 60 and over in Fairfield had been confidently expecting to enjoy. The vicar wrote on 7th May. On 13th May the Ministry replied as follows:
"I regret that it is not possible to send the meat to Fairfield. I think I can do no better than include a copy of the letter from the Ministry to the donors"—
I cannot quote the letter in full, I am leaving out a few words—
"When at a later date we are in a position to purchase non-perishable foodstuffs we will keep in mind that they were made possible by the sale of the gift intended for Fairfield."
I recognise the magnanimity of the Ministry of Food, that having seized the Fairfield food and sold it for what it would fetch on the open market, or at their own fixed price, they undertake to bear in mind, when the money is obtained, to spend it at some future unspecified time on non-perishable foodstuffs.
I turn now to the Minister's letter to Fairfield, New Zealand, dated 21st April, which was enclosed in a letter to the Vicar of Fairfield as the best explanation they could give of what had been done. It is too long to read in full, but it says:
"The Overseas Gifts Allocation Centre is unable to undertake the distribution of perishable foodstuffs"—
and therefore they
"have no alternative but to take the meat into stock for issue in the ordinary way as part of the rations."
The Ministry then proceeds to offer, first, to issue in lieu non-perishable foodstuffs; secondly, not now because of the general scarcity of foodstuffs, but at some unspecified time in the future to do so; and thirdly, not necessarily to Fairfield alone

173
but including other areas also if the Ministry in its discretion thinks—and here I quote again—
"that the distribution of the whole gift in the area selected would prove greatly disproportionate."
I object to each one of the claims that the Ministry makes. No one in Fairfield would have objected to this fresh beef arriving in London being used for the ration in the Southern part of the country, if a corresponding amount of fresh beef, landed perhaps at Liverpool, from perhaps New Zealand or the Argentine, had been made available to the people for whom the gift was intended. But we do object in the strongest way to this particular gift being converted to the use of the Ministry, when what is offered in lieu is non-perishable commodities, which may be bully beef or tinned soups or perhaps tinned peas. The Parliamentary Secretary gave me an answer on 21st June. Instead of the fresh beef, it is canned meat, cheese and fruit, which obviously is a very poor substitute indeed for fresh meat. Secondly, we object to the delay. To quote the words of the Minister:
"It will … be some little time before the purchase can be made."
I deny that there need have been any delay, but if it were necessary for there to be delay that is one more reason why it was unjustifiable for this gift, intended for a certain destination, to be converted to the use of the Ministry of Food, because it meant that the Ministry of Food were not able to provide an adequate substitute for it at the time. Thirdly, I say that it is the climax of presumptuous Socialism for the Ministry to claim to be able to include other areas with the area for which the gift was intended. On the first occasion the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to me, said that permission had been obtained to include other areas with Fairfield. No answer at all was given to the third part of my Question to the Minister on 21st June, which asked:
"… in what way his Department obtained permission from Fairfield, New Zealand, that other areas might share in the gift.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 102.]
I should be glad to know whether the first answer was accurate or, alternatively, why no explanation of it was given on the second occasion when I asked a Ques-
174
tion about it. I have shown from the letter from New Zealand that this was intended to be a gift from Fairfield, New Zealand, to Fairfield, Derbyshire. I protest at the claim of the Ministry of Food to be allowed at their discretion to include other areas with the Fairfield Ward of Buxton. I take it that this is merely a new application of the general principle of the Government that no one should enjoy anything if everybody cannot enjoy exactly the same thing. It is, in fact, the case that one of the few targets which the Government have set themselves, and which they seem likely to achieve, is equality in misery, and therefore, because an extra 3½ lb. of beef could not be distributed to everybody in the country, they do not intend that the aged people of Fairfield, in Buxton, should enjoy the benefit of the gift from New Zealand. If everybody cannot have it, then nobody shall have it. I protest most strongly against the action of the Ministry of Food in this matter, and I say that it is a monstrous interference with the general liberties of the subject.
10.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I generally regard the remarks of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) as reasonable, and I am very surprised that he should have thought fit to use such strong language tonight in describing the activities of my Department. When he hears the very simple explanation, I think that he will consider that some of the epithets he used were perhaps a little out of place. It is true that early in April we were informed by the New Zealand Marketing Department that a cargo of beef was being sent from the Fairfield Parents and Teachers Association, of Hamilton, for distribution in the parish of Fairfield, which is a ward of Buxton. We were asked to deliver the meat to the Vicar of Fairfield, who, as the hon. Gentleman has described, was prepared to form a committee and to arrange the distribution of the meat.
In their covering letter, the Marketing Department said that the donors had been advised that, in accordance with the Ministry's normal practice—and I ask the hon. Gentleman who, in his last few sentences, asked me if this was a new application of our principles, to note this—in accordance with the Ministry's

175
normal practice, non-perishable foods would probably be substituted for the meat. In order to make quite certain that the donors of this very generous gift understood what was the normal practice of the Ministry, we communicated by air mail with the Parents' and Teachers' Association of Fairfield, and we made it quite clear to them that we would exchange the perishable food for non-perishable food. We also asked them if we could use our discretion in the distribution of the meat.
A reply was received from the donors on 11th May agreeing to the substitution of non-perishable foods, and, although the letter was somewhat ambiguous on the further point, presumably agreeing to the wider distribution of the meat. Accordingly, this meat was used for the ration, and, when the hon. Gentleman describes our actions as intercepting and converting to our own use a gift of this kind, I want him to realise that, when the Ministry of Food uses fresh meat that comes into this country, it uses it simply for the purpose of ensuring that the ration is honoured. We exchanged the meat for one ton of canned foods, and I gave the hon. Gentleman a description of these foods—fruit, meats, cheese, fruit pudding and soup—and I am sure he would like to learn that they are now at Fairfield and in the hands of the vicar of Fairfield.
When the hon. Gentleman tells me that this Committee which was set up would now have no useful function, I would reply that, surely, it can work in exactly the same way as it intended to do when it proposed to distribute the meat. It can distribute this fruit, meat, cheese and so on, and for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this food would not be welcome or would not be equivalent to fresh meat, I can assure him the women of Fairfield who receive this canned food from New Zealand will be exceedingly grateful and will receive this generous gift in exactly the same way as they would have done if it had been perishable food.
Mr. Molson: May I interrupt the hon. Lady? In the first place, I do not think that, when she reads HANSARD tomorrow, she will find that I said anything about the Committee being useless, but, in view of what she has said, may I ask why I was not told on 21st June in answer to my Question? In what way has her
176
Department obtained permission from Fairfield so that other areas may share in the gift? Why was I not given that information. My Question simply was not answered.
Dr. Summerskill: When a Question is put on the Order Paper, a Minister will inform himself or herself of the general position. I may say that a letter was actually sent on such and such a date, but, when the hon. Gentleman raises the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, I inquired into the details to find out in exactly what way we obtained this information. It was by air letter sent to New Zealand on a certain date which I gave him.
Mr. Molson: I put a Question on the Order Paper, and the hon. Lady's Department should have given me an answer on all these points. Full notice was given.
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is now receiving a full answer. He has raised this matter in order that he should have a detailed answer, and I fail to see why he should have a grievance at this stage. He is now at liberty to have a full answer.
I want to emphasise that the food is now in Fairfield and is being distributed. The hon. Gentleman asks why it is necessary to substitute non-perishable for perishable foods, and he asked me whether this was a new application of our principles. That is not so. This scheme was devised in the autumn of 1945 in consultation with representatives of the Dominions and Colonies, and it provides that all such gifts are to be sent to the Overseas Gift Centres. There is no question of this scheme having been devised since we had knowledge of this particular gift. This is the usual practice which is adopted by the Ministry. It was made quite clear in October, 1945, that we wanted to distribute these gifts from the Gift Centre, and from the administrative point of view it would be very difficult to allocate gifts of perishable foods. I am very pleased to say that the Dominions and the Colonies, for the most part, observe this arrangement.
In case the hon. Gentleman thinks that New Zealand may not be aware of this, I understand that correspondence on this subject passed between the Ministry and

177
the New Zealand Marketing Department as recently as January of this year, as a result of which the Department undertook to explain the position to all would-be donors of perishable foods. That was in January. I should point this out to the House. The hon. Gentleman has spoken very harshly of my Department. He has suggested that we have been "niggardly" and "mean" in treating these people as we have treated them. But we must remember that this food was brought into this country at the expense of the exportable surplus. New Zealand has undertaken to export all surplus meat to this country and, therefore, these gifts, if perishable, are sent at the expense of the stocks of the Ministry.
The other point is this. Although foodstuffs are received by us as gifts, the cost of bringing them to this country, together with the costs of landing, warehousing, and transporting them in the United Kingdom, are borne by the Ministry out of public funds. The hon. Gentleman, surely, would agree with me that my Department has some responsibility in this matter. We must ensure that the public are treated equitably. Therefore, we have asked the Dominions, through the High Commissioners, whether they are prepared to allow us to allocate this food to wider areas than perhaps the donors intended in the first place. This discretion has been given to us very generously. So far as the amount of food is concerned, the population of Fairfield is slightly less than seven thousand—about one-third of the total population of Buxton, and Fairfield has already had pound for pound with other parts of the country.
If we had given this gift solely to Fairfield, it would have meant that the individuals chosen would probably have had something like two to three times the amount of food we gave in one allocation to Buxton. As the Member for that whole area, surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be inequitable. Therefore, we have converted it into non-perishable foods. On a rough calculation, the amount is 30 cwt. and we are allocating to Fairfield one ton of this food. The rest will be allocated to needy and elderly people in the county through, probably, the mayors of the boroughs.
Mr. Molson: The Mayor of Buxton?
Dr. Summerskill: Certainly the Mayor of Buxton may have some when we come to allocate this other food. It will be allocated together with the other gifts. We have given to Fairfield one ton of the nonperishable foods. We consider that that is a generous allocation. I think, therefore, that in view of my explanation the hon. Member will agree that his criticism was extremely harsh. He has come here tonight without informing himself about the policy of my Department. He has come here and charged us in the strongest language with treating these people in Fairfield unfairly.
The hon. Member asked why the Vicar of Fairfield was not informed in May, or a little earlier. The reason was that we had had no communication from the vicar. Our first communication was from the New Zealand Marketing Department informing us that the people of Fairfield, New Zealand, were about to send the gift. We communicated with Fairfield, and subsequently the vicar wrote to us. We informed him exactly what our policy was. The hon. Member read these letters as if, by reading them, he could condemn my Department. Nothing of the sort. The hon. Member is reading letters which are identical with letters sent to other hon. Members of this House who have realised that the policy we are pursuing is based on justice and equity.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: If any speech which I have heard in this House, through sheer coldness and callousness, could alienate the goodwill of the people in the Dominions, it is that which the hon. Lady has just made. She showed no realisation, that these gifts were made from a personal desire for contact between one place with another within the Empire. She gave us the usual lame, second-rate, Front Bench speaker's stuff put up by the Department. What is "normal practice?" I wonder how often it is departed from. It is only fair that for once it should be made perfectly plain—
Mr. Skeffington: Is the hon. Member aware that this is in agreement with the Dominions?
Mr. Williams: I will not give way to the hon. Member. He is seldom here except to talk nonsense. I am here to say something about the Minister, who obviously has failed to appreciate the

179
desires which led to this gift, which has been held up and diverted to the ordinary meat ration. How does the hon. Lady know that this gift had anything to do with a surplus of meat in New Zealand? It might have been the result of the saving of the people in Fairfield, New Zealand. It may never have occurred to the hon. Lady, as a Socialist, that people can do anything unless they are forced. I wonder what would have happened if this gift had been made to a mining village? I wonder if "normal practice" would have been applied in the same way if it had
180
been made to, say, Ebbw Vale, or somewhere like that? I wonder whether the official eye would not have been closed, and the gift would have gone through lest something unpleasant should have happened there.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-Two Minutes to Eleven o' Clock.

GERMANY
  Civilian Internment Camps
  Civilian Internment Camps
  Kreigsmarine Arsenal, Wilhelmshaven
  Kreigsmarine Arsenal, Wilhelmshaven
  Berlin Kommandatura (Meeting)
  Berlin Kommandatura (Meeting)
  BALKANS (U.N. SUB-COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  BALKANS (U.N. SUB-COMMISSION'S REPORT)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Dried Milk
  Dried Milk
  Specimen Menus (Diets)
  Specimen Menus (Diets)
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Fresh Meat, Northern Ireland
  Fresh Meat, Northern Ireland
  Fruit and Vegetable Canning
  Fruit and Vegetable Canning
  Meat, West Riding
  Meat, West Riding
  RIVER SEVERN (AUST-BEACHLEY FERRY)
  RIVER SEVERN (AUST-BEACHLEY FERRY)
  DUMFRIES-STRANRAER ROAD
  DUMFRIES-STRANRAER ROAD
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Police Gun (Sale)
  Police Gun (Sale)
  Refuse Collection Vehicles
  Refuse Collection Vehicles
AGRICULTURE
  Camp, Navenby
  Camp, Navenby
  Unproductive Land
  Unproductive Land
  Blacksmiths (Steel Supplies)
  Blacksmiths (Steel Supplies)
  Pig and Poultry Rations (Ex-Service Men)
  Pig and Poultry Rations (Ex-Service Men)
  Hay Mowers (Spare Parts)
  Hay Mowers (Spare Parts)
  Jackdaws
  Jackdaws
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  New Cement Works
  New Cement Works
  Westwood Aerodrome, Peterborough
  Westwood Aerodrome, Peterborough
  Building Operations (Working Party)
  Building Operations (Working Party)
  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONAL CASE)
  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONAL CASE)
  SODIUM CHLORATE SUPPLIES
  SODIUM CHLORATE SUPPLIES
  DOCKS STRIKE (SERVICES' ASSISTANCE)
  DOCKS STRIKE (SERVICES' ASSISTANCE)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DOCTOR, WITHERIDGE)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DOCTOR, WITHERIDGE)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS)
  POST OFFICE (PARCELS)
  POST OFFICE (PARCELS)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Cotton Production
  Cotton Production
  Medical Service, Nigeria
  Medical Service, Nigeria
  ARMED FORCES (DOCKS STRIKE)
  ARMED FORCES (DOCKS STRIKE)
  DISABLED EX-AIRMEN
  DISABLED EX-AIRMEN
  NATIONAL FINANCE (STERLING BALANCES)
  NATIONAL FINANCE (STERLING BALANCES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  NORTHOLT AIRPORT DISASTER.
  2.34 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the following question of which I have given Notice to the noble Lord, the Minister of Civil Aviation: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make regarding the aircraft crash at Northolt Airport yesterday.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I wish to express my own deep distress and that of His Majesty's Government at this disaster. I know that your Lordships will join me in offering our profound sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. The Chief Inspector of Accidents was on the scene soon after the occurrence, and preliminary investigations have already begun in association with the Royal Air Force and with the Swedish authorities. In the light of these, I shall decide whether a public court investigation should be held.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister if he will accept the assurance that the noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, as I am sure is the case on every side of the House, wish to associate themselves with those words of sympathy for those who have suffered? Secondly, without pressing the noble Lord in any way, could he arrange to make an announcement when he has come to his decision whether there should or should not be a public inquiry?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I will certainly make an announcement as soon as a decision has been reached.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
  Moved, That leave be given for the Lord Teviot's Motion (now standing for Wednesday, July 21) to be advanced to Wednesday, July 14.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I have the honour to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is a very comprehensive Bill and in many respects deals with the reforms that have been in demand for a long time past. I shall refer to some of them in the course of what I have to say. The Bill deals with the reform and the unifying of the franchise on the basis of a qualification of "One man, one vote." It deals, too, with the distribution, or redistribution, of some seats, with a small resultant alteration in the total number of Members of another place. It introduces some long-delayed and acceptable reforms in voting and other matters. It well may be that your Lordships feel that this is a Bill which is mainly concerned with another place. At the same time, it is an important constitutional matter of which this House quite properly takes cognisance.
  The first important aspect of the Bill is that it gives effect to the principle of "One man, one vote"—and one vote only. It is based upon residence. Happily it dispenses with something which some of us who were in another place in years gone by and were acquainted with the duties of our election agent's office felt was a very troublesome affair—the ascertainment of the period of residence and other matters affecting qualification. But, in this case, there are two registers a year. It is the business of the registration officer to take a house-to-house canvass of the constituency and enter up those who are in bona fide residence at that time. Those who are so in residence, if they

  289
  are also otherwise eligible by reason of age and so on, are enrolled on the register for that constituency. The adherence to this principle, to which we attach prime importance, has involved a departure in one respect from the recommendation of the Conference on which perhaps some of your Lordships may have some animadversions to make; and as a result those of us who are university graduates will not in future have two votes. We shall not have an additional vote because we are university graduates.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: But we have no votes at all.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I stand corrected by the noble Viscount. We are classed with those who are not capable of voting! However, putting aside the point which for the moment I must confess I had overlooked, that I happen to be a member of this distinguished House, I would remark that in years gone by I was a Member of another place, for fifty years or so I have been a Doctor of Medicine of the University of London, and upon various occasions I have had an opportunity of exercising a vote. To be quite frank with your Lordships, I have never been particularly impressed with the privilege. I quite agree that my views may perhaps have been a little jaundiced by the fact that never in my life as a university graduate did I vote for a candidate who was successful. An experience of that kind is apt to influence one's point of view. However, that no doubt applies to a great many more people. At any rate, the university vote will be abolished by this Bill, and along with it will go the second vote which was previously available to those who had business qualifications. That has a great effect, particularly upon the City of London, where the business vote was, of course, predominant. For my part—I speak now as a loyal member of long standing of my university, who has for many years taken an active part in its business—I do not in the least deplore the ending of the distinction between university graduates and other citizens, and I think that the adherence to the principle that one man should have only one vote is right.
  That principle has involved in the House of Commons—for which this Government must take full responsibility—the abolition of the university seats. It
  290
  carries with it, also, a consequence which, from the point of view of tradition and sentiment, some of your Lordships might wish were otherwise but which is inescapable. In the City of London there are, in all, fewer than 5,000 resident voters, and it would be quit absurd that a constituency of that size and character should be entitled to two Members. Alterations have been made, to which I will refer in a few moments, with regard to the City of London representation.
  Having said a word on the principle of "one man, one vote" which is embodied in the Bill, and what it carries with it in those two respects, I would like now to say a word about the redistribution of seats. There were two Speaker's Conferences and other Committees, to which I will refer in a moment, that dealt with the boundaries of constituencies and so on. Previous to the setting up of these Committees, there were 615 Members in the House of Commons, including the university seats and Northern Ireland. But that has not been a constant number. I find that from 1895 to to 1918 there were 670 Members of the House of Commons, and from 1918 onwards there were 607 Members; so there is nothing sacrosanct in the number of 615, which was the general objective of the Boundary Commission. The principle that was taken, on which I shall have to say a word, about the alterations that were made in the other place, was that, in general, 50,000 electors should be taken as the unit to return a Member to the House of Commons.
  The effect of the original recommendations of the Conference was this—leaving out the hundreds and taking it in thousands: the average electorate per seat in England was 58,000; in Scotland, 49,000, and in Wales, 51,000. The numbers for the boroughs, as we should expect, were higher than those for the county seats; and—again leaving out the hundreds—the average number of electors per seat in the boroughs was 61,000; in the counties it was 55,000. In the course of the discussions in the other place, it was found, notwithstanding this general aim to have a unit of 50,000, that there were eight boroughs with more than 80,000; and these eight boroughs were each divided into two constituencies, giving two Members for the borough. They are well known to your Lordships, I take it—Battersea, Blackburn, East

  291
  Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Norwich, Paddington and Reading. Each of those boroughs has more than 80,000 electors, and so it was decided to give them two Members. It appeared, also, that there were nine boroughs in which the numbers of Members proposed gave an unduly high electoral number. There was Birmingham, which had an average at that time of 63,000, Bradford with an average of 71,000, and so on. It was therefore decided in the House of Commons—all kinds of reflections have been made upon this, entirely unfairly, as I shall show your Lordships in a moment—to give an additional Member to these nine boroughs: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield.
  The result of the addition of one Member to those large areas is that in no case is the electorate less than 50,000. The smallest electorate of them all is in the sub-division of Leicester, where the electorate is 51,827 per Member. So it cannot be said that the alteration made in the other place in that respect has departed in the least from the spirit of the general intention of the Boundary Commission, which aimed at a minimum of 50,000 or thereabouts. The result of this has been to make the total number of the Members of the House of Commons 613, apart from the Members for Northern Ireland, of whom there are 13. There are 506 Members from England, with an average of 56,000 electors each; 71 Members from Scotland, with an average of electors of 49,000 (which is all very proper, seeing that the population in many parts is more widely distributed), and 36 from Wales, with an average of 51,000. So it will be seen that, whatever may be said as to the Bill as it now stands, the average number of electors for all the newly divided boroughs is substantially more than the minimum looked for. It is clearly right that in those places there should not be an average (as there would have been, for example, in Bradford) of 71,000 electors per Member. With the addition of one more Member the actual number of voters per Member in that city is 53,350. I am quite sure that no one would say that an electorate of that size was not entitled to elect a Member to the House of Commons.
  292
  I pass from that point, but I thought it was fair to give a general indication of what the position will be as a result of the small number of changes made in the House of Commons. Four Committees have sat on this matter—the two Speakers Conferences, the Oliver Committee on Electoral Registration and the Carr Committee on Electoral Law Reform. I will mention some of the alterations to the law which I think will be acceptable everywhere. Whatever criticisms your Lordships may make of the two matters to which I have already referred, I believe there will be general agreement on these other alterations. The basis of registration I have explained. It will take in all those qualified who are residents at a given time. It will be the business of the registration officer to ascertain who the residents are, and that will avoid what many of us with long experience of this matter have felt to be exceedingly undesirable—namely the touting around, shall I say, of agents and so forth, to ascertain names. It will all be done properly by the registration officer of the district.
  Another important change with regard to the facilities for voting is one which I am sure everyone will welcome. It is provided in the Bill that every parish—and some of them are very scattered, as we all know—shall have a polling station to ensure that people do not have to go unduly long distances in order to vote. This, as we know, has been in the past a great hardship upon a good many people. In some cases there are scattered hamlets with only a few voters, and places with only 30 electors will be able to make representations for additional facilities for voting. Another very acceptable change provided with regard to facilities for voting is that of voting by post. This will apply to Servicemen and people living in very scattered districts, such as the Islands off the West Coast of Scotland, civil servants who may be away on duty and their wives, and Service personnel generally. I think, too, we ought to be glad that Parliamentary candidates who may be away electioneering in another area will now be entitled to a postal vote for the constituency where they reside. That will apply to Parliamentary candidates and their wives.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it was always possible to do that.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, not by post. I am sure we shall all agree that this is a desirable improvement in the facilities for voting. There are various other minor matters which I need not particularise too much. Where there is an equality of votes, instead of the returning officer having the painful duty of giving the casting vote it is now to be done by drawing lots. The hours of polling in all places are to be from seven in the morning until nine at night, which will avoid the necessity of having to make application, and so on. Another valuable improvement is that it will be the business of the returning officer to send to every elector a poll-card showing the place and time of voting. Of course, that card will not contain names of the candidates with a cross marked against one name, as we have been accustomed to send out in the interests of our own Parties in times past.
  Similarly there are important and welcome changes with regard to local government elections. The residential qualification remains the same, but in local government franchise there is an additional vote for business or other property. The qualification is that it must be of the value of at least £10 a year and in some other place than the property giving the residential qualification. That is to say a person ought not to have two votes in the same place, but if he has business premises in one place and lives in another he will have a local government vote in both areas, one in respect of the business premises and one in respect of his residence. The times and facilities for postal voting are the same as for Parliamentary elections, except that postal voting facilities do not apply to rural district elections or to parish council elections.
  Another useful alteration in local government electoral law affects the date of the election. In the past we have often felt it very inconvenient that voting for boroughs should be in November and for councils in May. Now it is provided that voting in the boroughs will be altered from November to May. County council elections will be changed from March to the week including April 9. Rural district and parish council elections will be in the week including May 9. So we shall complete all these elections in the months of April and May, which I am sure will be a convenience. In the
  294
  case of Scotland, they will all take place in May.
  One important alteration has been necessitated in London. Owing to the reduction in the number of members' constituencies it was found that to have two London County Council members per constituency would not provide a sufficient total of members for the London County Council to enable that body to do its work properly. The London County Council has a vast amount of very complicated work to do, and it was felt that we must find some way of keeping up the number of members of the Council. It is therefore provided that in the future there will be three County Council members for each constituency, instead of two.
  An alteration which would have been welcome to some of us, at any rate, in times past, relates to the amount of money which can be spent in an election. At present the amount for a Parliamentary election is 6d. per elector plus £75 in respect of an agent. It is 5d. per elector in boroughs plus an agent's fee. In the Bill it is provided that there will be a basic figure of £450 allowed plus 2d per elector in the counties, and 1½d. per elector in the boroughs. I can give your Lordships the net result by this illustration. If you take a constituency of 60,000, you will find that in the case of a county the maximum that may be spent under the present law is £1,575. Under the Bill, the maximum that can be spent is £950. In the case of boroughs, the sum is reduced from £1,300 to £825, which I think is a welcome change, though even the latter amount seems a lot of money.
  Then there are changes in the law affecting the use of motor cars which, I think, will be very useful and which I believe are only right, particularly in country areas. It is possible under the Bill for the agent to employ motor vehicles for the carriage of electors to the poll, provided he shows a suitable placard on the vehicle—one car per 1,500 in counties, and one per 2,500 in boroughs. The Bill also provides that, notwithstanding the provision I have mentioned, people with cars can take members of their own households to vote. As to who are members of their households, I will leave others to define. At all events, it is quite proper that people should be allowed to take members of their own families in their own cars, but they

  295
  are not allowed to carry a placard asking people to vote for anyone, or behave as if it were a hired car. There are a considerable number of other minor alterations affecting such things as agents' fees, meetings, payments of speakers, and other matters which I do not think I need to detail to your Lordships. But the use of wireless transmitting apparatus in elections is prohibited, and people will be spared that infliction in their own homes, which I think is all to the good. Many of these minor amendments in our election law and conduct are exceedingly welcome, and, on the whole, I have great confidence in recommending this to the House as a very good Bill. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison).
  3.2 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to begin by thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the very full account that he has given your Lordships of this Bill, though I am sure he will not expect me to agree with everything he has said. Let me say at once, however, that we on this side of the House do not intend to reject or even to amend this Bill. It is not, as the Leader of the House himself said, in the same category as those other measures on which we have considered ourselves obliged to oppose the Government. It is evident that this Bill is of more direct concern to the House of Commons than to the House of Lords. It is true that the other place do not seem to have had quite the same sense of delicacy about the composition of this House; perhaps it would have been somewhat better if they had used the same discrimination as we do on this particular occasion! But, in any case, it will be agreed that it is unnecessary for us to follow their bad example in that respect. It should be remembered that under the Constitution your Lordships, together with criminals and lunatics, do not enjoy the privilege of exercising the Parliamentary franchise. And therefore it seems hardly appropriate, even if it is constitutionally legitimate, that we should attempt to mould the machinery to enable others to do what we ourselves are not allowed to do. That, it might well be argued—and no doubt would be argued—is somewhat outside our sphere. But if it is undesir-
  296
  able that we should try to amend a measure of this character, that surely does not preclude us from making comment on it. Whatever difference of view there may be about our other functions, there is one, I believe, on which there is complete unanimity; and that is that we should have the power, and indeed the duty, to discuss matters of burning public interest. I should have thought this certainly comes into that category, for with the three exceptions I have already mentioned it directly affects every grown man and woman in this country.
  Many of the provisions of the Bill which deal with the actual machinery of
  voting are, I think, not controversial. With those I do not propose to deal this afternoon. But there are others which have been the subject of bitter controversy in another place, and I am bound to say at the outset that we regard this Bill as it emerged from the other place, in spite of the skilful and elaborate special pleading to which we have listened from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, as a pretty shabby affair. As to the desirability of some measure to revise the machinery of the election of Members to the House of Commons, there is, so far as I know, no difference between any Party. Obviously some such action is necessary from time to time, if Parliament is to be what it purports to be—that is to say, if it is to be representative of the general population of the country as a whole. As was said a great many centuries ago, "Times change and we must change with them." That is specially true of the century in which we live. I do not suppose that there has ever been a period in the whole of our history which has seen such rapid and extensive movements of population. What were thirty years ago thriving urban areas have now become almost "pocket boroughs"; and other parts of the country which thirty years ago
  were remote and lonely parts of the countryside have now been transformed into thriving industrial towns or thickly populated suburbs. Clearly, account must be had of changes of that kind, if Parliament is to be in any way representative of the broad mass of the citizens.
  It was for that reason, I understand, that it was decided during the last Parliament, by agreement between all Parties, that they should embark on the task of redrawing the boundaries of the

  297
  constituencies. According to what has become a fairly well-established custom in such circumstances, a Conference was convened, under the Chairmanship of the Speaker, to examine the position, and if possible to produce a Report which would be acceptable and agreeable to all sections of opinion. To this procedure, all Parties assented. In due course, as your Lordships are aware, the Conference sat; and they produced a Report. That Report was not dissented from by any portion of the Government of the day, which, conveniently, at that time represented all the main Parties in the State. All that would appear to have been needed was to implement these recommendations. That was the position which was accepted by members of all Parties, not only in the last Parliament, but also in the early stages of this Parliament. It was agreeably recognised on every side that the traditional procedure for securing an agreed solution had once again justified itself. The British genius for compromise had won another notable victory. I have here, but I do not want to weary your Lordships with them, a number of quotations from Socialist Members of another place, which I think amply confirm the view I have given.
  Then—I think this is the only possible conclusion—quite suddenly a number of sinister figures appeared on the stage—the successors of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the Party managers of the Labour Party. A whisper began to be heard; "Was this settlement quite so good as it appeared? It may be fair, it may be British, but how will it affect the Party?" This agreed solution was going to lose the Party 35 seats. Was it not possible to pay too high a price for a fair and objective outlook? Gradually this whisper spread—we could even hear it in this rarefied atmosphere—from managers to Back-Benchers; and from the Back Benches to the Front Bench. And the more the representatives of the Government 'thought about these 35 seats, the more intolerable the situation appeared. Some way out must be found from obligations so foolishly entered into, when they did not know that they were going to have a majority in the next Parliament. No doubt that was a situation that was extremely embarrassing. Extricating oneself from agreements into which one has entered is always awkward. But,
  298
  "where there's a will there's a way," and eventally some ingenious mind, which I take to be the mind of the Lord President of the Council, found a way out.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? I am wondering where he gets his figure of 35. There appear to have been 17 alterations plus the university seats.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you alter 17 which were against you to 17 in your favour, you get a total of 34. Anyone who has taken part in a Division in this House will see that that is not an unfair calculation
  As I said, a new formula was propounded—namely, that what is done in an earlier Parliament does not bind the next Parliament. From from moment all was plain sailing. All that remained to be done was so to cut about the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference that the loss of 35 seats to the Labour Party was entirely neutralised. They were quite frank about it; there was hardly an attempt to conceal their real motives. They entered into this Party game with gusto and, I must confess, with very considerable success. They started first on the university seats. These had proved, as your Lordships know, singularly reluctant to return representatives of the Labour Party. As the voters for the universities are both intelligent and independent minded, this is perhaps not so very surprising; but it was quite sufficient to ensure their liquidation. It was argued that the university seats are not logically defensible—we heard it today from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—on the rigid basis of "one man, one vote." That may well be true. But there is a great deal in the British Constitution which is not logically defensible.
  The real question is: Do the university Members provide a useful element in the House of Commons? That is the point that ought to lave been considered, and to that, I should have thought, there is only one conceivable answer. They do—did, I am afraid it will soon be. They provide an independent element in a House which is already far too much dominated by the Party Whips. If the Members for the universities are not Socialists, they are, for the most part, certainly not Tories. Take such Members as Sir Arthur Salter, Mr. Wilson Harris,

  299
  and Miss Eleanor Rathbone. I mention only those names; your Lordships can think of many others. Can anyone deny that those Members were not only ornamental but useful to Parliament? I would suggest that this action which has been taken by
  the House of Commons must be particularly interesting to noble Lords in this House. In recent months we have heard a great deal from the Government Benches here in the House of Lords about the value of the Cross-Bench mind. It constantly cropped up during the debates on the Parliament Bill: the Cross-Bench mind must be preserved in any scheme for reform. That, we have been told, is
  absolutely vital. The university Members are the only Cross-Bench minds in the House of Commons, yet that did not save them from extinction. I think we can now see how much value we must attribute to Government protestations on that point. So much for the universities.
  And what about the City of London? It is equally easy to make a logical case against the representation of the City of London. But the City has played an immense and glowing part in Parliament throughout British history. Through all the period of the civil war it was firm against reaction, and to-day, and for long past, it has been the financial centre of the whole Commonwealth and Empire. Can anyone who looks at the matter with an objective mind say that the lustre of Parliament is not going to be dimmed by the abolition of the constituency of the City of London? Yet, because it was not a good Socialist seat, it was enthusiastically swept away into the limbo of the past.
  One might have thought that, having struck so valiant a blow for sectional as against national interests, the supporters of the Government would have been satisfied. But not at all. It seems that gerrymandering is rather like drink: it goes to your head. Having started on their career of destruction, the Labour Party ran amok, and they went on hacking about the Report of the Speaker's Conference until the ultimate result was, not what the delegates to that Conference had agreed was right for the country but what the Socialist wirepullers thought was right for their Party. Nor did they concern themselves merely with redrawing boundaries and constituencies; they threw in
  300
  extras, such as limiting the use of cars at elections, to which the Leader of the House has referred. The reason for that, I take it, is that it is assumed that only the rich have cars. But I should have thought that the storm over the basic ration would have disabused the Government by now of that illusion. In any case, this provision will not hurt the rich, who have their own cars. The only effect, undoubtedly, will be to make it difficult, if not impossible, for many poor people to register their votes at all. That is a strange achievement for a Government which says that it stands for democracy, and nothing but democracy.
  I do not know whether the Labour Party are satisfied with this Bill as it has left another place. No doubt, from the purely Party point of view, it is an improvement upon the original recommendations of the Conference. But is that the only, or, indeed, the best point of view? Taking the long view, have they not sacrificed more than they have gained? How can anyone in the future have any confidence in any agreement of this kind into which that Party enters? The other day, during the debates on the Parliament Bill, I remember the Lord Chancellor making a most moving and persuasive appeal to your Lordships to accept the Government proposals. I am speaking without the book, but I think the sense of it was to accept the Government proposals and put this problem to sleep again for another thirty years. If we had allowed ourselves to be persuaded by that plea, what would be our position now, under the Lord President's new formula? As soon as it was convenient, out that formula would come from its pigeon-hole—if, indeed, it had ever been put into its pigeon-hole. We should be told that nothing that was done in a previous Parliament bound the next, and further steps would be taken to eliminate the remaining powers of this House. It is as well that we should be wise to the new and convenient morality of the Labour Party in this particular respect. If the Leader of the House is doubtful about what I have called the "Morrison formula," I shall be delighted to give him the extract from Hansard. If he is already satisfied, I will not weary the House with it.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should like to have it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Very well. It is in Column 1002 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place on February 17, 1948. It arose from an exchange between the Lord President and Mr. Peake. Mr. Peake had said:
  "I am obliged to the right honourable gentleman. He would make things clearer if he would state categorically now whether he admits there was a bargain and agreement in the Speaker's Conference in 1944. Does he agree to that?
  MR. MORRISON: Certainly, in the Speaker's Conference in 1944 there were compromises, there were accommodations, that were reached.…
  MR, PEAKE: I am obliged to the right honourable Gentleman. He has made it clear that yesterday, when he said there was no bargain, he was saying that there was no bargain that would extend beyond the life of that Parliament.
  MR. MORRISON indicated assent."
  That is the extract. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of elucidating the point for the benefit of the Leader of the House. I do not, of course, mean that, if one Party in Parliament imposes a certain measure upon the other, the other Party cannot reverse it in a subsequent Parliament—of course I do not mean that. Clearly that would be entirely legitimate. But when the Parties have freely agreed to a certain course of action, and when one of those Parties, unilaterally, at a later date decides to repudiate that agreement, if it is not a breach of faith it is certainly a breach of one of the oldest and most highly respected traditions of Parliament.
  When I think of the general conduct of the Labour Party with regard to this Bill, I am reminded of an incident which occurred during the sittings of the Nonintervention Committee before the war. On one occasion, that rather ill-omened Committee had had a particularly unfortunate meeting—no progress had been made and general depression prevailed. In order to some extent to lighten the depression, one of the younger members of the Foreign Office went up to the Soviet delegate and said to him: "The Committee may not be making very much progress, but at any rate it has had one good result. All you gentlemen are learning excellent English." The Russian looked at him with a stony eye and said: "Well, there is one English word which the Italians evidently do not yet understand." "What is that?" asked the
  302
  Foreign Office representative. "Cricket," said the Russian. It may indeed be doubted, in the light of recent events, if even the Russian Government have entirely mastered the more delicate nuances of that word. But I am afraid that that is equally true, in the light of this Bill, of a good many Members of the Socialist Party in another place.
  The House will recall that, when the Conference held its meetings, and when it made its recommendations, the Conservative Party were in the same position as the Socialist Party now are. They had a great majority in the House of Commons. They could have pressed their own point of view far more strongly than they did. This was recognised by the Lord President himself in a speech which he made in another place on June 17, 1945. He said:
  "Let us be perfectly frank and honest. What was the issue before the Labour members of the Speaker's Conference on this question of plural voting"—
  which was at that moment under dis-cussion—
  "and what was the issue before the Conservative Members? Conservative Members had to consider, 'Ought we to give up anything or to stand pat?' They could have stood pat: they had a majority. There was nothing I could have done about it if they had decided to stand pat. They did not."
  We did not insist on proposals which were to our advantage, because we considered that the way of compromise and moderation was the way of wisdom. I do not claim the slightest credit for the Conservative Party in that respect. I think they took a very proper course and a right course. But the Labour Party, when once they gained power, merely used this agreed compromise as a jumping off place for further demands. I submit that that is hardly in full accord with British traditions of fair play. Whether they have definitely committed a breach
  of faith regarding the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference may no doubt be disputed by those who accept the Lord President's formula. But they have certainly debased the currency of fair dealing, upon which Parliamentary institutions ultimately depend.
  There is not the slightest doubt, I think, that in the earlier stages—and I do not think the Leader of the House denies it today—the Government regarded themselves as bound by the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. As late as

  303
  October, 1947, the Lord Chancellor, in the debate upon the King's Speech, used these words:
  "A Bill will be introduced, which will contain provisions for the Electoral reform arising out of the recommendations of the Committee of Electoral Registration, the Speaker's Conference and the Committee on Electoral Law Reform. If, as I fully expect, the noble Viscount"—
  that is, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—
  "is familiar with all the proceedings in those Committees, which I am not, he will know precisely what the Bill is going to do."
  Now would he have said that if he had thought that his Party were fundamentally to alter the proposals of the Conference?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? This has been quoted so often. It was a somewhat light-hearted remark in answer to an equally light-hearted question of the noble Viscount, who had asked me whether we were going to introduce a system of proportional representation. It has been quoted completely out of its context ever since.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that when the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords makes a light-hearted remark which does not mean what it purports, he ought to ring a bell.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can quite understand that the country might be deceived, but I hope the noble Marquess will no longer be deceived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I accept what the Lord Chancellor has said, but I hope that in future his lighter remarks will be in accordance with his more serious thoughts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Any remark taken out of its context is bound to be misleading. It is quite unfair to read that remark without any regard to the context in which it was made.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I said anything unfair.
  No doubt in particular the noble and learned Viscount assumed that the university franchise would continue, and it was natural that he should assume that, because he himself has entered as a candidate for a university seat, although he was, unfortunately, not successful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Marquess again? Would he say, because he was opposed to the nationalisation of transport, that when it was decided to nationalise transport he must never ride in a bus?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That does not seem to me at all an identical thing.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If Parliament decide that they are going to retain university seats, is the proposition that no Socialist Member must ever stand as candidate?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was merely saying that I presumed that the noble Viscount would not have stood for a seat if he was against university seats.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Viscount does not understand that, I really cannot undertake to make the point clear to him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not understand it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then it is another case where I must regard the noble and learned Viscount as humbugging himself.
  In any case, these proposals of the Conference have been altered, and they have been altered not for the good of the State but to secure temporary Party advantage. I repeat that we do not intend to reject or even to amend this Bill, for reasons which I have already explained. But we regard this measure as one that reflects very little credit upon either the Government or the Labour majority in the House of Commons, and I believe that it will be rightly reprehended by all those who hold the high reputation of Parliament dear.
  3.28 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we on these Benches do not differ in any material way from the general approach indicated by the noble Marquess to the discussion of this Bill in your Lordships' House. We recognise that the proper distribution of Parliamentary constituencies and the due regulation of the electoral machinery are a matter for another place, and that it would be inappropriate for your Lordships' House either to

  305
  reject the Bill or, indeed, to amend it in any substantive sense. But we desire to express—and, if I may say so, not lightheartedly—our regret (it would be an exaggeration to say our disappointment) that the opportunity has again been missed to make such an alteration in the voting system in this country, either by way of proportional representation, the single transferable vote or otherwise, as would ensure that the composition of another place more accurately represented the view of the electorate expressed at the polls than it does under the existing system. Perhaps we are not altogether surprised that no provision to that effect appears in the Bill. After all, the highest that we Liberals can now aspire to be is to have a status equal to vermin—for noble Lords on my Left are now proclaimed to be lower than vermin. At the risk of irrelevance, I would beg leave to interject that I have never, in a good many years of reading and listening to speeches, read a more deplorable speech than that made by the Minister of Health and reported in this morning's papers.
  The fact that we do not propose to criticise the individual provisions of this Bill does not, in our view, in any way inhibit us from expressing some views upon the circumstances surrounding its introduction, with which the noble Marquess has already dealt. It so happens that I heard the greater part of the Third Reading debate in another place. When the debate on the Amendment moved by the Opposition for the rejection of the Bill began, I confess that I had it in my mind that the Amendment was perhaps founded rather upon a tactical than upon an ethical basis; but as the debate went on I came, quite objectively, to the conclusion that the main charge had been made out, although the indictment was perhaps drafted in somewhat flamboyant language. Three points seem to me to emerge in connection with this particular controversy.
  The first is that this was not just a casual conference, or a conference presided over by some outside person; it was a Speaker's Conference, with all the prestige that attaches to a Conference over which Mr. Speaker consents to preside in person, and with the presumed status of the representatives of the various Parties selected to attend a Conference on that level. The second salient point is that
  306
  the recommendations of that Conference, upon which members of all main Parties served, were unanimous. And the third point—a highly important point—is that that Conference took place in 1944. In 1944 it was reasonably evident that the War was coming to a close. It was equally obvious that with the end of the War there would in all probability be a break-up of the National Government and the substitution for it of a purely Party Government of one Parry or another. It was, therefore, surely in the contemplation of the representatives of all Parties attending that Conference that, even if it were possible—unlikely as it might have been—to introduce legislation to deal with some part of the recommendations of that Conference, it would be quite impracticable, while the War went on, to deal with so voluminous a range of matters as are incorporated in the Bill now before us.
  It is said now that the decision of one Parliament is not binding upon its successor I do not propose to argue that point at any particular length, except to remark in passing that that doctrine does not altogether enhance our confidence in the assurances which are constantly given us in this House, when we take exception to the very wide powers for which Ministers are asking in Bills, that those excessive power will never be used to excess. I cannot help thinking that those who were present at that Conference, bearing in mind the date on which it was held, bearing in mind the probability of an entirely different set of circumstances supervening in a short space of time, must have had it in mind that the obligations into which they were entering were not confined to the duration of that Parliament but would carry over into the future. I find it difficult to believe if the result of the subsequent Election had been different from what it was—provided always that the Socialists saw some advantage to themselves in the result of that Conference—there would not have been raised a universal shout that the other Party—whichever of the two other Parties might have been in power—were jettisoning for purely partisan advantage an agreement freely arrived at by the consensus of Members of all Parties.
  If I may say so respectfully, I am afraid this is one more instance in which Ministers fail to remember that they are a Government and not a governess. They

  307
  are very fond of going about the country delivering harangues upon the high standards and lofty ideals of public life, but at the first remote muffled peal of thunder on the Left they drop all their protestations and scuttle for shelter. We had an instance of this, of a minor character, the other day in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Bill, in which, quite obviously as a result of internal pressure, they had changed the whole of one important clause. Here in quick succession is another example. It is true that the Government in power are not the Government which were in power at that time. But it is also true that the leading Ministers of the present Government were members of that previous Government, and that certain Ministers now holding office in the Government were actually representatives of their Party upon the Speaker's Conference. That being so, what are the considerations which have led those representatives, who arrived at unanimous conclusions, to change their views? The same factors, surely, apply now as applied then. If these recommendations were right then, they are right now; and if they are right now, they ought not to be abandoned merely because the Government are frightened of their own Shadow Cabinet.
  3.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: My Lords, as I was a member of the Conference presided over by Mr. Speaker, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two this afternoon on this subject. This is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of making a speech in your Lordships' House. When I was Chief Whip in another place, new Members about to make their maiden speeches would come and ask me, as an old friend and counsellor, for some advice. I always said: "There are three things you must observe. First, crave the indulgence of the House, because no matter how well you may speak there are others who can speak far better than you can." That, my Lords, is what I do to-day; I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House. Secondly, I used to say to those new Members: "There are many people who spoil their speeches by going on for too long." I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief.
  308
  Thirdly, I would say: "Try to avoid matters of sharp controversy." There I am afraid that I cannot follow the good advice that I gave to others, because the matter under discussion to-day is a matter of some considerable controversy. I find myself in this slightly awkward position: that my noble friend and leader, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, have covered the case, from my point of view, so amply and so much better than I could that comparatively little remains to be said. I agree entirely with what my predecessors have recently said.
  However, I ought perhaps to say one or two words upon the abolition of the university constituencies. I am not going to argue the merits of that proposal, although I am absolutely convinced that a very strong case indeed can be made for the retention of the university franchise. But I am going to argue as to whether it is seemly and right, in view of Mr. Speaker's Conference and of what has happened since, that these proposals should be made at this particular point. If everyone is in agreement, there is no need at all for a Conference, for there is nothing to confer about. It is just because there were differences at the time inside the Coalition Government that a Conference was called together to see whether, by good will and by a spirit of give and take, those differences could be ironed out and agreement reached. From the point of view of the Party to which I belong, it would have been perfectly easy for us to go to that Conference and voted for everything we liked and against everything we disliked, and let the matter rest there. But what would have happened to the Conference? There would have been no Conference at all. It would have ended in stalemate; it would have ended in failure, just like the Conference which was presided over by Lord Ullswater in 1930. That Conference came to an end because all the points put to it were voted upon on purely Party lines.
  Believing, as I do, that the success of a Conference depends, to a large extent, upon the amount of ground work that is done behind the scenes before the Conference meets in full session, I was very glad to have some informal conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—who, incidentally, I am sorry to hear cannot be present to-day—to see

  309
  if we could resolve some of the difficulties which were bound to come up in front of the Conference, I have known the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for a number of years. We were colleagues together in another place. We have been friends for a long time. I have always found him to be a most reasonable and fair-minded man, a man of whom one can say that his word is as good as his bond. I simply cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is happy about what is being done to-day. Knowing the noble Lord and the conversations which I had had with him across the floor of the House in another place, it came as no surprise to me that we were able to agree without much difficulty on the main points that divided us. It was, therefore, agreed that I should recommend to my Party that the Parliamentary and local government franchise should be assimilated, and that he would recommend to his Party the retention of the university constituencies and some other proposals dealing with the business vote.
  When those matters came before the full Conference, they were agreed to without a Division; there was no controversy over it at all. Indeed, I do not now recall any Labour representative or Independent raising his or her voice in a contrary sense. There were long debates and sharp differences over other points. There was a great deal of controversy and, by looking at the White Paper, it will be readily seen that Divisions took place upon those subjects. But on this matter of the universities—No; there agreement reigned. We had at that Conference people of such Left. Wing opinions as the late Mr. Maxton and Mr. D. N. Pritt, Members who were not afraid to say: "It is all right for you people; you can agree upon this, but I do not." So far as I can remember, the Conference was unanimous in passing this recommendation that university representation should be maintained.
  Furthermore, I do not recall any member of the Speaker's Conference saying: "This agreement to which we have come is only of a temporary nature and will last only up to the next General Election." I do not remember it. Therefore, I am entitled to say—and this point was made very clearly by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading—that, in the opinion of those who took part in that Conference, the agreement to which we came was an
  310
  agreement that was going to stand, at any rate for some time. Whilst I fully agree that no Conference, however authoritative and however weighty, can bind Parliament, yet I do say that there is such a thing as fair play and honest dealing. It is only by strictly observing these rules that politicians can avoid being dubbed "tricky." Outside, it is a common thing for people to say, "Yes—tricky politicians." I deny that absolutely. But I do say that unless we observe the rules of fair play and honest dealing, that term of "tricky" does bear some weight. In this case, I am bound o say that I think that the Government have been tricky. I think that they have, if I may use a term which is not perhaps quite appropriate to this House, been a bit "hot." They have not fulfilled their side of the agreement, whereas our side of it was fulfilled in December, 1944, when the Parliamentary and municipal franchises were assimilated and became the law of the land. So the Government have done all the taking and refuse now to do any of the giving.
  Do they really think that they would have got the assimilation of the two franchises through the Cabinet in 1944 if they had said quite frankly at that time: "If we win the forthcoming General Election, we shall throw over the Speakers Conference and do away with the university seats"? Never: If that had been made perfectly clear to the Coalition Cabinet in 1944, I do not believe that that provision would have been agreed to. I know that there was a great deal of hostility amongst my friends and supporters on account of our having agreed to the assimilation of the two franchises. It was considered to be something of most doubtful merit. But we were prepared to agree in general to the all-round basis of the agreement reached under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. If, however, it had been said: "No university seats are going to remain," I do not believe for one moment that agreement would have been reached in the Cabinet.
  Suppose the situation were reversed; that we, the Conservatives, had won the General Election of 1945, and that we had brought in a Bill to disfranchise 7,000,000 municipal voters, what would have happened? A howl would have gone up from the Socialist ranks and, in my view,

  311
  that howl would have been justified. We should have been called "dishonourable"; we should have been called "untrustworthy"; we should have been called "cheats." It would have been said: "What can you expect from the gentlemen of England?" All the old sneers that I have heard so often in the other place would have been trotted out again, with increased vehemence. The only difference would have been that on this occasion the sneers and gibes would have been justified. If my Party had acted in such a way as that and if I had been in office, I should most certainly have resigned, rather than serve a Government that acted so shabbily. Had I been a Back Bencher I would have come to your Lordships' House and repudiated my Party by speech and by vote. I feel that that is the action I would have been called upon to adopt by reason of the breaking of the agreements that had been come to in Mr. Speaker's Conference.
  I noticed the other day in The Times a report of a speech by Mr. McNeil, the Minister of State, who was speaking at Greenock with reference to the situation in Berlin. He used words which struck my eye as being relevant to what we are discussing to-day. He said:
  "When we make bargains, we make them to keep them. We expect other Powers to do the same, and we will not yield upon this."
  My Lords, I commend that doctrine to the present Socialist leaders and to all their followers.
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I consider it a great privilege to follow the noble Viscount to whom we have just listened, and I am sure I am speaking for as your Lordships when I say that, whatever we may think about the subject matter of the speech, we shall be pleased to listen to him again because he speaks with such sincerity. This subject to-day is one with which I have been closely connected over many years. During the past year or two, it has been a pleasure to me to be a member of various Committees appointed by Governments to consider a reform of the franchise—a pleasure increased because of the fact that, in addition to myself as the chief agent of the Labour Party, there were present on those Committees the principal agents of the other Parties; and on their
  312
  behalf I would like to say that, whatever may be the faults of some parts of this Bill, the Bill in its main features provides a basis for settlements reached during our discussions. During the work of those Committees I have been particularly friendly with Sir Robert Topping, who was the principal agent of the Conservative Party. In matters of politics we have been friendly rivals, but in matters of detail, in technical subjects, we have approached our problems as fellow craftsmen and it has not been in the least difficult to reach conclusions about them. I think it is as well, if this Bill goes through your Lordships' House, that we should think not only of what we owe to leaders and to Members of Parliament but of what we owe to the artisans of Party politics who, in the main, have to remain behind the scenes.
  The first thing I did, on looking at this measure, was not to read the first few clauses but to look at the schedules at the end of the Bill. I was anxious to know what particular measures which have guided our work in the past are to swept off the Statue Book, and I was agreeably surprised to see that a large number were to 'be dealt with in that way. However, I do not think that, when the schedules have gone through, the law of elections will be as simple at it ought to be. Indeed the Committees of which I have been a member have urged that after the passing of the present Bill there should be introduced a consolidation Bill which would make the law relating to elections mote easily understood by those who desired to use it. It must be remembered that whereas few lawyers give time and attention to this side of the law, no measures that go through Parliament receive such close attention from the rank and file of the great political Parties.
  I propose to deal in a moment with one or two of the points raised in the discussion, but before I do so there are two other points I would like to discuss. I would like, if I may, to issue a word of warning about absent voting, about the use of the proxy and of the postal vote. If I had been at the Home Office and I had been responsible for this Bill, I would have lent my influence towards a reduction in both matters. First of all, I have not been able to convince myself that a proxy vote, or the nomination by a

  313
  soldier, of a proxy elector, does in fact mean exercising a soldier's vote; it is not a direct vote by the soldier on the issues of the day. To my mind, the proxy elector is a new form of plural voter, and if we remember that some of the principal features of this Bill are to wipe plural voting off the Statute Book, we must remind ourselves that, when the business vote has gone and the university franchise is no more, there will remain upon the electoral registers a substantial number of plural voters, voting as proxies. The postal vote can be a grave danger to us. Before 1872, in elections in this country corruption was rife. Many attempts were made to break down those features of the electoral system, but it was only when the Ballot Act of that year was carried into effect that we began to put a stop to corruption and bribery as it had previously existed. A man who bribes an elector is anxious to buy something that the elector has. So long as his bargain can be brought home to him he will continue to bribe; but if, because of the secrecy of the ballot, he can never be certain what takes place in the polling booth, he must always be in doubt whether he has had his money's worth. Since 1872 that feature of our electoral system has been almost entirely killed.
  Now we come to the matter of the postal vote. An elector receives, say, an envelope in which there is a ballot paper and a certificate of identity. Someone approaches him and offers a sum of money for the ballot paper after it has been completed and after the identity form has been filled in. They are both then enclosed in the envelope and the envelope is handed to the person who tenders the bribe. That means that the briber has not only paid his money for a vote but has the value of the vote in his own hands. I am not going to suggest that there has been a great deal of bribery in recent years, in connection with the postal vote, but I think noble Lords will realise the possibilities that exist; and, they will, I am sure, take great care not to extend absent voting with postal voting so as to bring back into British politics the bribery and corruption which were formerly known.
  I wish now to refer to one feature of plural voting to which little or no attention has so far been given. When speaking of plural voting we have been thinking
  314
  more especially of the business vote. I want to say a word or two about the university vote. It is sometimes claimed—indeed it has been claimed in your Lordships' House to-day—that the university constituencies provide a means by which distinguished men of peculiar attributes can reach Parliament. If it could be said with truth that such men could not reach Parliament by any other means, there might be a case for the continuance of these seals. But it would be untrue to ay that the only independent men, the only distinguished men, who have been in the House of Commons during the past fifty or sixty years have been those who have been elected for university seats.
  There is another point, however, and I think that we ought to be more concerned about this than about the representation of these constituencies. A second vote is given to those in possession of a degree. This degree is conferred upon a man or a woman at about the age of twenty-one, not because they have made any special contribution to the well-being of the country, not because they possess great knowledge and experience, but simply because they have succeeded in passing an examination at a university. Millions of people in our country, before reaching middle life, have not only made far greater contributions to the country's welfare than the man who merely wins a degree but have gained knowledge and experience which university students, even with first-class degrees, cannot obtain or possess so early in life. Yet, in order that we may have university seats, we have a university franchise which confers a second vote upon a man or woman long before it has been earned by services to the State.
  The noble Marquess made some reference to the subject of redistribution, and he also made a reference to myself. It was, I think, very highly coloured.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, I did not make any reference to the noble Lord—certainly I did not intend to do so. I think I spoke of "the noble Lord's successors." I believe those were the words I used. I certainly would not wish to make any animadversion upon the noble Lord.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I thought the noble Marquess's statement was rather highly coloured, and rather amusing. It is a pity that it was not true. Parties do

  315
  not work in the way the noble Marquess described. If the suggestion is that some of the faults committed by this Government, or some of the errors contained in the Bill, are due to the intervention of either myself or my successors I want
  to give a categorical denial at once. We have our own views, of course, and we can express them in our Party conferences. We can make representations if we so desire; and we can discuss these matters in our executive committees if we wish to do so. But the members of the Labour Party, whether in Parliament or serving on the Speaker's Conference or other Committees concerned with this matter, are just as free and independent as the members of other Parties. It is just as well that we should understand that, because it has been said on more than one occasion that this Government would have carried through a supposed agreement of the Speaker's Conference if the Government had been left to themselves. It has even been suggested that the only reason why the agreement was not kept was that pressure was brought to bear from outside. That is quite wrong. It ought to be stated that we, on our part, have some right to resent such a suggestion.
  The noble Marquess who sits on the Liberal Benches addressed your Lordships in his usual manner, and the result of his remarks was to cast doubt upon the honour and integrity of the Labour Party. The noble Marquess and the Liberal
  Party which he represents do not wish the Labour Party to carry through their work under certain conditions. For instance, they have objected to the Labour Party introducing through this Government, a Bill which is designed amongst other things, to do away with the university seats; and because that has been done, they suggest that we ought not to run candidates for the constituencies in question. I want to say to the noble Marquess, as I say to any member of your Lordships' House, that if there is an Election, whether we like the existence of the seats or not, we are going to fight those seats, because that is the only way in which we can try conclusions with our political opponents.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reproof,
  316
  but I said nothing in the nature of what he has just attributed to me.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I am very sorry, and I do express my regret to him. But I want to repeat to the noble Marquess who sits on the front Conservative Bench, and who made the remarks, that whether we agree with the principle of university seats or not, if there is an Electon we shall take advantage of them in order to fight our political opponents upon the issues of the day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding about this. I quite see that on this question differing views can be held. There may well be those, like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who hold the view that so long as there are university seats, even if you do not believe in the existence of such seats and do not think that any of the voters ought to be entitled to vote, nevertheless you are entitled to stand and get yourself elected by them if you can. That is the view taken by the Lord Chancellor. I do not take that view. I, personally, would not feel justified in standing for a seat in Parliament, if I felt that none of the electors in the constituency ought to have a vote. I should feel that to do so would be contrary to my convictions. I still hold that view. I should feel very much embarrassed if I were asked to take the sort of view which is put forward by the noble Lord. No doubt there may be two views about this. But to say that you propose to stand for a seat when, in your heart of hearts, you feel that there ought not to be such a seat, and that none of the electors ought to have a vote, is the sort of thing that I should find it impossible to do.
  LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess must, of course, make up his own mind on this question. I am certain of this, that in all types of constituency in future, there will be Conservative and Labour candidates fighting on the programme of their Parties, whether they like the seats or whether they do not.
  The noble Marquess on the Front Liberal Bench did denounce the Labour Party because of certain features of the Bill. He said the Labour Party were bound by the agreements of the Speaker's Conference. Well, if one assumed that

  317
  the Labour Party had been remiss on these matters, why should the Liberal Party follow their example? During the Speaker's Conference there was mention of P.R. and the alternative vote. Neither of those subjects was contained in the agreement finally reached. Although agreement could not be obtained upon them, they were subjects of the Speaker's Conference and as the Liberal Party were bound by the Speaker's Conference I should like to know why, when this Bill went through the House of Commons, the Liberal Members put down Amendments to the Bill in favour both of P.R. and of the alternative vote. Liberals cannot have it all ways. If the Speaker's Conference binds the Labour Party, it also binds the Liberal Party. We have as much right to claim liberty in this matter as our friends the Liberals.
  One other point before I sit down. The Bill before us contains a good many things which, had they been discussed in Committee, would have afforded us an opportunity of reviewing the whole electoral system of the country, but as this is not likely to be, I would like to finish by making an appeal—this time to the Government. The appeal is made on the subject of election petitions. The Carr Committee decided to recommend to the Government that the law on election petitions should be altered because the present law had come to a dead end. No political Party now had enough money to undertake the expense of election petitions. The Government decided that they could not proceed with this subject in this Bill, but proposed to reserve it for a future occasion. I hope they will remember that, because I was not the only politician in favour of amending these laws. My opposite numbers of all political Parties, after consultations within their own ranks, were agreed on the matter. Therefore, I hope we may have some assurance from the Minister, either now or before we leave the Bill, that at some stage in the very near future, the law on election petitions will be brought up to date in order that the purity of our elections may be maintained.
  4.14 p.m.
  LORD MACDERMOTT: My Lords, I would offer, if I may, one or two observations on that part of this measure
  318
  which proposes to abolish university constituencies, and I would offer these observations with particular regard to the university of which I am a graduate and on the Senate of which I have the honour to serve—I refer to Queen's University, Belfast. I propose to speak briefly for two reasons. First of all, it is becoming that one who has not had the privilege of addressing your Lordships before should be brief and, if he can, to the point. Secondly, as one rising from the Cross-Benches and ordinarily serving this House in a judicial capacity, I want to avoid the controversies which have arisen both as regards the history of this measure and the principle on which so much of it turns—namely, the principle of "One man, one vote." That is a principle on which reasonable men may take different views, but I propose to assume that it is a principle which is deserving of the highest respect and nothing should be contained in the Bill which would do it a real injury.
  But the question still remains whether, in order to preserve that principle, one has to sweep away every anomaly which may stand in its path and perpetuate an absolute uniformity. I venture to think that the retention of university constituencies would not imperil the principle of "One man, one vote" in the least. References have already been made to the fact that this interesting Constitution of ours already contains many anomalies. I am sure I shall be forgiven if I refer to the classic instance represented by the office of the Lord High Chancellor. Everyone agrees that good government means the separation of executive and judicial functions. Every visitor to our shores who studies our Constitution at once remarks on the circumstance that the head of the Judiciary is a member of the Government of the day. No one would suggest now that the principle is injured by that circumstance, and I do not think anyone to-day would propose that the situation should be changed. And I am quite certain that, if it were, as conditions stand the loss would be great and the gain imaginary. I venture to Biggest to noble Lords who represent His Majesty's Government that if university representation is allowed to remain, it may well be the exception which proves the rule, represented by the principle of "One man, one vote."

  319
  On this general issue one has to remember that to-day, as never before, the universities are faced with an enormous task and with great responsibilities; that to-day, as never before, their activities mean more to the community as a whole; that to carry out those responsibilities, universities have an income which is increasingly provided, I believe, from public funds; and that they also are the custodians of a unique and very precious liberty which everyone agrees is essential for good education. It would seem to be fitting that the custodians of that liberty should have representatives in the councils of the State, who may be called to account for their stewardship and who may be able, if necessary, to protect the liberty of which they are the custodians. I do not suggest for a moment that the present Government want to curtail that liberty or that they have anything other than good will for the universities; but we are legislating for the future, and I suggest that it is not unfitting that in another place representation should be found for those who guard such liberty.
  I would like to add a special point which has reference only to my own university. It raises a principle which I doubt if the Government considered but which I think is worthy to be regarded in considering how far the principle of "One man, one vote" is to be carried. The point arises in this way. Before 1920, Queen's University had one representative in this Parliament. It was then, as it is now, the only university in Northern Ireland. When the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was passed, that representation was continued. As your Lordships are aware, that Act represented a constitutional settlement which, though not greeted with enthusiasm in any quarter, was accepted by Northern Ireland and has since been operated. When the settlement was being worked out, it was necessary to do two things. It was necessary to delimit the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and to provide for representation in this Parliament in respect of a realm which was still in the exclusive jurisdiction of this Parliament. In the course of arranging that representation, the representatives from Northern Ireland were reduced by about 50 per cent. and were fixed at twelve from ordinary constituencies and one from the one university constituency. It
  320
  is quite clear from the Government of Ireland Act that there was good reason for that decision, because that Act provided that the privileges, rights and immunities of Queen's University should not be touched by the Parliament of Northern Ireland without the consent of the university. So in 1920 the University of Belfast was left with a voice in the only Parliament which, without its consent, could affect its rights.
  I think it is a generally accepted principle of practice that a constitutional settlement, once effected, should not be lightly disturbed in the absence of consent. I do not suggest for a moment that circumstances may not arise in which it will be necessary to change a constitution of that kind. Time may bring alterations; there may be some grave change in circumstance. But I think it is generally recognised that, in the absence of any such factors, what has been settled should be left alone, unless there is a desire and an agreement for its change. The Government of Ireland Act, in so far as it affects Northern Ireland, has been changed on a number of occasions, but always with consent, and always after a full exchange of views. This Bill, I think for the first time, proposes an alteration in the basis of the settlement which has not the consent of the body most concerned.
  I do not want to exaggerate the effect of this measure on that settlement if it is passed into law. There will be no cataclysm; there will be no alteration, I am sure, in the friendly relations which have always existed between the University of Belfast and the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland. But this is not a case in which there has been any change at all; this is not a case in which any unusual circumstance has arisen. What is really happening is that this Bill is saying that the settlement of 1920 should be altered, not on account of something which has happened since, but because when that settlement was made it should have been different. I venture to suggest that that is a very dangerous precedent which, if accepted, may have repercussions far beyond the part of the United Kingdom with which I am most concerned. I would suggest that there is there a principle which must be considered face to face with the principle of "One man, one vote." That principle has been meticulously recognised and

  321
  observed by this Government and by their predecessors. So far as I am aware, this is the first time that there has been any suggestion that the settlement of 1920 should be altered without any change of circumstance and without consent. I would ask His Majesty's Government to consider this matter fully before they embark on a change of such a sweeping character, which would take away that right which has existed since Northern Ireland was constituted as a separate State, a right which is greatly valued by the university which on this occasion I have the honour to represent.
  4.26 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it falls to my happy lot this afternoon to congratulate the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down on the maiden speech which he has just delivered in your Lordships' House. I am sure I have the support of all your Lordships in saying how delighted we have been to hear him. The noble and learned Lord, if I may say so, an absolutely true to the Ulster tradition of standing up for the rights of that very gallant and energetic part of the United Kingdom. While I am talking of maiden speeches, perhaps I may be allowed, also, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Margesson, under whom I first served in the Whips' Office in the House of Commons, on what Lord Shepherd has rightly described as an extremely sincere speech. We are all very glad that he has taken part in this debate, for he was actively concerned in the Speaker's Conference.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made some interesting observations, both about
  the postal vote and about the proxy vote. If I may say so, I agree with him that the Service man's proxy does, in fact, mean giving somebody a plural vote. I quite see the possible disadvantage of any great extension of the postal vote facilities, for the very reasons which the noble Lord gave. I thought he was on less sure ground when he was attacking the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about proportional representation. The difference between what happened at the Speaker's Conference on proportional representation and the university vote was that there was complete agreement on the maintenance of the university seats, whereas there was a division about proportional representation, which was carried against the four members of the little group who voted
  322
  for it. That puts the university vote into a completely different category from the proposal in regard to proportional representation which, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Margesson, this afternoon, was one of agreement between the parties—a "give and take" between them—as indicated by the unanimous report they made on those particular items.
  The noble Lord entered into the conflict about standing for university constituencies. He said that Labour candidates would continue to stand, if there were in future—as there certainly will be—university constituencies, although it has long been a principle of that Party to abolish those constituencies. If that has been the principle of the Labour Party, it may in some way account for the fact—which seems to be a matter of complaint in the Labour Party—that there have been no Labour Members returned from the universities. Obviously, if it is a principle of your Party to abolish that type of constituency, and you are an advocate of that principle, it is not very likely that the electors will return you as their Member of Parliament. On this matter of the university constituencies, I very much deplore the action that the Government have taken. I agree with the noble Lord that not every good man who sat in the House of Commons came through a university constituency—of course not. I can name a large number on both sides of the present House of Commons, or of the House at the time when we were there ourselves, who did not. I was never returned for a university constituency myself—not that I say I am a great man; but I certainly would not put it forward on that ground. But it does enable a certain number of extremely good persons to have a seat in the House of Commons. I take a man for whom everybody who has worked with him, or who knows him, has the greatest possible respect—the Right Honourable Sir John Anderson.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord express a view as to his ability to win an ordinary seat?
  LORD LLEWELVN: It is not for me to express that opinion. As has been pointed out already to-day, I no longer have a vote for any Parliamentary seat in the country. I should think that a

  323
  sensible constituency would be likely to return Sir John Anderson. On the other hand, Sir John Anderson has a large number of other things to do; for instance, he is Chairman of the Port of London Authority, and has other very responsible positions. He is the kind of man who probably—I have not consulted him about this—has not the time to attend to the large number of duties that a Member for an ordinary constituency has to perform. In that matter, although he is not in the organisation of a Party, perhaps he is a better man than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd——
  LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord agree that Sir John Anderson is not the only man of that quality at present sitting in the House of Commons as representative of an ordinary constituency?
  LORD HAWKE: Is he not an Independent?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: As my noble friend behind me says, he sits as an Independent Member, and in the Coalition Government he was always an Independent Member. In the times when I was working for him one certainly could not rely upon him to take the Party view—not that many of us in that Government ever did, I am glad to say. But there are a number of people who, through the ages, have entered the House of Commons through university seats. I would only say two things on this. First, the abolishing of these university seats will be a loss to the House of Commons. I think it is a complete repudiation of an agreement that was made; and it seems to me that this means that we have had the last Speaker's Conference ever. It means that the Party who are at present in power have taken steps without the preliminary of a Speaker's Conference, and there is no reason why some other Party, when they return to power, should not take other measures without any such preliminary as we used to think was a proper prerequisite for action of this sort. I deplore the loss of the university seats because it seems to
  minimise the importance which Parliament places upon a good education in our universities, and I think that that is a bad thing. I deplore, equally, the loss of the franchise for the
  324
  City of London and for the same reasons. That again is going back on agreements reached, and at a time when we ought to do all we can to maintain our financial and economic position in the world. It shows the world that Parliament and the present Government are minimising the position of the City of London.
  I do not want to say much more about that. I am glad the noble and learned Viscount is on the Woolsack, because I want to read the whole of a remark that he made in this House of October 21 of last year. It is true that he was replying to a passage in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in which he had been discussing whether anything was to be done about proportional representation or the alternative vote. The Lord Chancellor said this:
  "The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me a question about the phrase: 'to reform the franchise and electoral procedure.' He will not be surprised, and I hope not unduly disappointed, if I tell him that that does not mean that we propose to introduce proportional representation."
  I agree that a person like myself would recognise that that was said in—I would not say a lighthearted manner, which is the phrase the Lord Chancellor used, but perhaps, after what we have heard from the Lord President, a better term is a 'bantering' manner. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say what it does refer to. He said:
  "It does refer to a Bill to be introduced, which will contain provisions for the electoral reform arising out of the recommendations of the Committee of Electoral Registration, the Speaker's Conference and the Committee on Electoral Law Reform. If, as I fully expect, the noble Viscount is familiar with all the proceedings in those Committees, which I am not, he will know precisely what the Bill is going to do."
  I have so much respect for the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that I do not believe that at that time he knew the Bill would contain provision for the abolition of the university seats; otherwise, I think he would have told us so. I do not believe that at that time the Government had made up their mind; otherwise the noble and learned Viscount would have been quite frank with the House and told us so.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite right. I do not think I had this matter in my mind at all. I agree that the adverb I used was most unfortunate,

  325
  but as one has a great many speeches to make on a great many topics, one would be very lucky if one did not sometimes make unfortunate remarks.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not say that it was an unfortunate remark at all. But we all, rather naturally, took it at that time that the Government intended to implement the recommendations of those three Committees—including the Speaker's Conference—and that at that time they had not decided to abolish the university seats. I do not believe they had, otherwise the Lord Chancellor would have known about it and would have told us about it. The comment we make, that this was a later decision, is rather borne out by the Lord Chancellor's remarks on that occasion.
  Before I sit down I want to say one thing about the new provision in regard to the use of motor cars. This is quite obviously a restrictive provision. The election agent will be able to hire a certain number of motor cars, which was not possible before; but apart from that it will restrict people from putting their cars at the disposal of a political Party to take their supporters to the poll. That is rather reminiscent of some of the things we have seen going on in Eastern Europe. The first thing that happens is to make it more difficult for your opponents to get to the poll. The second step is to have only one list of candidates for whom the electors can vote. We have not yet reached that stage in this country. But obviously the feeling is that there is an advantage to the Conservative Party in having more cars at their disposal, so that they may be able not only to convey electors to the poll but also perhaps to "show the flag" around the constituency. The feeling seems to be that the Conservatives have a greater advantage in this matter than their opponents.
  Let us remember, however, that this is the first time in the history of this country that legislation has been brought in which has the effect of making it more difficult for people to get to the poll. That is what this provision is going to do; and this will be the first Government to introduce a provision of this kind. It is quite true that we are to have more polling stations—and I am glad that we are—but we could have had them and still had the use of any motor cars that
  326
  might be available. It looks as if the Government are saying, in effect, that rather than that the electors should be given a lift in a car and helped to the poll, they should be given to understand that their votes are not wanted.
  It is quite clear why this originated. There are certain respects in which the Labour Party have political advantages over the Conservative Party. There is a considerable advantage, for instance, in being able to collect political funds through the trade union machine; and it is possible that there are other matters which may later on follow the same lines. I am therefore very sorry that in these matters the Government have departed from the agreement made at the Speaker's Conference and have introduced such matters as this one about motor cars. They have obviously been put into the Bill entirely for the advantage of the political Party in power at the moment. Most of the Bill tends to clear up electoral difficulties and it contains much on which we are all agreed. It is because these other things have been tacked on that I at any rate think it was not, as has been said, an honour for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to introduce this Bill—although it may have been his duty.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I shall take up very little of your time, because so many of the important points of this Bill have already been dealt with by previous speakers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred to the City of London, and pointed out how grievously it feels the taking away of its Members. On the other hand, in the City of Westminster in which I reside, and in which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who is chairman of one part of the Conservative Association there, takes such an interest, I am glad to say that though we are not satisfied we think the Bill is much better than the original proposals. As regards Chelsea, I believe the people in Chelsea, too, are more satisfied. This is, not to say, however, that we are content. I do not want to elaborate this point because it has been made over and over again in both Houses of Parliament. All I would say is that this measure is a pis aller.
  There is, however, another point to which I do not think anybody has called your Lordships' attention, and that

  327
  concerns London County Council representation. As noble Lords will be aware, in every electoral division there are now to be three members of the London County Council instead of two. How does that work out in the City of London and the City of Westminster? At the present moment they have eight members of the London County Council. When the Bill comes into operation they will have only three, because there is to be only one Member of Parliament for the two Cities of London and Westminster. I think that would be rather hard. I know that for the London County Council election there are statutory requirements to take into account as regards the various differences of rateable value; but the fact remains that there is an enormous difference between the Cities of London and Westminster and the rest of London. Those two Cities are responsible for £16,000,000 out of the £54,000,000 total rateable value of London.
  Now let me turn to the electorate for a moment. The number of electors whom these three gentlemen will have to represent is colossal. I think there are nearly 80,000 electors on the local government list. How can those three representatives tackle all the intricate questions which will arise, especially from the business centres? The two Cities are putting forward a claim for six members instead of three. They quite realise that they cannot have all they want—namely, the original eight members—but, as I have shown, the disparity in both rateable value and in the number of electors is enormous. This number of 80,000, or, to be more exact, nearly 90,000 electors, compares with an average electorate in other districts of 55,000. It will be a tremendous job for anybody who represents those two places. Therefore, I hope that some consideration will be given to the humble request from the two Cities that they should have more members allotted to them. It will be an almost impossible job under this representation for the members of these two Cities to cope with the letters they will receive. Will the noble Lord consider that when he comes to deal with this point?
  LORD AMMON: I wonder if the noble Lord will tell me how he makes up the 80,000 voters in Westminster and the City? There are only 5,000 in the City.
  LORD JESSEL: I am talking about local government. It is so. The number is 12,000 alone for the City. I think you will find that I am correct when you come to analyse my figures. It was an official statement that was presented to the Home Secretary. I am sure that my two figures are correct on addition. That is all I have to say. The matter arises later in the Bill. I thought it only right to adumbrate this point so as to bring out the very big discrepancies that exist. It will be quite an impossible job for the gentlemen who are elected for both Cities.
  4.51 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, when the noble Lord opposite replies to the debate, I hope that he will not talk about "One man, one vote," as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did, but will say "One citizen, one vote," because there are women concerned in the matter.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite well aware of that. That is a common expression that takes in both sexes.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I wish to add a few words about the university seats. Of course, everybody agrees that there are no restrictions upon Parliament's powers. That is not the question here at all. As I see it, the point is this. A proposal to Parliament is made by His Majesty's
  Ministers in this Bill. Some of those Ministers, to say the least of it, were deeply involved in the Speaker's Conference. The question is, whether in the circumstances they are really justified in making the proposal which they do make about university seats. Going back some way, I recall that I criticised the university vote, when the university electorate consisted (as it did some thirty-five years ago) of nothing except M.A.s who kept their names on the books. That was the old qualification of a university voter. In substance, that amounted to this: that, apart from certain teachers in a university, the electorate, to a vastly preponderant extent, consisted of clergymen who kept their names on the books because, as members of this or that college, they there by might have a better chance of being given a university living, if the occasion arose.
  All that was changed by the earlier Speaker's Conference, of which I was a member. The Representation of the

  329
  People Act, 1918, provides (in those days it affected only men; women came in later) that:
  "A man shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a university constituency if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and has received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at any university…"—
  and so on. To-day, of course, the electors for a university seat are not some select body of M.A.s who, for whatever reason, have kept their names on the books by continuing to pay a small fee; they are, in fact, everybody who has a B.A. degree or any other degree in the university. When you add to that the fact (and it is one which satisfies us all) that those who go to the universities come from a much wider range of homes—indeed, in the university which I know best the majority to-day come from elementary or secondary schools—then I do think that the university electorate, as they are now, form a valuable and fair cross-section of the community, taken as a whole.
  It seems to me, having read these papers with all the care that I can and with as little prejudice as I can, that the case is clearly made out for saying that, in the circumstances which now exist, it is not right for the Government to present to Parliament and endeavour to carry through a Bill which abolishes university constituencies. I say so frankly and firmly, and I have four reasons, which I will state briefly. The first is that this was an all-Party Conference, proposed in the year 1944 when Parliament had only another year to run, to be presided over by the Speaker. It is quite obvious to anybody who looks at it fairly that in an all-Party Conference of that sort, proposals, if agreed, are intended to have a certain measure of permanency. To suggest that it was a Conference for the "fag end" of a particular Parliament until there was a General Election, is to suggest something which I think few people sincerely considering the matter will feel able to accept.
  The second reason is shown quite clearly in the Report of the Speaker's Conference, which I have here. It includes a number of unanimous recommendations, some of which could not possibly be carried out before the General Election
  330
  and which would be quite useless if regarded as limited to the life of that Parliament. You could not have the elaborate arrangements which were proposed far revising the boundaries of constituencies and redistributing the electorate, and do the whole thing within matter of a year. Nobody ever imagined such a thing. It is, therefore, quite obvious, from the character of the Report and that unanimous recommendation, that it was never intended to be simply a recommendation for the Parliament then sitting. It was unquestionably intended to be a proposal which would be carried through in due course by agreement.
  In the third place, I must say that I share the feeling of my noble friend, Lord Llewellin. I find it impossible to believe that when these declarations were fist made by prominent spokesmen on the Labour side on this subject they had any other idea. I am very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is not able to be present to-day, otherwise I would have quoted from him; but I will content myself with saying that no candid and fair-minded man can read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on December 19, 1994, without seeing that the proposition that I am advancing is correct. In that speech, he was urging that we should accept the Bill that was then brought forward; for instance, to assimilate Parliamentary and local franchise, and one or two other things. And he was saying in terms, "This is part of the agreement that has been reached. This part may well be thought to benefit my own side, but it is only half of the agreement. The other half of the agreement"—and he is plainly referring to the university seats, because he mentioned them by name—"is equally binding and will in due course be fulfilled" I can easily quote his words if it is desired; I have not in the least altered the substance of them. I say again, that nobody could read Lord Pethick-Lawrence's speech on December 19, 1944, without seeing that he was saying, as he thought as an honourable man he ought to say, "You are getting the advantage now, but it is you who later on will have to give to the other side what you think is their advantage, when the time comes, in respect of university seats."

  331
  Lastly—and it is strange that this should not have been mentioned; I leave out the Lord Chancellor's declaration and accept what he has said; and there is also a declaration by Mr. Attlee—of all the declarations that have been made, the one to which some attention must be paid is that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He stands in this matter in a position of exceptional authority. To the best of my belief, he is the only Minister who was an active member of the Speaker's Conference and a Cabinet Minister whose name is on the back of the Bill. He spoke, therefore, as indeed he was claiming to speak, with special knowledge. His theory of the matter, as given to the other place, was this: "You say there was an agreement, and an agreement which extended to this present Parliament. Oh yes, but it was the Conservative Party that broke the agreement, and therefore we are now released." I would venture to read a sentence from the statement made by the Minister of the Crown:
  "But, since the election, the Conservatives have broken that agreement by using the university vote to send back to this House Conservatives whom, at the General Election, the electors rejected at the Poll."
  There is no point in such an observation unless it involves saying this: "Yes, I was a member of the Speaker's Conference; there was an agreement. It was an agreement which was not limited to the last Parliament, but ought to be fulfilled in this. But I must find a reason why it should not be fulfilled, and here it is—that the Conservatives have broken the agreement by returning Conservative Members for the universities."
  I am sorry that Lord Shepherd is not here at this moment. I was interested to hear his remark, though he might not approve of university seats, "We shall certainly fight them if they remain." What sort of logic is this? Apparently you may have a university seat and a Labour man may fight it (indeed, as a matter of fact a very distinguished Socialist and friend of mine, Mr. J. B. Cole, did stand for the University of Oxford), but if a Conservative stands, then that is a breach of the agreement. If the country paid the slightest attention to this argument, they would be bound to reach the conclusion that this is a miserable attempt to excuse what, in the opinion of some of
  332
  us, is conduct which is not to be expected. It is silly to suggest that a Speaker's Conference was called to decide something that would run for twelve months. It is silly to suggest that Lord Pethick Lawrence, as a member of the Conference, did not speak as a man of honour would be expected to speak when he said, "We are getting part of the bargain now, but we shall have to give part of the bargain to the other side later." It is amazing to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland, with his special connection with this particular subject, should be reduced to offering the argument: "No doubt there might be an agreement, but it has been broken; and, as it has been broken by one side, then we can break it in our Party." I recognise that at best it is only a gentlemen's agreement, and nothing more. I do not for a moment deny what no doubt the Lord Chancellor would confirm, that you cannot get an injunction to stop people breaking a gentlemen's agreement; that is not what a gentlemen's agreement means. But in the circumstances, it is not surprising that even "vermin" should turn.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Before the noble Lord replies, there is one point I would like to raise on this Bill because, as was said by our Leader on this side, we are not going to move any Amendment on the Committee stage. I would like to raise the point as to whether merchant seamen can vote by proxy. On this Bill as drawn at present, there is a little doubt about that point. Perhaps the seaman will be classed under the heading of "auxiliary forces" in Clause 8. During the war he was classed under such a heading. But what is his position now? As many of your Lordships know, seamen frequently have no residential qualifications, because in between voyages they go to a room in a seamen's lodging-house, and then they go to sea again. I would like to have an assurance from the noble Lord that he will look into that point and make quite sure that the merchant seaman is covered so that he can vote by proxy in the same way as members of the Services.
  5.6 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord who spoke last would allow me to reply to his question at once. I have not had an opportunity to inquire

  333
  into it, not knowing that he intended to raise this point but I can tell him at once, that the point will be looked into in a friendly way. I will communicate with him in regard to whether it is met and, if it is not met, whether there is any way in which it can be met. When the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, asked me to wind up this debate, I was in some considerable doubt as to what kind of a debate it was going to he, and therefore I came to the House this afternoon thinking it would perhaps follow the line that has obtained during the time I have had the privilege, of being a member of your Lordships' House. However, I find that it has been an entirely different debate from any that has taken place since I have been in this House. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who opened the debate, said that your Lordships did not consider it would be proper for them either to reject this Bill or to move any Amendment to it, and so some of your Lordships proceeded in full strength to throw at the Bill as much mud as possible. They said, "We are not going to reject it; neither are we going to amend it, but here goes," and on we went.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And we hit the target!
  LORD MORRISON: It occurred to me that there was an easy way to reply to this kind of debate, and that all I need do, in order to make an effective reply, would be to equip myself with a large stock of similar ammunition to that which has been fired from the other side, and then launch it. Those of the public who read your Lordships' debate would then have come to the conclusion that it is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." I am not going to do that, because I do not think that is the kind of reply that is most suited to your Lordships' House.
  May I digress for one moment? I am now informed that merchant seamen can claim the right to vote by post if in the United Kingdom—here I refer to Clause 8 (1) (b) (i)—and by proxy, under Clause 8 (2). We will have this matter clarified, however.
  Having rejected the easy way of replying to this debate, I have to fall back upon the difficult way. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he made his announcement that there would be no
  334
  rejection and no amendment, said at the same time words to the effect that there was no reason why they should not have a good "go" at this Bill. That makes it no easier for me, because in the ordinary circumstances many of the points brought up this afternoon would have been brought up on an Amendment and considered in detail. I would not for one moment have your Lordships suppose that I am complaining of these tactics. After all, noble Lords on the other side get plenty of brickbats thrown at them from another place, and it would be too much to expect them to resist the temptation to throw a few back. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, while not proposing any Amendment or rejection, said that he and those with him stood up for the right to comment; and their first comment was that this Bill was "a pretty shabby affair." That sounded to me more like the language used frequently in another place. The noble Marquess will know that both he and I have been Members in another place, and I hope it is not going to be said that I am settling down more quickly in this House than he has done.
  The noble Marquess then went on to develop his argument on the assumption that the officials and managers of the Labour Party are clever, cunning and crafty, while the managers of the Conservative Party machine are, without exception, innocent, straightforward, and honest-to-goodness paragons of virtue. In reply to that I would say only that; with a fairly long experience, it seems to me that the noble Marquess's assumption is a little exaggerated. I can only urge him for his own good, when he employs that kind of ammunition, to read some of the speeches of his opposite number in another place. I will say no more about that. Some of us have had a difficult task in a House where the Government are represented in a considerable minority, and we have to exercise a great amount of restraint. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite know how much restraint we have to exercise. Therefore, I am appealing to the noble Marquess not to exasperate us too far.
  My opinion may not be of as great importance as that of the noble Marquess, but I think it would be of more value to the country if this problem were approached on the assumption that both

  335
  Parties were actuated by equally honest motives. When I came into your Lordships' House I endeavoured to assume all the time that wherever noble Lords were sitting, and however diametrically opposed to mine their views might be, I ought to give them credit for being as honest and sincere in their opinions as I am in mine. If we depart from that and accuse each other of craftiness and cunning we are not doing ourselves any good, but we are letting this House down in the opinion of the country. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who, if he will forgive my saying so, represents a Party more numerous in this House than in another place, followed on somewhat similar lines, and what I have just said in reply to the noble Lord, the Marquess of Salisbury, applies to him.
  The maiden speech on the noble Viscount, Lord Margesson, has sustained the high opinion which I had of him in another place. But he put up the argument that if the Conservatives had won the last Election, they wound have been quite honest in this matter, whereas the Labour Party has been dishonest, and so on. Is that as high as your Lordships' House can get?
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: What I said was that if we had gone back on our part of the agreement the other side would have said, justly and rightly, that we were not behaving in an honourable fashion.
  LORD MORRISON: I must point out to the noble Viscount that it is customary to make a maiden speech as little provocative as possible.
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: I did warn the noble Lord at the beginning that I should have to be provocative.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Viscount has travelled a long way from orthodoxy since he left another place, where he exercised discipline, though I myself never came under it. Then the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in a practical speech, entirely free from allegations against honesty, reminded us of the law of election petitions. I may tell the House that it is intended to consolidate the election law at the earliest opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord MacDermott, again in a maiden speech, upon which I am glad also to congratulate
  336
  him, raised, not for the first time, the question of university representation. That was largely the subject also of the speech by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I would remind him that there are in the present Parliament, I think, 422—but in case I am wrong in my figure, let me say, between 300 and 400—graduates of universities, and a large number of them in your Lordships' House. In those circumstances, it would be difficult to convince the public—and, after all, the public are the masters of all of us—that the universities are in any way handicapped in their representation in either House of Parliament.
  Indeed, if I may draw upon my experience in another place, university Members have not taken part there to any extent distinguishable from that of other Members. It may be difficult to assess this when one sits and listens to debates day after day, month after month, and year after year, but if one reads the debates without knowing what constituency a Member represents, I think it would be difficult to find in the speeches of university Members—who take part in all the debates in another place—any feature which is particularly distinguishable from the kind of view put forward by the ordinary Member representing the ordinary constituency.
  The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, dealt again with the subject. I notice that he did not repeat the statement, made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, that if a Conservative Government are returned the university seats will be restored. I am sure that the public would be interested to know whether that statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place also expresses the opinion of your Lordships. Possibly this is a question upon which you are not supposed to make any comment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: In fact I did. In part of my speech I said that I believed university seats would be restored, and as I thought at an early date. I meant immediately after the next General Election.
  LORD MORRISON: Then from my comparatively limited knowledge of the people of this country, I can only say that I do not think any great proportion of the public will be very enthusiastic about that promise. It seems to me that if the noble Lord's Party are looking for-

  337
  ward to a majority at the next Election they will need something heavier in their locker than that particular item.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: We are not relying on that alone.
  LORD MORRISON: Similarly, I am certain that the public in this country would not support the retention of a constituency like the City of London—a constituency with 5,000 people returning two Members of Parliament. I think that public opinion would be firmly against that.
  In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may I say that I believe that the marriage of the City with Westminster will turn out to be a happy one for both parties? I was glad to hear him say that, to some extent, at any rate, he agreed with that. With regard to his other point about the London County Council, I am authorised to say that the Home Secretary will consider a request for greater representation on the London County Council on its merits, but taking no account of rateable value. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, spoke at some length about the use of motor cars in elections. He carried my memory back to the election when I was elected, at the first time of asking, to the British House of Commons. My opponent, a Conservative, had the use of 150 motor cars, and it was only a small constituency. I had the use of one car and it broke down at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask whether that disaster was caused in the same way as one which occurred in that very same election in my constituency? Someone foolishly put one of the posters of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald over the radiator of a car of which I had the use and so prevented any air getting through it.
  LORD MORRISON: The breakdown of my car was due a much simpler cause. The election took place in November. A dense fog came down on the constituency, and my car struck a lamp-post. The result was that I had to walk for the rest of the day, and my supporters were put into the position of either having to walk or of travelling in Conservative motor cars—which I consider a most reprehensible expedient. I am sure that I have collected many hundreds of votes from people who have travelled to the
  338
  poll in Conservative motor cars, but it was always difficult to know whether they were going to do so. Frankly, consider that it is a practice to be discouraged by everyone concerned. May I remind the noble Lord that candidates will not now be allowed to hire cars? They will be able to employ only cars which are lent to them. Under Clause 33, a person is permitted to give his neighbour a lift if he does so out of neighbourliness, and not with a view to promoting or procuring the election of any particular candidate. I think that noble Lords in your Lordships' House who have spent any considerable time in another place may be forgiven if they fall back on their own past experiences occasionally. I had on one occasion an opponent who appeared in the constituency only the day before nomination day. He, or his agent, had a brilliant idea. At that time, the names of women were set out separately in the electoral lists. This candidate, or his agent, managed to get hold of a list of the women voters. The word went round: "Concentrate on using the cars to get all the women you can to the poll." The assumption was that, in those days, the result of having a motor car call for a woman to take her to the poll, would ensure her voting for the candidate in whose interests the car was being used.
  I think that, as this part of the Bill will work out, it will prove an advantage. I do not agree that it is limiting the power of people to go to the poll. I think there is a great deal in this Bill which will make it much easier than heretofore. To sum up these somewhat disjointed remarks, I think that this has been a short but interesting debate. When the public read of it, or of such small passages of it as the Press will be able to print in these days of small newspapers and large cricket scores, I doubt whether it will cut much ice with them. If I may say so, I think that one of the habitual mistakes made by noble Lords opposite is to exhibit a tendency to underrate the intelligence of ordinary people. I know what the ordinary people of my old constituency, amongst whom I still live, will say about this debate, particularly about the speeches of noble Lords opposite. They will say: "Satan rebuking sin."
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  NURSERIES AND CHILD-MINDERS REGULATION.BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL.
  5.28 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, in asking for a Second Reading for this Bill, we are passing from what might be regarded as pure politics to trade. That is quite a change. There is, I think, general agreement with the principles of the Bill, and I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that its introduction is overdue. The purpose of the Bill, in brief, is to enable the Government to have inquiries made into restrictive practices and monopolies in particular trades or industries and to provide for appropriate measures to be taken after investigation. Many highly industrialised countries have discovered that private enterprise does not necessarily mean free competition, and they have taken steps to give to their central Governments some power in relation to this matter. North America, in particular, has taken the matter seriously for some time, and Europe is now following suit. In 1890, the United States passed the Sherman Act which declares illegal any combinations operating in inter-State trade which seek to restrain or monopolise trade. In 1923, Canada passed a Combines Investigation Act under which a Commission has power to investigate restrictive practices, and on the basis of their report the Minister of Justice may take action in the courts. In 1946, Sweden introduced a law setting up a monopoly tribunal with compulsory powers of inquiry. More recently Belgium has introduced a Bill and Norway already has such legislation.
  In this country, serious consideration of the problem of restrictive practices first engaged the Government's attention in recent times when under the Profiteering Act of 1919 a Standing Committee on Trusts was set up to obtain information regarding the nature, extent and development of trusts. There were no sanctions.
  340
  The Committee produced some twenty-five Reports, but it came to an end in 1921 when the Profiteering Act lapsed. Subsequently, a Committee on Industry and Trade reported in 1929 that there was no urgent case for legislation for restraining abuses arising from combinations, and from then until 1944 nothing was done. In 1944, much thought was given by the Coalition Government to inquiring into the desirability of legislation in regard to restrictive practices; and the White Paper on Employment Policy, which they issued in 1944, had this to say on restrictive business practices. Here I quote:
  "Employers, too, must seek in larger output rather than higher prices the reward of enterprise and good management. There has in recent years been a growing tendency towards combines and towards agreements, both national and international, by which manufacturers have sought to control prices and output, to divide markets and to fix conditions of sale. Such agreements or combines do not necessarily operate against the public interest; but the power to do so is there. The Government will therefore seek power to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive agreements, and of the activities of combines; and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole."
  The present Government has continued the consideration of this problem and in the Economic Survey issued in February of last year it asserted that there was no place for industrial arrangements which restrict production, prices or employment. Later in 1947, the Industrial Charter of the Conservative Party contained this paragraph:
  "The first necessity, we believe, is to bring the facts out into the light. We accordingly propose that if, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, there is a prima facie case for investigation into allegations of monopolies or restrictive practices, he should refer them to a statutory commission for inquiry. The definition of restrictive practices would include oral as well as written arrangements but would exclude wages and conditions of work. The Commission would have the right to report whether the allegations were true and whether the practice was against the public interest."
  Thus since 1944 it is seen that there has been the clear intention of all Parties to introduce legislation to deal with this question. For various reasons legislation has been delayed, but certain inquiries have been set on foot in the meantime. These inquiries have covered the field of radio valves, cotton textile machinery,

  341
  cement costs and building materials. They have strongly reinforced the case for a permanent investigating body, and the introduction of the present Bill has naturally followed.
  The Bill is in a form which I am sure your Lordships will agree is well suited to our national outlook. It does not set about its business by condemning any general restrictive practices out of hand, but it provides for the appointment of a permanent Commission to investigate particular cases. The Board of Trade will not refer to it some general restrictive practice like retail price maintenance, or the prohibition of new entrants, or loyalty rebates, but will refer to it the case of a particular class of goods where it is thought that a restrictive practice is in operation. The constitution of the Commission and the choice of its members are obviously matters of first-rate importance. The success of an investigating body of this kind must depend on the type and quality of its membership and staff. Clause I proposes that the constitution of the Commission shall be not less than four and not more than ten members. This number was agreed on discussion in another place, and my right honourable friend then said that, in view of the load which the Commission will probably have to carry in its early stages, he proposes to appoint six members to the Commission, including the Chairman. The actual composition of the Commission has yet to be settled, but clearly professional men with an objective outlook on these questions are best qualified for membership.
  Reference to the Commission will be made only by the Board of Trade. In this way, the Commission will not be overloaded by miscellaneous grievances and His Majesty's Government will be responsible for the order in which matters are referred to them. Normally the Commission will operate on formal references referred to them for investigation, but it is also specifically provided by subsection (2) of Clause 2 that the Commission shall have the duty of advising on matters referred to them informally. Clauses 3 to 5 settle the type of case which can be referred to the Commission. They deal with the supply of goods, processing of goods and their export. Briefly, the position is that, if a dominant firm or groups of firms covering more than one-third of any industry or trade are restricting
  342
  competition, they are liable to be the subject of reference to the Commission for investigation and report. In the case of exports, reference will be conditional upon those concerned controlling one-third of the country's production of the goods in question.
  Reference to the Commission may be of two kinds. The Commission may be asked to report facts; that is, they will be asked to say whether one-third of the trade or industry is in the hands of those concerned and whether in fact they are restricting competition. In this case the Commission will be required to give details in their report of the way in which the restraint is exercised. Any report under this heading may be published. The other case is where the Commission are asked not only to find the facts, but also to report whether or not what is happening is against the public interest. In this sort of case the report of the Commission will always be published. Where the Commission find that the conditions reported upon operate against the public interest, they may recommend what action should be taken to remedy or prevent the resultant mischief. In this case the component authority, that is the Government Department concerned, may by order prevent the making or carrying out of the offending arrangements or require them to be determined. It will also give power to deal with boycotts. His Majesty's Government hope, however, that publication of a report and voluntary arrangements with those concerned will normally dispose of the problems raised and that these sanctions will not need to be frequently used.
  The Bill does not attempt to give a precise definition of the expression "public interest," but there was a feeling in another place that some guidance should be given on what was meant by this term. Clause 14 was accepted as meeting this point. It sets out the aims which must be kept in view by those who run monopolies or restrictive arrangements if they are to operate in the public interest. It provides guidance for the Commission, and also for Parliament, who will be receiving reports of the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 of the Bill. Parliament will, in fact, have an opportunity of overriding the findings of the Commission about the effect of any particular practices on the public interest.

  343
  I do not think there is any need for me to refer at this stage to any of the more detailed provisions of the Bill, though I might mention that in addition to Clause 14, which was added during the discussions in another place, Clause 16 was similarly added. It provides for an annual report to be made by the Board of Trade to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Clause 15 was added in the same way, and provides for the Commission to report at the request of the Board of Trade on the general effect on the public interest of practices of a specified class. It will be of considerable importance when the Commission are able, in due course, to draw conclusions from the separate inquiries made into particular industries which may have raised the same type of restrictive practices.
  Finally, I might mention the position of this Bill in relation to the conclusions of the Havana Conference of the International Trade Organization. Your Lordships are aware that signatories to the International Trade Organisation Charter, which has not yet come into force, undertake certain obligations in connection with cartels and monopolies which have a substantial effect on international trade. These obligations are set out in Chapter V of the Havana Charter. The present Bill was drafted at the same time as the Charter was being given its final shape at Havana. The two documents are entirely consistent; the procedure of the International Trade Organisation will, like our own, be one of investigation into particular restrictive arrangements to try to establish what effects they have on international trade, If at a later date His Majesty's Government ratify the Charter, and are called upon to take any action under Chapter V, this Bill will provide us with adequate power to carry out our international obligations. The normal method of dealing with this type of case will, in fact, be through the machinery provided by the Bill. The Bill is in line with developments in other countries with similar economies. It has the support of all Parties in its general purpose. It is a measure which I commend to the sympathetic consideration of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Bill which the First Lord of the Admiralty has so clearly and agreeably presented to us is, I think, rather like the curate's egg. I agree with the noble Lord that there is general agreement that there should be an egg, but it would be desirable, if possible (I recognise the limitations of this Government under pressure), that it should be a wholly good egg. I am only sorry, approving, as I do, of so much in the Bill, that it is not wholly good. If it is not indelicate to mention it, I would venture to suggest that the title is not very happily chosen, though that is not the greatest objection, to the Bill. It is a Bill which, as your Lordships will see, is headed "Monopoly (Inquiry and Control)." As the Bill excludes from its purview every kind of Government nationalised monopoly, that does not seem to me to be a very happy title. It would be more correct to call it a Restrictive Practices Bill. I believe the President of the Board of Trade invited competition from anybody who could suggest a better title, but in another place nobody said: "Pay that man ten shillings." I do not know whether the competition is still open here, but I feel sure, if it was, that the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Balfour, would come out on top, with the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party a good runner-up.
  Superficially, there might be the comment that if you are dealing with restrictive practices you ought to deal with restrictive practices in labour, as well as in trade. But I am quite sure that the introduction of a Bill of this kind is not the way to do that. As the First Lord said in his speech, quoting from the White Paper which we all produced together, there is no room to-day for any restrictive practices, whether of trade or labour, in the production of goods we need. I think in both there has been an excuse, and, indeed, reason, for such practices in the past, in times of great trade depression. But that is not now the risk. The risk to-day, I think we should all agree, is not that there is likely to be an excess of production, but that unless we all work a great deal harder there will not be enough production of the things that we most need. Nor, indeed, are all agreements in trade bad, any more than all trade union practices are bad. There may be agreements of a restrictive character, or, let me say,

  345
  of a regulative character, which often serve a very useful purpose. Where those practices are good, I am sure those engaged in them have nothing to lose by publicity, because it is the publicity about sound trade practices which show that they are right.
  I was very glad that the First Lord said that the reason for having the Bill is, not that every practice is a bad practice, but in order to see whether there was a prima facie case that a practice is bad, and, if so, to investigate it. I entirely agree that it is right that the Board of Trade should have the duty of sifting any complaints and deciding which of them ought to go to the tribunal. It would be quite impossible to set up a tribunal of this kind and then invite everybody to inundate them with complaints. What would happen would be that either ignorant or sometimes malicious persons—possibly competitors—would flood the tribunal with complaints which they ought not to be troubled to hear. It is quite right that the Board of Trade should have the primary duty of sifting those complaints, and sending them on only if there is a prima facie case. The test, of course, is really the efficiency of the industry—home and export—and the interests of the consumer. I am glad that "public interest" is being defined, and I am bound to say that I think the definition in Clause 14 is about as good a definition as could be given, and it is one which I certainly could not better. I am not going to attempt to better it and, therefore, I am perfectly prepared to endorse it.
  Of course it is anti-social by restrictive practices, whether of capital or labour, to restrict the production of goods which are needed; but it is not pro-social to produce what nobody wants. All production has an element of restriction in it, because nobody would dream of making large quantities of goods which in no circumstances could he sell. The Government, by one means or another, have been trying to direct labour and production activities of all kinds into the most important channels. Indeed, I have often heard the advocates of nationalisation defend nationalisation on the ground that it is a good way of avoiding wasteful competition. But I would say that, broad and large, what is wanted to-day is not less competition but more competition. I am sure that the proper way to deal with trade
  346
  union practices, where they are restrictive, is not in a Bill like this, but in negotiation in industry, with the common object in view of getting the best under the best conditions. The proper way to deal with restrictive trade agreements is by an impartial, expert, judicial inquiry such as would be
  established by the Commission under this Bill. Therefore, I wholly support the establishment of a Commission with power to investigate and report. I think also that there must be power to take action on the report.
  I agree with the noble Viscount—and I am glad that he said it—that there are many cases where the practices have nothing against them and, indeed, are beneficial; but it would be all the better that they should come to light. Where a practice is not good and the fact is brought to light, I think it will be quite sufficient to give it publicity, because I believe public opinion is a much greater force than some of my friends on the opposite side are prepared to admit. I think that action taken because of public opinion, and because there is a genuine consensus of opinion that a thing is right or wrong, is a great deal better than action taken or not taken because people are compelled to do either this or that. But there should certainly be the power to enforce a finding.
  There is a clause to which the First Lord referred and which has been imported into the Bill—Clause 15—about which I am much more doubtful. That is the clause which says broadly that the Board of Trade may ask the Commission to make general reports—not to report about a particular practice, but really to write economic essays. I am very doubtful about the wisdom of that provision. I think the Commission will have quite enough do investigating concrete cases, and I am sure they will be well qualified to do that if the right people are appointed. Do you really want these essays written? I should have thought that there were quite enough of them. We get them from the Government every few weeks. White Papers come like "leaves in Vallombrosa." The economic and uneconomic papers follow each other in rapid succession. What do you really want out of this Bill and out of this Commission? Do you want a judicial inquiry, or do you want a brains trust to write essays? I am quite sure you want the judicial inquiry, and I am pretty

  347
  certain that you do not want an essay-writing brains trust. I think there are about enough of them as it is.
  I come to the next thing which the First Lord slid over most skilfully (I must not mix my metaphors: I should have said "he sailed round with most skilful seamanship") which was the complete omission from the Bill and from all investigations, of the Government nationalised industries, Government-owned and Government-sponsored corporations. That seems to me to be very odd. Here are these monopolies, embracing not only the whole of one industry but the whole of many. We shall be dealing with the gas industry again this week, and we are seeing in the case of fuel that not only is coal nationalised, not only is electricity nationalised, not only is gas to be nationalised, but the whole are to be co-ordinated—blessed word!—under the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I am not going to anticipate our debates on the Gas Bill as to the importance of the consumer having his free choice; but when you take the whole of the fuel and power industries and make them into one co-ordinated monopoly under the same control—after all, as we are always being told, it is the control which counts; and it is the Minister who controls this combine—it does seem to me most extraordinary that this Monopoly Commission is to be forbidden to consider the effect upon the public of the practices of these Government monopolies.
  The President of the Board of Trade gave the reason for this. He did not say that the Government monopolies might not be very damaging to the public, but he said they should not be subject to the Bill because they will be subject—I have his exact words—"to searching and detailed examination by the High Court of Parliament" That is exactly what they are not. After the great difficulties which are encountered in another place in finding
  out anything about them, I am glad to say that rather more information is given here. Every day when Members in another place try to put questions about these monopolies—try to conduct "the searching and detailed examination by the High Court of Parliament"—they are told by Ministers: "But you cannot ask in the High Court of Parliament about these matters. These are matters not for
  348
  the Minister, not for Parliament, but for the Board, because they are matters of business management"
  The last matter to which I want to refer concerns the extraordinary provisions of Clause 10 (1) (e) (ii). That clause gives the House of Commons the power to declare that the findings of the Commission are wrong, and the Minister may then make an order, not through the process of an Act of Parliament, where a Bill has to be introduced and passed through all its stages and be considered in Committee in both Houses, but a summary order under this Bill, contrary to the findings and the recommendations of the Commission. What can be the justification for that? If Parliament is to be the judge, why set up a Commission? The House of Commons will not have heard the case. Why should the Government propose action where the Commission do not recommend it, and in fact very likely recommend exactly the opposite? It is really no good the Government saying that this will be seldom done. I do not know. We have an example of it to-day. We had an example in the Criminal Justice Bill, where we saw the Government accept or propose what they did not believe in, under pressure from their extremists. The purpose of this Bill is that judgment shall be given by an impartial judicial Commission who have heard and weighed the whole of the evidence.
  How can it be right that when the Commission have heard the whole of the evidence and made recommendations, it should rest with the House of Commons to throw it all over by a Resolution saying: "We do not mind what the Commission have said; we do not like this," and then deal with it under summary procedure? If the Government want to legislate on Party lines, the proper way to do so is to bring in a Bill and pass that Bill in the ordinary way. This is really an abuse of the process under the Bill. What will be the position of this judicial Commission on a subsequent inquiry if the House of Commons have decided against them? What are they to do when they get their next case? Are they to give what they believe to be the right finding on the facts of the case, or are they to follow what they think would be the view of the House of Commons? I think this is a very serious blot on a Bill

  349
  which in many ways is admirable. I wonder why the Government must turn a good Bill into a bad Bill and turn what could easily be an agreed industrial reform into a bone of contention.
  6.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it is clear that this Bill receives support from all quarters of the House—and nowhere more cordially than from the Liberal Benches. The Liberal Party do not claim to be the only begetters of this Bill, but we do claim to be the first begetters of it, for it is now twenty years since there was published, in 1928, the Liberal book called Britain's Industrial Future, otherwise known as "The Liberal Yellow Book;" which comprised our proposals at that time for industrial reform. In that book there was a section dealing with monopolies and restrictive practices, and a series of recommendations which, we are happy to see, are almost precisely reproduced in the terms of this Bill. So we undoubtedly welcome it with much cordiality.
  At that time, we held the view that we in this country ought not to follow the example of the United States of America and pass legislation like the Sherman laws there, the object of which was to prevent the formation of large combinations. We stated in that 'Report that in this country we should try to find room in our industrial system for large-scale semi-monopolistic private concerns, but we held that they ought to be subject to very complete investigation and to a large measure of control. Measures which attempt to break
  up or prevent the formation of combinations lend themselves, as we have seen in America, to constant evasion. Francis Bacon, in one of his books, quoted a Greek philosopher as having said:
  "Laws were tike cobwebs, where the small flies were caught and the great brake through"
  So it has been in measures which seek to prevent the formation of these great industrial or commercial combinations.
  This matter was discussed at some length in your Lordships' House in March, 1945, on a Motion brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who was not then a member of the Government. On that occasion, I drew your Lordships' attention to some facts which had been
  350
  recently published in a paper by the then Statistician to the Board of Trade, Mr. Leak, and read as an address to the Royal Statistical Society. In the course of that paper it was shown that fewer than 1,000 firms—938 to be accurate—produced 49 per cent. of the whole output of British industry and employed 45 per cent. of the working people. In other words, roughly 1,000 firms produced half of the British industrial output, and employed close upon half of the working-class population. Eighteen gigantic concerns produced close on 10 per cent.—actually 9.7 per cent.—of the whole of the industrial output of the nation, and employed 8.5 per cent. of the working classes. It will be seen from those very striking figures—which are not usually realised by the public in general—how easy it is to create these huge modern combinations, when the industry is already so greatly concentrated in a few hands. Furthermore, there are the trade associations, devoted—as we know—largely to price fixing; and other combinations and cartels of different kinds.
  All these are facilitated—and I hope the noble Viscount who has just spoken will forgive my referring to the matter—by the existence of protective tariffs. They are encouraged by protectionist laws which, because these combinations are no longer kept in check, as they used to be, by the fear of foreign competition——
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And by Liberal laissez-faire. Liberal laissez-faire never interfered with anything.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I really do not follow the noble Viscount's argument. Under laissez-faire—which I do not defend to the extent to which it has been carried—the ports were open; and if any industry banded itself together and artificially raised prices above what was legitimate to cover the cost of production, the goods would come in from other countries and the efforts of the industry to band together would be defeated. Under a restrictive tariff, if it is sufficiently restrictive, this becomes impossible. Indeed, in the United States of America there has long been a common saying: "The tariff is the mother of trusts" The more tariffs you have, the easier it is to form these restrictive combinations.

  351
  The consequence has been the continuous rise in prices which we have seen in this country, and in many other countries, in recent years, and which is now becoming excessive. As the pressure continues, countries have higher and higher wages, and higher and higher profits, whereas there is very little pressure on the other side—from the standpoint of the consumer—to preserve him from the effects of the continual rise in the cost of living due to the increase in prices. At the present time, we see on all sides excessive dividends being declared by great numbers of companies; and in spite of taxation, immense private fortunes are rapidly being built up. Under the present conditions the consumer, who is also the taxpayer, is the shorn lamb of the modern world. And this Bill, at all events, is something, if only a very modest answer to its diffident bleat.
  With regard to the Title of the Bill, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has referred, I agree that it is certainly not a very happy one. It might well be altered. The President of the Board of Trade in another place, towards the end of the discussions upon this Bill, suggested that it might be amended to read: "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Bill" I cannot think of a better Title than that. The noble Viscount suggests that we should enter into a competition to try to suggest a suitable Title. "Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill" does not mean very much, and it does not seem to cover what can hardly be called monopolies at all—namely, such restrictive practices as those of certain classes of trade associations and cartels. I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether the Government intend to pursue the suggestion tentatively thrown out by the President of the Board of Trade in another place—that perhaps, at a later stage, an alternative Title might be suggested for the Bill.
  With regard to the non-inclusion in the Bill of nationalised industries, I do not concur with the view which has just been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. But that is not because I think that State industries by their very nature are free from the evils that attach to other monopolies. I do not think so at all. They are just as liable as other very large-scale industries to the vices of lethargy and bureaucracy resulting in that costli-
  352
  ness of production which occurs in the case of private enterprises when they get developed beyond a certain scale. Indeed, they are even more liable, since, while private enterprises may become bureaucratic, public enterprises are born bureaucratic. It needs a constant effort to rescue them from those innate diseases. But the reason I do not concur with the noble Viscount is that I do not think this Bill is a suitable occasion for dealing with such industries as coal mining, railways and the other vast industries that have now been nationalised. The Commission will have enough to do to deal with the private enterprises which are of a monopolistic character and the widespread practices that exist through industry. I do not think that it would be very sound constitutional practice to set a Commission, appointed and directed by the President of the Board of Trade, to inquire into the coal mines, which are under the superintendence and direction of the Minister of Fuel, or the railways, which are under the Minister of Transport, or, one might add, the Post Office, which is under the Postmaster-General. These industries are already under State control and investigation, and if there is any idea in the public mind that they are guilty of various monopolistic abuses then they ought to be investigated by a Select Committee of another place, by a Joint Select Committee, or by a departmental or other Committee appointed ad hoc, and not by some Standing Commission which forms part of the organisation of another Government Department.
  There is another point that might have been raised in the discussions on this Bill—namely, how far trade union restrictions can be dealt with under its provisions. There again, no controversy has arisen over facts which are not specifically referred to, because I think it is generally agreed that such matters as trade union restrictions must be dealt with in connection with trade union matters generally, rather than as part of an investigation into monopolies and similar practices. In practice it may be found convenient to investigate certain trade union practices, and there is a clause in the Bill which provides that the trade union laws, barring certain actions at law where trade unions are concerned, shall not apply under this Act. Perhaps the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill can tell us for what reason that

  353
  clause has been put in. It is Clause 11, subsection (4). In general, I presume that it is not intended to arrange a roving survey throughout the field of trade union activities. I agree with what was said on behalf of the Opposition in another place, that this is not the right vehicle for dealing with restrictions of that character. I think that it is to the credit of the Government that, in spite of a very crowded legislative programme, they have not sought to find any excuses for not proceeding with this measure, but have pressed it on speedily. The principles of it are agreed. The details of it are a matter for later stages. I have no doubt that your Lordships will make no ado about speedily giving a Second Reading to the Bill.
  6.19 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I view the legislation proposed in this Bill as being amongst the most important and far-reaching that has been presented to Parliament by His Majesty's Government. If its provisions and proposals are implemented and carried to their logical conclusion, it will affect the whole basis of British industry and trade, and perhaps the economy upon which that industry and trade have been built. Therefore, in giving a very warm welcome to, this Bill, I am fully seized of the huge nature of the task which confronts this Commission. In the observations which I shall venture to address to your Lordships' House, I do not intend to deal so much with the thorough-going combine and cartel which has been so well covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as with those quasi-monopolistic organisations and restrictive practices which have spread themselves with an ever-growing degree of speed over a large section of British industry and trade and which have resulted in the public being denied the efficiency of production and distribution. These practices have encouraged inefficiency to a most marked extent. Today, we are a high-cost producing nation, we are a high-cost selling nation, and one of the contributory factors
  is these restrictive practices to which I have referred. It is when we turn to ordinary consumer goods, purchased by the ordinary person of this country, that we see that these practices are so marked.
  I expect many of your Lordships have read with interest the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble friend
  354
  Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, which was charged with the task of inquiring into the cost of distributing building materials. The words "building materials" in the Report could be erased, and the name of dozens of the products of other industries inserted, and the context of the Report need hardly be altered. I ought perhaps to disclose to your Lordships' House what might be a special interest in this subject, as I have spent a large proportion of my industrial life in an industry which, on the one hand, has been the victim of monopolistic arrangements, and which, on the other, has built up restrictive policies practically unparalleled in British industry and trade. Before the war, nearly
  70 per cent. of the cost of production of a British motor vehicle was made up of raw and semi-fabricated materials and over two-thirds of that proportion was controlled by rings and combines. The British motor vehicle producer had to pay anything from 30 to 100 per cent. more for his fabricated assemblies than his American competitor. Therefore, is it to be wondered at that, in competition in world markets, the British motor car cost 15d. per lb. to manufacture against the American motor vehicle at approximately 8d. or 9d. per lb.? I cite that only as an example, and it was true of nearly every industry. Even to-day, the British motor vehicle manufacturer has only one supplier for all his electrical equipment. That is a ring which, unfortunately for myself, or unfortunately for them, happens to bear my name—and I would make it clear that I no connect on with them. But with quite a lot of other fabricated materials there are only one or two suppliers. One of the root causes of all this is the introduction of the branded article and, with the introduction of the branded article, the disappearance of that perfect competition so beloved by the classical economists of the Eighteenth Century. The branded article has grown enormously. It has achieved huge customer and consumer acceptance because of the guarantee of quality which it carries. But the price-fixing arrangements which have followed the introduction of the branded article present a further and still larger problem to this country which will grow as the branded article expands (and it will expand), as being the cause of more inefficiency in distribution than anything

  355
  else. It has had some very cruel consequences for purchasers. Competition in prices has practically ceased over a wide range of articles in commerce. Competition in margins has taken its place. Suppliers have sought to impose conditions upon the resale of their articles which has ruled out competition; they have brought the retailer and the wholesaler under the absolute domination of the producer, and in consequence the British people have had to pay higher prices for those articles. I will quote two examples. It matters not whether you purchase a motor car or a tube of branded tooth paste. You pay exactly the same price, whether you buy it from the largest and most efficient store in the heart of the West End of London or whether you buy it from the meanest shop in the meanest street in any out-of-the-way town in any part of the country. The British public are denied the benefits of efficient distribution, and those who wish to pass on those benefits have to live their entire commercial lives under the threat of a boycott by these suppliers.
  Such have been the evils of price fixing. I am quite prepared to admit that in certain circumstances there is a case for price fixing; but there is no case whatsoever for the manner and the method by which commodity prices are built up before they are fixed. The classic argument always used in support of price fixing in the between the war years was, of course, that unless you had price fixing the ultimate effect of price competition rested upon the shoulders of the industrial worker—sweated wages—with the result that the employers did not mind what wages they paid or what conditions of employment they imposed so long as they could bring the price of their goods below that of their competitor. There was some truth in that, but that all disappeared two or three years ago with the advent of the Wages Councils Act and there are to-day 15,000,000 workers under industrial and basic wage agreements.
  I know that the facts which I have tried to put before your Lordships raise fundamental issues, and that is why I opened my remarks by saying that this Bill strikes at the very economy upon which British industry and trade has been built. Has the producer of any article in commerce the right to put his name to
  356
  that article; the right to fix the price under which it shall not be sold; to control the channels of sale, as to who shall or shall not sell that article, and the conditions under which he shall sell it? Has the producer of an article the right to enter into an agreement with his fellow producers and to boycott and drive out of business anyone who will not subscribe to those conditions? Those are some of the fundamental issues which this Bill raises. Is it right that the producer should have under his domination the economic livelihood and existence of everybody in industry and commerce who is selling these articles? Those are fundamental issues, and they must not be shirked. Is it in the national interest that such economic power should be vested in producers? It never stops at one producer; there is always evolved a combination of producers. Or are there (to quote the Preamble to this Bill) mischiefs? I agree with the wise words uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—namely, let the public know these things. If there is nothing to hide in these practices then there is no hurt done by bringing them to light, and subjecting them to the focus of public opinion. But if there is anything evil—and I am persuaded that there is—then the sooner they are brought before the bar of public opinion the better.
  6.30 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, because everything that has been said has commanded a general measure of agreement so far as the principles of the Bill are concerned. But there is one particular matter which raises a question of fundamental principle—namely, the fair administration of the Bill—and I venture to raise it on Second Reading although no doubt it will come forward again in Committee. The point I am making relates to Clause 15, which deals with reports by the Board of Trade. As I understand it, the Board of Trade will be the instrument which refers matters for investigation to the Commission. The Board of Trade is, as it were, the only channel by which the Commission will receive directions to make investigations. There are provisions for the Board of Trade to report, quite rightly, on general questions, as set out in Clause 15, but the

  357
  Bill seems to provide that there should be, so to speak, a queue of applicants who are under request to the Board of Trade for investigation, and that queue of applicants must be listed. As I read this clause, any number of persons substantiating a claim to represent a particular interest can make a request to the Board of Trade, and that request must be cited in the Board of Trade's report, even though the Commission have not started any investigation at all. That seems to me to be, however unintentional, an unfair pillorying of particular interests.
  Let us suppose that the tobacco workers of the United Kingdom wished to claim that there was a monopoly in the tobacco trade working against public interest, and that meanwhile the Commission were fully occupied with other matters. The Board of Trade would have to cite such an application in its report, and, if the trade was an export one, I can conceive that great harm might be done to our exports by the casting of some kind of stigma, some suggestion that the trade in question was under suspicion and was about to be investigated. I cannot see the justification for setting out in the annual report of the Board of Trade the names of a waiting queue of industries which are to be investigated. Let the report contain a full list of investigations which have taken place, and full information as to who instructed the investigation, but let it not go beyond the actual work of the Commission and deal with their prospective work, because that would not be in the interests of those engaged in the trade concerned. That is a general point to which we shall return, but it is only right to bring it forward on Second Reading.
  6.34 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I can but express the gratitude of my colleague the President of the Board of Trade and of the Government for the friendly reception which this Bill has received at your Lordships' hands. Indeed, there appears to be unanimity amongst those who have spoken that the Bill is not like the curate's egg, good in parts, but that in its main parts it is very good, and it is receiving the support of your Lordships from whatever Party point of view you speak. Concerning the question of the Title of the Bill, I admit that it is certainly not a happy Title, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out. The President of
  358
  the Board of Trade will consider again the matter of the Title in the light of the debate which has taken place to-day. I will certainly represent to him most strongly the views which have been submitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and also by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in relation to this matter.
  There is general agreement that this Bill is not suitable for dealing with trade unions. I entirely support that view. I am not suggesting that sometimes there are not restrictive practices which are carried on among the trade unions. I could give many instances in my own experience in relation to the coal industry, particularly in South Wales, where we have had certain difficulties in regard to this matter, but they were effectively dealt with by the trade union concerned. Therefore no point need be made as to why the trade unions ought not to be included in this Bill. The other matter which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was ably replied to by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—namely, the question why nationalised industries are not included in the Bill. This subject took up a long time when the Bill was in another place, both in the House itself and in committee, Strong reasons were given by the Lord President of the Council, though they may not be acceptable to the noble Viscount opposite. In some cases it was suggested that, to deal effectively with some of the practices which this Bill proposes to prevent, certain industries should be nationalised, so that they could be controlled by the public. A full inquiry could be conducted into any restrictive practices or indeed into anything that would interfere with production.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked about Clause 15 and laid stress upon the point that the Commission, when conducting an inquiry, ought not to do so for the purpose of writing economic essays. I entirely agree, and it is intended that Cause 15 shall be made much clearer by an Amendment which the Government will move on Committee stage. I shall be quite prepared to consult the noble Viscount in relation to that matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, rightly said that the Liberal Party had much to do with the preparation of this Bill. I well remember the Yellow Book of the Liberal Party which devoted a considerable space to this

  359
  particular question and gave a great deal of useful information. Indeed, I fought an election on the Yellow Book; but I am afraid that, in view of industrial conditions in the area in question, whilst the Yellow Book did play a part in the election, it did not win it for the Liberal Party. But that does not for a moment detract from the many excellent parts of that book. I think it is the feeling among Liberals that this Bill does not go quite far enough.
  A question was asked concerning Clause 11 (4). That subsection is in the Bill for the purpose of dealing with Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, so that it shall not apply to any civil proceedings in respect of a contravention or apprehended contravention of any part of any order under Clause 10 of the present Bill. I am afraid that I cannot make this matter very clear to the noble Viscount. But there is this legal point with which I think it deals.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: What sort of case would it deal with?
  VISCOUNT HALL: Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act states that:
  "An action against a trade union whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained by any court"
  This subsection is for the purpose, I understand, of dealing with cases of that kind. I have not come prepared to answer the question in detail to-day, but I will look into it and deal with it fully at a later stage.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Taff Vale judgment said that a trade union could be sued in tort. Before that judgment was given everyone thought that it could not. The term, "a trade union or combine" includes employers' combines as well as trade unions. I gather that what the Government wish to do by this clause is to say that notwithstanding this section in the Trade Disputes Act, an aggrieved person shall be able to sue an employers' combine in tort if the tortious act was a breach of an order made by Parliament under this Act.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The employers were going to come up disguised as trade unions.
  VISCOUNT HALL: The matter has been well put by the noble Viscount. Subsection (4) is intended to cover that point. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his speech in which he gave many strong reasons for this Bill. He dealt particularly with the question of price fixing, which, I feel sure, will be brought to the notice of the Commission. Lord Balfour of Inchrye referred especially to the question of the fair administration of this Bill. In the course of my speech I pointed out how important it was to ensure getting the best kind of Commission by having the right type of persons sitting on it—persons who will see that the administration and all matters referred to them are dealt with in a thoroughly efficient way. The matters of detail to which the noble Lord referred and to which, I understand, he has given notice that he will return during the Committee stage, will receive thorough consideration in the meantime, and we shall then be able to deal with them fully. There is nothing more for me to say except to thank your Lordships warmly for the friendly reception which you have given to this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  Clause 18 [Detention in a detention centre]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that there are so many Amendments but I think they are nearly all drafting or, in substance, drafting, except perhaps the first one. If I may take the first group of Amendments, which are to Clause 18, together, I will tell your Lordships how they come about. The idea of detention centres, if and when they are established, is that they shall be places to which young persons can be sent, and the clause provides that you cannot send a person to such a centre for a shorter period than three months. In exceptional cases you can send him for as long as six months. The magistrates of the London juvenile courts—and they have great experience in this matter—have been to see the Home Secretary and have pointed out to him that in regard

  361
  to young offenders, children of compulsory school age, children of fourteen or fifteen, three months may be too long because it means a considerable break in the child's school life. They think that in respect of those particular children (they do not want to have short sentences for others up to the age of twenty-one) it would be desirable to confer on courts the right to send them to these centres for as short a time as one month. I think there is substance in that point. Indeed, I think that anything which the magistrates of the juvenile
  courts of London may say must be regarded as having great substance in it. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment to Clause 18. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("(except as provided by paragraph (c) of this proviso)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if I may say so, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that, except for this group, nearly all the Amendments on the Paper, so far as I can see, are drafting Amendments. With regard to this particular group, I am glad that the Government have accepted the suggestion from the London juvenile courts magistrates. I must say that I had rather overlooked the fact that under the Bill a shorter term at a detention centre than that of three months could not be imposed. In many cases, that would clearly be too long, especially for boys or girls—I suppose the offenders would mostly be boys—who are at school. I understand that those who advise the Home Office on these matters, particularly those who may be likely to have charge of some of these detention centres, think that the period of one month would, in normal cases, be too short. The view is that for about a fortnight the boy would feel himself rather entertained in his new surroundings, and during the next fortnight he would just be thinking of getting out of them. Therefore, those who advise the Home Office do not think that they will be able to do much good unless they have a longer period than one month—they want at least three months in the case of the older delinquents. That is the opinion of the people who will have to run these places and, naturally, their views are entitled to a great deal of consideration. These detention
  362
  centres will, after all, be new places. If, later on, it is found that sentences of less than three months would be all right for the older well as the younger delinquents, then I think will be the time, rather than now, to amend this particular provision. I certainly welcome it in regard to the younger offenders.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD GRANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 26, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE: LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 34, at end insert—
  ("and
  (c) if the offender is of compulsory school age and the court is of opinion that a term of detention of three months, or equal to the maximum term of imprisonment aforesaid, would be excessive, the term for which he is ordered to be detained as aforesaid may be any teem of not less than one month and not more than three months or the maximum term of imprisonment aforesaid.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 14, at end insert ("and the expression 'compulsory school age' has the meaning assigned to it by section thirty-five of the Education Act, 1944:
  Provided that section eight of the Education Act, 1946 (which provides that a person attains a particular age during a school term shall be deemed not to have attained that age until the end of the term) shall not apply.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Borstal Training]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after "London" to insert
  "or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, we made an error here. We forgot that there are in this country many boroughs—over 100 I believe—which

  363
  have their own petty sessional divisions but not their own Quarter Sessions. Clearly, in those cases, we must provide for committal to the appeal committee of Quarter Sessions of the county in which the borough is situated. This applies to Borstal sentences and also to extending leave to appeal, where that is granted. There has clearly been an omission here which we must put right.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 40, after ("London") insert ("or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 42, at end insert ("or for the county in which that borough is situated, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Committal for sentence in respect of indictable offences tried summarily]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 17, after ("London") insert ("or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 19, at end insert ("or for the county in which that borough is situated, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Challenge of juries and separation of juries]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment has been suggested to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The Amendment permits an accused person to challenge any juror for cause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 3, at end insert ("and any juror or jurors for cause").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 4, leave out ("In any criminal proceeding") and insert ("Upon the trial of any person for an offence on indictment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) For the purpose of the last foregoing subsection the expression 'sentence' includes any order made on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction, not being—

  (a) a probation order or an order for conditional discharge;

  (b) an order for the payment of costs;

  (c) an order under section two of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which enables the court to order the destruction of an animal)."

  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and several other people are very anxious that we should make it quite plain that there is always an appeal against the decision of a magistrate: for instance, such matters as the endorsement of a driving licence or anything of that sort, where there is no other punishment, should be treated as a sentence. We commit ourselves to the absolute principle that there is always an appeal, except in the three instances of the Amendment. In the case of (a) there can be no appeal because a probation order presupposes consent. There can be an appeal against a conviction on which the probation order is based. There can be no appeal against an order for payment of costs. There never has been, there is not now, and it is undesirable that there should be, litigation on costs before the courts, and the exception (b) keeps the law as it is to-day. Exception (c) provides there can be no appeal against an order under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. This refers to cases where animals are diseased or destroyed. Obviously, there can be no question of appeal there, where it is necessary to have an animal destroyed. With these three exceptions, we have committed ourselves to the principle that a sentence includes any order made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and that there shall be the right to appeal against these orders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would like to ask one question on paragraph (c). If I have a dog condemned as savage, does that come under this clause? I think there is an appeal against that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That does not come under this clause. It deals with diseased or destroyed animals.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there is a separate Act for dogs.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(b) in the case of quarter sessions for a borough, by the recorder or any deputy recorder;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (5):
  "and may be exercised either within or outside the county or borough for which the quarter sessions are held"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this provision is thought desirable, where the case is not to be heard by Quarter Sessions but by a Judge or Recorder. For instance, a Recorder may have his chambers in the Temple and the person who seeks bail may go to him at his rooms in the Temple, which may be altogether outside the area for which he sits as Recorder. This was a lacuna which we are now filling in. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Bail on appeal, case stated or application for certiorari]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 41, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(b) in the case of quarter sessions for a borough, by the recorder or any deputy recorder").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Page 41, line 30, at end insert ("and may be exercised either within or outside the county or borough for which the quarter sessions are held").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 39 [Amendment of Criminal Appeal Act 1907]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "(5) The Court of Criminal Appeal may, when they dismiss an appeal or application for leave to appeal order the appellant or applicant as the case may be to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the appeal or application, including The cost of any transcript of the shorthand notes of the proceedings at the trial made in accordance with a direction given by the registrar under section sixteen of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907; and any order under this subsection may be enforced by the person to whom the costs are ordered to be paid in the same manner as an order for the payment of costs made by the High Court in civil proceedings"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this clause, which has been agreed by the Lord Chief Justice, takes the place of the existing Clause 35 and expands it by making it plain that the cost of the transcription of the shorthand notes is part of the costs. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 43 [Order of Speeches]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a matter of grammar and drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 6, leave out ("prosecution") and insert ("prosecutor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  In Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
  "(3) The provision of the last foregoing subsection shall not apply to proceedings before examining justices"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because the procedure about proceedings before examining justices is already carefully set out in the Criminal Justice Act, 1905. Later we shall amend the appropriate Schedule to bring it into conformity with the present system. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  page 47, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is the term "examining justices" a term of general use? It is not contained in the definition clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is borrowed from The Criminal Justice Act, 1925, Section 12, the section we are amending.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Payment of costs of defence on acquittal, etc.]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is to remove a subsection which we have already replaced by an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 41, leave out subsection (8).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51 [Acquisition of land for prisons, and other institutions]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, This Amendment is necessary because we may get an existing building that we can adapt and there may be no need to build at all. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 44, leave out ("building") and insert ("establishing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Arrest on failure to surrender to bail before courts of summary jurisdiction]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because otherwise the court might have power wide enough to include even witnesses. Obviously we mean the person who has been convicted of an offence. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 12, leave out ("has entered") and insert ("charged with or convicted of an offence has been released upon entering").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule [Transitory Provisions]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the first of a group of
  368
  Amendments in the Eighth Schedule dealing with the same question. Unfortunately, there are some people who have escaped from prison or Borstal and at the time of the passing of this Act will be at large, though they ought not to be. As the Bill has been drafted, we have not brought these people within our net, and it is obvious that we ought to bring them in. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 42, leave out ("Any person who, having") and insert ("Where a person has").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 43, leave out ("is") and insert ("then if").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 44, after ("Act") insert ("he is or ought to be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 46, leave out ("then").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 48, after ("Act") insert ("he").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule [Consequential and Minor Amendments]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the provision already made in regard to costs. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 16, column 2, at beginning insert—
  ("In section thirteen, at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words 'except as otherwise provided by section thirty-seven or section forty-three of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment gives a single Judge, before whom application for leave to appeal goes, power to order the payment of costs if he thinks it a proper case. He can, of course, adjourn the case to the full court. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  page 95, line 26, column 2, after ("1948") insert ("or to make orders for the payment of costs under subsection (5) of that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  7.1 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, you will see that this Amendment refers to that part of the Schedule which deals with the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. It is the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, and Section 12 in particular, which uses that phrase "examining justices," of which I did not know until this morning—I am glad the noble Lord did not know it either—and sets out the complete code. Therefore, we have to write these words into that Act in order to make the matter right. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 8, column 2, at beginning insert—
  ("In section twelve, in subsection (5) for the second and third paragraphs there should be substituted the following paragraphs—
  'If the accused in answer to the question states that he wishes to give evidence or to call witnesses, or both to give evidence and to call witnesses, the justices shall proceed to take the evidence of the accused if he wishes to give evidence himself, and of any witnesses called by him who know anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused.
  Where the accused is represented by counsel or a solicitor, his counsel or solicitor shall be heard on his behalf, either before or after the said evidence is taken, at his discretion, and may, if the accused gives evidence himself and calls witnesses, be heard on his behalf with the leave of the justices both before and after the evidence is taken:
  Provided that where counsel or a solicitor is so heard both before and after the evidence is taken, counsel or the solicitor for the prosecution shall be entitled to be heard in reply.'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on Amendments we made dealing with borough recorders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 20, column 2, leave out from ("additional") to end of line 25.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I will just say a few words on this Bill. It has been subjected, as these Bills always are, to very careful consideration by your Lordships. It has been amended in not a few respects. I think it has been greatly improved. We have inserted a clause giving the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial, and I hope and believe that we have safeguarded that power. We have inserted a clause enabling persons in our employment abroad, in Embassies, and so on, who misbehave themselves, to be tried here. Your Lordships have taken a different view from the view the Government took in regard to judicial whipping. As the Bill now stands, birching remains, though whipping with the cat o'nine tails has gone.
  Your Lordships have taken a different view with regard to capital punishment from the one contained in the Bill when it came to us. With regard to that I would like to say this. I was greatly impressed—I am sure all your Lordships were—with a passage in the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury dealing with that matter. He said this:
  "I believe now that matters have gone as far as this it will be a moral setback simply to revert to the status quo."
  He expressed the opinion that the sanctity of human life would be best assisted by some modification of our present law. He thinks that that would be
  "not a concession to weak sentiment, but as a true progress in allowing the Christian law of love to permeate and influence the secular law of protective punishment";
  and he expressed the hope that it will still be possible so to amend the existing law that we shall mark our sense of the importance of doing everything to strengthen the regard of the sanctity of human life. It has not been possible for us in this House to work out any such Amendment. I still hope, for the reasons which the most reverend Primate so convincingly gave, that it may be possible to find some compromise which has regard to the very deep views which are held by persons in all quarters of the country.

  371
  With those few remarks, and thanking your Lordships for the trouble and attention you have given to this Bill, which, as I have said, is in no sense a Party measure, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  7.5 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before this Bill passes, I think your Lordships will expect me to say a few words on the matters which the noble and learned Viscount has just raised, although I had not intended to speak. I myself think we did the right thing in regard to allowing the Court of Criminal Appeal to order new trials, so long as we maintained the right of a man who had been previously acquitted on any count not to be tried again on the count on which he had been acquitted. The clause we passed in regard to foreign jurisdiction is one with which I very much hope the other place will agree fully. I believe it is better than that originally produced, and, as we are assured, it fully meets the point of view of the Foreign Office on that matter. I noticed a distinction in the words used by the Lord Chancellor in saying that this House had disagreed with the view taken by the Government in regard to corporal punishment. On the other hand, we agreed with the view taken by the Government in regard to capital punishment. There is the distinction between those two.
  I am one who, as I said in my original speech, has just as much regard for the sanctity of human life as any other member of your Lordships' House. It depends entirely what we mean by "the sanctity of human life," and of which human life. So long as we believe that capital punishment is a deterrent against the unprovoked killing of an innocent person, then, in my view, we are right to maintain that punishment. It is difficult to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent against killing a policeman, and to suggest at the same time that it is not equally a deterrent against the killing of a householder protecting his goods. I believe that the decision to which this House came on this matter is the right one. It is not a Party decision. I see the noble Lord sitting opposite who, by speech and vote, supported the Amendment which I moved;
  372
  and, of course, it was a noble Lord opposite who told for me in regard to it. I believe that in taking that decision we have the country very much behind us. I only hope we shall not, by failing to agree on a matter of that sort, endanger the other provisions of this Bill becoming law.
  There is a remedy if we cannot agree, because Clause 1 as it was in the Bill when it came to us was not in the Bill when it originally started in the other place. If we cannot come to an agreement between the two Houses on this matter (I believe there have to be two compromises between the Government and some of its own supporters, and a compromise between that compromise and the view this House might take) surely it will be quite simple once again to leave out the clause, and to have a new Bill incorporating a compromise, so that we shall not, by such a disagreement, lose a Bill the main provisions of which have met with complete agreement on both sides, not only in this House, but in another place.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, during its long passage through your Lordships' House this Bill has had the benefit of much diligent consideration, and has had the assistance of many of those best able to contribute knowledge to the solutions of the problems which it raised—not all of them, by any means, lawyers by profession. I think it is right to say that we have, in the course of its passage, improved the Bill, and that there is still the outstanding question remaining—the one which we discussed at such considerable length—which led to the removal of the then Clause I of the Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that it would be a great pity if the Bill were to be lost owing to an insoluble conflict on that particular question. At the same time, it is a question upon which people feel strongly, not from hardness of heart or prejudice of mind, but from a perfectly sincere conviction as to what is in the public interest. Therefore, whatever one's hopes may be as to the possibility of solving the situation by means of some compromise, one would require to see the form which that compromise is likely to take before expressing any further view.
  On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  7.12 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments read.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in moving the reception of this Report, I should like to make some brief comments on two points to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred at the beginning of proceedings in Committee on Thursday, July 1. The noble Lord will remember that he referred to the Department—I am quoting his words—"making a large income to the tune of at least £16,000." I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is necessary to look at more than a single year. There are ups and downs in the balance sheet of the Sasines Office. A deficit was shown for several years up to 1922. After a revision of the scale of fees, a surplus was shown for the next three years, 1923 to 1925, followed by a deficit for the next seven years, 1926 to 1932. The scale of fees was again revised in 1934 and yielded a surplus until 1938.
  During the war, as a measure of economy, the accounts of allied services between Departments—that is, of services rendered by, for example, the Ministry of Works and the Stationery Office to Government Departments generally—and apportionment of indirect charges such as superannuation, were discontinued, and the annual accounts of revenue and expenditure in the Sasines Office could not, therefore, be completed. But as I stated during the Committee stage, the issue of annual accounts will be resumed, and the balance sheet for 1947 is now in preparation. It is the practice to communicate the annual accounts to the profession and if, on a long-term view, a further revision of the fees appears to be desirable to secure a due balance of revenue and expenditure, this will certainly be considered in consultation with representatives of the profession. It will not be overlooked, in the consideration of the balance of revenue and expenditure, that (as pointed out in
  the report of Lord Macmillan's Committee) the staff is at present below
  requirements and the work seriously in arrear. As I said on July 1, it is hoped substantially to strengthen the staff of the Sasines Office in the immediate future.
  374
  The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred also to the representative capacity of the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland. It is not for me to make any comment on the representative capacity of that Council, but I may say that it was constituted under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, and comprises representatives elected by the three principal professional societies in Scotland—The Scottish Law Agents' Society, The Society of Writers to the Signet and the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court—as well as by thirty local faculties. As to the opinion expressed by the General Council on the proposals, which have now been dropped, my information does not accord with that of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. He said, in his speech on the Committee stage, that he had been told
  "that the General Council of Solicitors themselves have said that they did not support the proposals in any way; that the only comment they made when the proposals were laid before them was that it was a highly controversial matter, and that they would prefer not to express any opinion on it at all."
  The Facts are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings on February 5 last, when I said that the proposals in the form of draft instructions for the preparations of this Bill were reported to the General Council on June 23, 1947.
  On August 6, 1947, a deputation from the General Council raised no objection to the proposals, and on the following day the Clerk to the General Council wrote as follows:
  "As was indicated by the deputation from this Council which was received by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, my Council have no representations to make regarding the proposals contained in your letter of June 23 last."
  I went on to say that no representations have since been made to the Scottish Office by the General Council, and the comment attributed to them by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, "that it was a highly controversial matter and that they would prefer not to express any opinion on it at all," appears to refer to subsequent proceedings within the Council in November, 1947, as reported in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald of January 26 last in a letter by the Clerk to the Council after the Second Reading debate. I thought it only right that I should make that statement for the purposes of record. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Morrison.)
  7.17 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time very long on this matter, but there are one or two points I should like to make. In the first place, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I apologise to him for anything which I said that was wrong. With regard to the question of finance, to which I referred, of course I had not those figures, but they bear out what I said, that this is a self-supporting service. Even reckoning the allied services in the same proportion as in the years that are recorded, in the past ten years there should have been a surplus of something like £220,000, which would certainly serve to provide sufficient staff to deal with the present arrears. With regard to what the noble Lord said about the General Council of Solicitors, of course I entirely accept that. My information was the best I could gather. But it does rather bear out what I ventured to say about it not being very representative of the profession, because here you have a Bill which is approved in the way the noble Lord has described, by the General Council of Solicitors, and which raises the whole of the legal profession in Scotland up in arms against it. Therefore, I do not think that they could have represented the profession quite so well as they thought.
  There is one other point which causes me a great deal of concern. This Bill was introduced by His Majesty's Government, and in reply to our objections they stated that they were quite determined on the Bill. We had the privilege of being received by the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, and by representatives of the Department concerned. They gave us to understand that they were not going to move on this matter at all, and that the Bill had to go through and be put into operation. I put down my Amendment on the Committee stage, feeling very doubtful of the issue. It was a great privilege for me to be supported by the noble Lords by whom I was supported, and it was very fortunate for Scotland and for us all that they were able to be in the House that afternoon. The matter was then sent to a highly qualified Committee under the chairman-
  376
  ship of the noble Lord, Lord Macmillan, whose capabilities we all know and admire. When the matter was gone into carefully we realised, even those of us who do not understand the Scottish system, that had the Bill gone through in that form it would probably have had the effect of reducing the Writs of Scotland to inextricable confusion.
  But, apart from that, the general question strikes me as of very considerable importance. Here is a Bill brought in, sponsored by the Department and backed by the determination of the Government to get it through; and it is stopped only by
  the merest fluke. Had it been carried through it would have led to disaster. The danger is so great that anybody living in Scotland and understanding the Scottish system knows the risk we ran and what we nearly incurred; and I think that on the general question we ought to inquire how a Bill like that comes to be presented. It might well have gone through, with the disastrous results I have indicated.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on June 15 last discharged, and the Bill committed.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  GOVERNMENT HEARING AIDS.
  GOVERNMENT HEARING AIDS.