SCHUMAN PLAN (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey)

Two issues have been raised in regard to the speech which I made at Colchester on 1st July. The first issue relates to what 1 actually said, and the second issue relates to the general propriety of the remarks which I undoubtedly did make. I will deal, if I may, with the permission of the House, with each of those issues in turn.

First, then, it is alleged that I said that the Schuman Plan was a plot. That is not the case. My recollection on this point is perfectly clear. Immediately before the passage in which the word "plot" occurred, I used words to the following effect: I now turn to what happened in the House. The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue. 1156 Then I went on: Well, Labour had only to expose this plot in order to defeat it. Labour triumphed in the debates and divisions on this issue. The notes for my speech which I had given to the Press read as follows: We shall get more and more of these schemes no doubt, which, under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system. Then there is a headline: Labour triumphed in these debates. And the notes continue: Well, Labour had only to expose this plot in order to defeat it. Labour triumphed in the debates and the divisions on this issue last week. Even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it. This headline, "Labour triumphed in these debates," was an indication, a cue, to show that in my speech I was turning to the Parliamentary situation, to which the passage which immediately followed applied. This, I think, should have been perfectly clear to anyone hearing the speech, and even the notes alone, with the headline, should surely have been an indication at least that the latter paragraph referred to the Parliamentary Debate.

The sheets which I gave to the Press were clearly headed "Notes," and were marked "To be checked with actual delivery." They have been wrongly described as a text. They cannot possibly be anything approaching a full text of my speech, as they take less than 15 minutes to read, while I spoke for over 30 minutes. In fact, I added not only the two sentences which made it quite clear that the word "plot" referred to the proceedings of the Opposition and not to the Schuman Plan itself, but I also added several other quite substantial passages to the speech. For example, I paid tribute to the motives which animated the French Government in putting the Schuman Plan forward. I said that the Plan was put forward no doubt with very excellent motives, and this statement was subsequently reported.

Naturally, I lay no blame whatever on the reporters present. I know how very easy it is for a couple of sentences to be missed from a speech, especially at a large open-air meeting such as that at Colchester, and I quite understand that the Press Association reporter, for 1157 example, did not get the phrase down, and I recognise that, in any case, the Press has greatly to compress our political speeches.

So much for what I did not say. I turn now to what I undoubtedly did say. The "Manchester Guardian" in summing up my speech, used these words: The Schuman Plan would put real power over Europe's basic industries into the hands of an irresponsible body tree from all democratic control. I agree that this is the gist of my description of the Schuman Plan. As I understand it, this is the essential feature of the Plan as at present drawn. In fact, it was this provision of the Plan which His Majesty's Government were asked to accept in advance, and this was the feature of the Plan which was emphasised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the Debate in this House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor used the following words on the matter in this House on 26th June: We are today, for instance, shutting down uneconomic pits and opening others. Is this question to be left to the direction or recommendation of this supra-national high authority, who could cause a whole coalfield or steel centre to go out of production without any social or political responsibility for their action?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1942.] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the same Debate said: Now we have been learning just what is the intention and idea of this supra-national authority. It requires to be looked at closely because it means that we are to hand over to the control of a number of appointed persons the two basic industries of this country. And those persons are not to be responsible to Governments…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2166.] In essence, what I said in my speech at Colchester was that, for my part, a plan for international unity was unacceptable so long as it contained this provision as one of its essential features, and I stand by that statement. Such a plan appears to me to erect a barrier to democratic popular control over our two basic industries; and, let us never forget it, it is upon these basic industries that the very livelihoods of our people depend. The people of this country, and, to a lesser extent, the people of Western Europe, have just achieved a measure of democratic control over these Indus- 1158 tries. I could not and cannot accept a plan which puts them outside democratic control.

No doubt in saying that, I went, in one respect, beyond what His Majesty's Government have, as yet, been called upon to decide. So far, His Majesty's Government have only been asked to declare whether or not they will accept this principle in advance even of discussion. This the Government could not do. But if this condition of prior acceptance were at any time waived, His Majesty's Government would no doubt, and rightly in my view, at once enter into negotiations on the Schuman Plan. But if any British Government in the course of such negotiations accepted this principle of an irresponsible authority, whose decisions would bind us to manage our heavy industries according to its directives, a quite new situation would arise.

I stand by the essential thing that I said at Colchester, namely, that I could not accept the handing over of two basic industries of this country to the control of a number of persons not responsible to Governments. Having said that, I wish to say also that, on reconsideration, I regret the tone of some of the expressions which I used about the Schuman Plan. I should, no doubt, have refrained from speculation as to the reasons which might have animated some of the authors of the Plan, and I particularly regret this if any expressions which I used were felt by M. Schuman or his associates to reflect in any way upon those motives, for I certainly am no opponent of schemes of international unity even if they involve considerable limitations of national sovereignty, always provided—and this is the essence of my view—always provided that they contain no basically undemocratic principles.

§ Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (Liverpool, West Derby)

The object of the Opposition in asking for this Debate was to give to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister an opportunity to give a full explanation, which we have certainly not yet had, of the speech of the former at Colchester and the account of its purport given in the House by the latter. We have now had 1159 a further explanation, but I cannot say that we have had a satisfactory one.

§ An Hon. Member

All written down.

§ Mr. Speaker

The Secretary of State for War was heard without any interruption. I think that the same courtesy should be extended to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in preparation for this speech a handout was issued. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman now regrets that if Lincoln found a few scraps of paper in the railway compartment sufficient for the Gettysburg speech, he did not take a similar modest basis for this Colchester oration. But it certainly gives us the chance, by looking at the handout and also at the amendments which were made to it, to see what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he himself has expressed in the remarks that he made to the House.

Therefore, I think it is important, in considering this matter, just to see what the right hon. Gentleman himself issued to the Press in the handout. The passage which is relevant in this matter begins, and has the heading, "The Schuman Plan," and the first paragraph gives the right hon. Gentleman's summary—what he considered was a correct and fair summary—of the Schuman proposals. As an alteration was made to that paragraph, I think the House ought to hear what it contained. The right hon. Gentleman said: That brings us to the thing we have been discussing in Parliament this week—the Schuman Plan—that is, the real issue underlying the Schuman Plan. This is a plan to give the control of the coal and steel industries of Europe, including the British coal and steel industries, into the hands of a council of eight or nine men. These men were to have complete power over these industries, and they are not to be responsible to any Government or Parliament, or any other democratic body. I ask the House to pause at "body" because an alteration, which I will mention in a moment, was put in at that place. These dictators, responsible to no one but themselves, were to have power, for example, to close down half the coalmines of South Wales or the steel mills of Sheffield if they thought fit and if they thought it would profit the shareholders of those industries to do so, and the British Government and Parliament were not to have any say in the matter. 1160 It is not my purpose today to discuss whether "tendentious" or "jejune", or any other adjective, is the correct description of that as a summary of the Schuman Plan, but it shows quite clearly the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman began to approach the matter. That, of course, is only the beginning. In the next paragraph the right hon. Gentleman—and this he did not indicate very clearly to the House—approached what he deems to be the real purpose of the Plan, and he used these words: Now what was the purpose of putting forward a plan like that? Is it not perfectly obvious that the real purpose was precisely to put up a barrier against the control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people? That is the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, and that passage is followed by what, I think he will agree, may be fairly described as a panegyric on nationalisation and the hope that it will be extended. Whether that is vieux jeu after Dorking I do not pause to determine.

Then we come to the third paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman turns to the effect of nationalisation, which he has described, in Europe. There he says: All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe, therefore they put up this sort of plan by which the real power in those industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control. I say that after the Debate we had in this House, if, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is an accurate estimate of the policy of M. Schuman, or of M.R.P., M. Schuman's party, I am surprised. It is contrary to my own experience and to any facts which are known to the world.

The next paragraph introduces and underlines the sinister international signifiance of the Plan, both by its heading and its content. The right hon. Gentleman will be the last to say for a moment that it was not for that purpose that the heading and the paragraph are introduced. The heading is, "A Montagu Norman Plan." The paragraph goes on to say: The last time a plan of this sort was proposed was by the ex-Governor of the Bank of England, the late Montagu Norman, as he then was. He proposed a great central bank for Europe, again entirely divorced from popular democratic control. 1161 And then these words: We shall get more and more of these schemes,"— and these schemes mean schemes such as the Schuman Plan— no doubt, which, under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system. If that is the true view that the Treasury Bench hold of the Schuman Plan, then everything that came from that Bench in the last Debate was the hollowest mockery.

Then, on that point, having reached that, the right hon. Gentleman has a crosshead, as he said, "Labour triumphed in these debates." He said: Well, Labour had only, of course, to expose this plot in order to defeat it. Labour triumphed in the Debates and the Divisions on this issue last week; even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it. I will come to the second alteration in a moment, but what I want to point out to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman is that until we come to the last sentence I have read—the sentence which the right hon. Gentleman hails as a triumph, these majorities of 20 and 13—there is not a word about the Conservative Party, not a suggestion that the Conservative Party had been engaged in any manoeuvres. The first time the party is mentioned is when it says, "Some of the Tories could hardly stomach it."

No one who reads that, or considers it, can form any other view than that this "plot" in the last paragraph is the same as one of "these schemes" in the preceding paragraph, and the same as "this sort of plan" in the paragraph before. Any other meaning would be completely contrary to the whole theme of the passage, and it is obvious that "plot" is only the climax of the right hon. Gentleman's attack on this proposal.

Let me, in fairness, mention the amendment which the right hon. Gentleman made. As I indicated when I was reading the middle of the first paragraph to which I referred, he added the words—that is after "democratic body"— The plan was put forward, no doubt, from very excellent motives. This initial sop, which is promptly contradicted by the second and third paragraphs, which threw a doubt on the honesty and good faith of the proposal, 1162 is really very little help to the Cerberus of European suspicion which this speech has created. It certainly does not affect the thesis which the Prime Minister put before this House.

The other alteration, I admit at once, is a refinement. It repents of the coarseness of the word "stomach" and substitutes: Even some of the Tories wavered a bit when they saw what it really was. Of course "what it really was" indicates again, quite clearly, what he really meant, and, although we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his sensibility, that does not give much help to the Prime Minister's interpretation, which he has so often pressed on the House.

It is necessary to bear in mind the Press Association account of what was said, because the Press Association occupies a neutral position, serving alike the "Daily Herald" and the "Daily Express," and I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has imputed even the mildest sort of prostitution to the Press Association. The Press Association issued this statement: A typescript of the speech was supplied in advance on condition that it was checked on delivery before newspaper publication. A similar copy was handed to its staff reporter at Colchester. Mr. Strachey's extended reference to the Schuman Plan was delivered textually in accordance with the advance copy, except that, at the beginning, he added the words. 'The plan was put forward no doubt with very excellent motives,' and at the close substituted for 'even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it' the words, 'even some of the Tories wavered a bit when they saw what it really was'. They then set out the amended extract and concluded: The Press Association stands by its report of the speech as supplied to its subscribers. The right hon. Gentleman has told the House today that the reporter omitted the words, and it must be a matter of conflict between the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman and the notes of the reporter, and one knows, as he said, the difficulty of recollection. But it is odd that the reporter noted quite a number of deviations from the script, some of them quite trivial; and that indicates he was a man who was competent at his work and with whom his employers were satisfied. It is certainly very remarkable that when it comes to this conflict of recollection 1163 and notes he had failed to notice so vitally important an alteration to the handout.

I would also think it very remarkable if a politician of the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in making a fundamental alteration that, according to what the Prime Minister has told us at least six times and the right hon. Gentleman repeated today, fundamentally altered the meaning which anyone would take from this passage, did not get some secretary or agent or somebody to telephone to Transport House to have the alteration made. But be it so. If the handout with its amendments, even with the addition which the Press did not hear, gives an accurate picture of what the right hon. Gentleman said, then, as I said, it was quite obvious that the Government's Amendment carried on 27th June did not reflect at all the true view of His Majesty's Government which they have supported in supporting the right hon. Gentleman's speech. To say That this House welcomes the initiative of the French Foreign Minister was, of course, simply the most utter hypocrisy. If we make a substitution of the words of the right hon. Gentleman, the meaning of the Motion, according to the right hon. Gentleman, which the House carried on 27th June, would he something like this: That this House welcomes the international plot put forward, no doubt, with very excellent motives by the French Foreign Minister on 9th May, and approves the declared readiness of His Majesty's Government to take a constructive part in this plot with the hope that they may be able to join in, or associate themselves with, this scheme which, under the guidance of internationalism, is designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if your great experience knows of any way in which that meaning may be translated into the Journals of the House, but it is very different from what appears there at the moment. We in this country are used to ministerial indiscretions and know what importance to attach to them, but abroad, where they do not know them so well, it was taken very seriously. This, I think, is probably the nadir of Socialist mistiming. Not only had the murkier ripples from the Brown Book scarcely died away, but this bombshell was thrown into international relations when we were in the midst of a world situation whose 1164 gravity had been emphasised from every quarter of the House.

I have tried to imagine the effect on my friends in Europe—not on my Right Wing friends who would consider that this is merely a sort of ill-considered reprise from the right hon. Gentleman's variegated political past, but on those Socialists with whom I have had the honour to work in almost every country in Western Europe in so many spheres. If they believed that this was the product of deliberate intention, they would be thunderstruck. If they believed it was the result of ignorance on the part of the Secretary of State for War, they would be terrified, and that is the effect that it has had.

Now I pass for a moment to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman first broke silence on this matter on Wednesday, 5th July, when he said: I understand that my right hon. Friend used the word 'plot' not in relation to the putting forward of the Schuman Plan but to the manoeuvres of the party opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1950; Vol. 477. c. 474.] That is repeated in column 475, and if there is any doubt about it, it is repeated again in column 476. We are entitled to ask what was the state of the Prime Minister's knowledge when he made these statements, which are, to use the most moderate language, inaccurate in the extreme.

Then we come to Thursday. After a formal answer and some elaboration, the Prime Minister went on to say: I have already explained this matter. I naturally did not answer on the spur of the moment. I naturally asked my right hon. Friend about the speech, and he made it perfectly plain to me that at this point in his speech he turned to the question of Parliamentary proceedings, and that the word 'plot' referred to the activities of right hon. and hon. Members opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 632.] At this time did the Prime Minister know that there had been a handout? We should like to know whether this is another occasion like the Brown Book where he deals with the matter as an unseen which he attempts to construe in the House for the first time. If he had seen the handout and, more than that, if he had known the whole tenor of the passage about the Schuman Plan —that is the important matter—then it 1165 is difficult to believe that he treated this House with the candour and directness which we have always expected from him and always expect from someone in his position.

With regard to the Secretary of State for War, I want to make three remarks of a more general character. In the first place, may I say with genuine humility that there is no assembly more generous, or gathering more kind, than the House of Commons to anyone who makes a mistake in the heat of a speech and frankly admits his error. On the other hand, the more stagnant backwaters of politics are white with the bones of the over-hasty careerists who have tried to mend such errors by equivocal excuses. Finally on this point may I say—and I do not think anyone will deny it—that there has never been any future in this House or in our political life for those who use alleged misreporting by the Press as a sort of political niblick to get them out of a bad lie.

Let me say this with regard to the Prime Minister. Everyone will allow a great degree of latitude to anyone defending a colleague. There is no occasion, in my view, where more latitude should be allowed. But, on the other hand, we know there is no one more adroit than the right hon. Gentleman in thrusting aside with a somewhat breathless brevity a disagreeable topic, and we are always prepared to give him full opportunity in both these activities. But when we do get a short brushing aside, we feel that it must be—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would agree with us—accompanied by complete candour, and that on this occasion what he did not face up to or deal with in the House was the strong, urgent and violent attack on the motives of those behind the Schuman Plan which his colleague had delivered at Colchester in that speech. As that has not been done, and again it has not been done satisfactorily today, we cannot reconcile the statements with the handout or the Press announcement and we are not yet satisfied that a complete explanation of this has been forthcoming.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) made certain charges against my right hon. Friend the Secretary 1166 of State for War and myself. I will proceed to deal with them. When this speech was questioned, and I found that there was a Question down, I sent for my right hon. Friend. I asked him for an explanation. He showed me the notes of his speech and he explained to me at that time, exactly as I explained to the House. that he used the word "plot" in relation to a Parliamentary manoeuvre. I questioned him on that and he said quite definitely, as he said today, that the words which he then used quite clearly separated those two subjects. He has explained that today. I accepted his word and I accept his word.

§ Mr. Churchill

I am trying to understand this point. Had the Prime Minister the handout before him during this interview?

§ Hon. Members

He said so.

§ The Prime Minister

Yes. I had the handout; I had the notes there. [HON. MEMBERS: "The handout?"] I do not know that there is any particular point in that. No one suggests that those notes or the handout contained every word that my right hon. Friend said. They never do. One hands out notes, perhaps, and then one adds to them. Obviously, in this case the length of them shows that they could not have contained every word he said.

My right hon. Friend assured me that that was so and I so informed the House. I also looked at the rest of the speech and I said to him, "It does look to me as if there are words there that might well be misinterpreted." I said," It looks to me here as if the word 'plot,' following on the general attack that you have made on features of the Schuman Plan, and the words which you have suggested with regard to motives, were dangerous"; and I told him frankly that I thought he had made mistakes in this speech.

I was asked what was the Government's policy and I stated it. I was then asked about the word "plot" and I answered that. I was asked nothing else. If there had been a general request to me on any other part of the speech I was equally prepared to answer. I was answering the Question put to me in this House and the whole question was: Was this or was this not a plot?

§ Mr. Churchill

No; the question was whether the word "plot" applied to the Schuman Plan or to the so-called tactics of the Opposition. That is the point.

§ The Prime Minister

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I answered exactly in accordance with that—that my right hon. Friend said that the word "plot" did not apply to the Schuman Plan. That was the Question and that was the answer which I gave to the House, and I accepted my right hon. Friend's explanation. My right hon. Friend talked at considerable length about the features of the Schuman Plan. The issue before us was as to whether, in so doing, my right hon. Friend had departed from Government policy.

§ The Prime Minister

That was the Question on the Order Paper. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was there. The Question was whether what he said expressed Government policy. He has explained that he considers that he went beyond what had been said in the House in saying that when a discussion arose on the Schuman Plan he would be unable to accept an undemocratic supranational authority. But in so far as he dealt with the nature of that plan as revealed to us, he took up precisely the same position—

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Is the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"] The right hon. Gentleman has given way. Is the right hon. Gentleman now associating himself with the imputations of motive?

§ The Prime Minister

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would contain himself a moment, I was coming to that. If he had followed what I said he would know that I was saying quite plainly that, in so far as he dealt with the features—and I did not say motives—of an undemocratic supra-national authority he was completely in line with what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.

§ Mr. Churchill

Quite right.

§ The Prime Minister

Thank you. In so far as he suggested motive, he was wrong, but I gather that his suggestions 1168 were that there were influences which might deflect this plan into great danger, and that was, indeed, one of the points that was brought out in this House, on both sides, in our discussion; the danger that an authority of this kind, subject to no democratic control, might develop into a dangerous cartel.

My right hon. Friend has explained to the House this afternoon that he considers that he went wrong, and I consider he went wrong in the words he used, which might be held to have involved the French Government in that imputation of motive. He said that he did not impute those motives to the French and he took the same line, again, as the Government, that for that reason he welcomed the Schuman Plan.

The Schuman Plan has been and is welcomed by this Government. We have made our position perfectly plain in the matter and it is perfectly well understood by our friends in France. It is understood that we cannot accept in advance an undemocratic supra-national authority and, from what was said from both sides of the House in the Debate, the House was well aware of the views expressed with regard to the need for a democratic authority. I think it is a pity, therefore, that this matter should be brought up in such a way as to try to make ill feeling between ourselves and the French.

The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby is trying to imply that the Government were not genuine in accepting and welcoming the Schuman proposals. We welcomed the Schuman proposals explicitly and clearly, but we were not prepared to enter into discussions with a prior acceptance of this particular feature of the plan. That does not mean that one did not welcome this initiative. We welcome the initiative of trying to get the Germans and French to work together. We welcome the initiative in trying to get an organisation, for the sake of the whole of Europe and the world, in these great basic industries.

I think that a great deal of unnecessary stir has been made about this matter. The position of the Government remains exactly where it was, and I do not think anyone doubts it. Our position is perfectly plain. We are fully prepared to go into discussions on this matter, but we are not prepared to be bound in advance. In due course, and whenever 1169 called upon, we shall do our utmost to assist in this scheme. I wonder a little as to why this has been brought up so emphatically. I am wondering whether it is not to cover the error of judgment made by the other side in rashly accepting the conditions of this scheme before they had fully understood it.

Now one further point, and that is the point of Press reporting. I never suggested for a moment any aspersion whatever on Press reporting, but I did state, and it is the experience of every one of us, that in the reporting of speeches there is always some concentration, some cutting down. But I made no aspersion, and my right hon. Friend makes no attack whatever, against the reporters of the Press.

That is the simple position which faces this House. I think myself—and my right hon. Friend agrees—that some of his expressions were unfortunate. My right hon. Friend has said—and I take his word for it—that the word "plot" was not applied to the Schuman Plan, but to the manoeuvres of the party opposite.

§ Mr. Churchill

That is not true.

§ Mr. Strachey

It is true.

§ Mr. Churchill

It is not true to say that the word "plot" was not applied to the Schuman Plan but to the manoeuvres of the party opposite.

§ The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman says it is not true. My right hon. Friend says it is, and I accept his word. I am not aware of any basis whatever or any evidence the right hon. Gentleman has to say that. I do not think he has any basis or evidence. I do not know what basis the right hon. Gentleman has.

§ Mr. Churchill

Every word as reported and now undisputed.

§ The Prime Minister

No. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not quite heard the discussion, because my right hon. Friend explained quite clearly. Exactly what he told me, I then told the House, that there were words inserted before "plot" that made it perfectly plain that the word "plot" related to manoeuvres in the House.

§ Mr. Churchill

Could I trouble the right hon. Gentleman to say what those words were?

§ Hon. Members

We have heard them.

§ The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend stated them. Perhaps he would state them again.

§ Mr. Strachey

I read precisely what I said in the opening of my speech. Immediately before the passage containing the word "plot" I used words to the following effect—[Interruption.] What possible evidence has the hon. Member that others did not hear? I said: The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue. That was preceded by words to this effect: I now turn to what happened in the House. The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is proceeding on the basis that these notes are a verbatim of the speech. As I have already told the House, these notes are under half of the matter which was delivered in the speech. It took 30 minutes, as against 15 minutes, and there is actually an indication in the notes—from the headline—of the words which I gave to the House I inserted at that point.

§ The Prime Minister

I think that that disposes of that point. My right hon. Friend has told the House of his speech, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not present to hear it, and I prefer to accept the evidence of my right hon. Friend. There is the matter as a whole before the House.

It is quite right that Ministers should be criticised. It is right that Ministers, and all Members of this House, should be careful in making statements, especially with regard to foreign affairs. My right hon. Friend has explained what he said, and he has said that in certain respects what he said was unfortunate. and I agree. But, I suggest there that my right hon. Friend did not take a line which was different from Government policy, in so far as he stated quite plainly that the objection to accepting going in for these discussions was based on the nature of the proposed authority. He said at great length that he could not 1171 accept that, and that is in accordance with Government policy. He said nothing in contradistinction at all to the policy of the Government, who welcome the Schuman initiative, and are willing to discuss it, and, at any time when we get a waiving of these conditions which we cannot accept, to go to the fullest extent to help to work out a scheme for these great issues.

§ Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

I do not think we need or desire to spend very long this afternoon upon discussing this rather painful question.

§ Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

Who started it?

§ Mr. Churchill

Sometimes it is the duty of the House of Commons to discuss painful questions and not shrink from them. We are not discussing the Schuman Plan and we do not wish to renew again the arguments which took place in the Debate we had a week or 10 days ago. The only reason why we feel it necessary to bring this matter up and give it the formal publicity which it is now receiving, is that we do not see how it was possible to reconcile the statements which the Prime Minister made in the House with the facts, and we feel that the Prime Minister' had been misled by the Secretary of State for War.

Now, the issue is a very simple one. It is no good clouding it by bringing in extraneous matter on the one side or the other. The question which I am interested in is whether the word "plot" applied to the Schuman Plan. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself expects every one to accept his assurance on that point, because we have the evidence of the written words which were given out at the time, beforehand, and the fact that they were not contradicted, as far as I can see, by anything that was said at the time of delivery; and that is the point.

My right hon. and learned Friend has read the full account of the passage, and I do not wish to burden the House with reading it again. I quite agree that one may say something in a speech which taken from its context, gives the wrong impression. But, the whole text leads 1172 from the opening sentence dealing with this matter down to the word "plot," and there is nothing to break it.

§ Mr. Strachey

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is. There is the headline in the text which was precisely what one puts in, when one changes the subject from the Schuman Plan itself to the Parliamentary Debate on the Schuman Plan.

§ Hon. Members

Read it.

§ Mr. Churchill

I will read it all again. I will read the whole thing—every word. This is the handout text which the Prime Minister said he read.

§ Mr. Churchill

No, I do not think he said he read it. He said he had it before him.

§ Mr. Churchill

We all know what pressure there is upon him in so many ways, but before he answered questions on the first day this matter was raised in the House of Commons, he had this before him. Let me read it out. I am sorry to have to impress it upon the House again. It is headed "The Schuman Plan": That brings me to the thing we have been discussing in Parliament this week, the Schuman Plan. What is the real issue underlying the Schuman Plan? I am quite willing to abridge what follows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it all."] It goes on: This is a Plan to give control of the coal and steel industries of Europe, including the British coal and steel industries, into the hands of a council of eight or nine men. These men were to have complete power over these industries, and they were not to be responsible to any Government or Parliament or other democratic body. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why, then, did those who are now cheering vote for the Government welcoming this Plan? I will go on reading: Now what was the purpose of putting forward a plan like that? Is it not perfectly obvious that the real purpose was precisely to put up a barrier against the control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people? After all, gradually and with difficulty, but nevertheless surely, the people of Europe and the people of Britain are getting hold of economic power. We have nationalised most of our basic industries and we are 1173 on the point of nationalising our steel industry and getting it fully under public ownership and control. Already the British Government tightly controls the steel industry, and the French have nationalised their coal mining industry and have control of their steel industry. Sooner or later the German people will, I am sure, nationalise their coal and steel industries.

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

Go on. Keep it up.

§ Mr. Churchill

This is the Plan hon. Members opposite welcomed, the Schuman Plan: All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe, therefore they put up this sort of plan"— What plan? The Schuman Plan. What could it mean but the Schuman Plan, which hon. Members opposite welcomed; which they were all driven through the Lobbies to welcome the other night? they put up this sort of plan by which the real power in those industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control. Then comes a paragraph headed "A Montagu Norman plan": The last time a plan of this sort was proposed was by an ex-Governor of the Bank of England, the late Mr. Montagu Norman, as he was then. He proposed a great central bank for Europe, again entirely divorced from popular democratic control. We shall get more and more of these schemes no doubt which under the guise of internationalism are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system. Well, "more of these schemes" must include the Schuman Plan. It must include the Schuman Plan. Then comes, I agree, a headline. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, the headline is: "Labour triumphed in these debates." It has a lot of relevance to the point at issue! He proceeds to say: Well, Labour had only of course to expose this plot. Which plot? Not "plan" but "plot." There can be no other meaning than that the Schuman Plan was a plot. No other meaning could possibly be attached to that use of the word "plot." The Schuman Plan was the "plot." Labour triumphed in the debates and divisions on this issue last week; even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it. I have approved of this matter being brought forward. I think it important because I think that the statement which the Secretary of State for War has made to us this afternoon cannot possibly be recon- 1174 ciled with the full text and context of what he said. The whole meaning of it is that it was the Schuman scheme that he was attacking. I am bound to say that I am not willing at all to accept his word upon that subject. But the matter is not dealt with by his regretting the tone of some of his utterances, and so on, presumably because they reflected on the Schuman Plan. That is not the question. The question is this small but particular one: whether we were justified in complaining of the attack made on the Schuman Plan in this way.

I am bound to say that I gathered that the handout was before the Prime Minister when he answered questions on 5th July. When I say "before him," no one will think any the worse of him if it was placed on the Table, and so on. But it seems to me incredible that any man attaching the ordinary meaning to words in their regular, logical and reasonable sequence could possibly have affirmed to the House that the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to the Schuman Plan when he used the word "plot." I cannot help saying that. He may have said: "I had no intention or wish to do so." but what we have to deal with first of all, is what he meant, and I do say that the context of the speech I have read out was what he meant to say.

§ Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)

It is not a speech. They were notes.

§ Mr. Churchill

Then there is the question of what he said, but I have nothing to show that what he said differed in any marked or essential way from what he had written out beforehand, and handed out beforehand. Frankly, the reason why this matter is important is because of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said he had seen the handout beforehand, but he said: I understand this was not a textual report. It was a report made in the ordinary way of a speech, and I think there was some confusion between what was said with regard to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and what was said in regard to a foreign power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 475.] As a matter of fact, if the idea is to say this was not a Schuman plot but a Tory plot, we knew nothing about the Schuman Plan until it was made public. [HoN. MEMBERS: "0h."] We knew nothing about the Schuman Plan until it was made 1175 public. We knew no more about it, or hardly any more—we may have had a few hours advantage—than the Government themselves. As to the Schuman Plan being a pl, in which the Conservatives were concerned, that is ridiculous. All we said was, "Go and discuss it under full safeguards that you will not be committed." I was very much surprised that the Prime Minister had said this was a report with confusion, and not made in the ordinary way, because it was more than made in the ordinary way: it was a definite handout supplied beforehand.

I am bound to say that I am quite sure, however they cheer and jeer, that in all quarters of the House there is no doubt whatever that the context in the passage I have read, which is not contradicted or off-set in any essential particular, will be accepted as showing and proving, if language has any meaning whatever, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was referring to the Schuman Plan. Study it at your leisure and consider it. I have studied the meaning of words for a long time, and I have never read anything which left less of an interval by which escape could be made.

As I said before, we all know that the Prime Minister has a great burden upon him at the present time, and so has the right hon. Gentleman, if he would pay attention to it. The Prime Minister has a great burden upon him, but I am very much surprised that he allowed himself to be misled into thinking that the word "plot" did not cover the Schuman Plan. I am not at all surprised if he was not able to study the context in detail because of his many duties, but if he did, I am much surprised at his methods of reasoning on that occasion. I am also surprised that he should have not hesitated, on the spur of the moment as it seemed, to put it all on to a plot of the Tory Party, and to the tactics and manoeuvring of this party. Hardly one single word was mentioned about the Conservative Party in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; not anything which had the slightest relevance to this Debate.

I very much regret indeed that this matter has not been cleared up satisfactorily except in one respect. I believe that every Member in the House in his heart or conscience, or the great majority of them, must be convinced that the 1176 explanation of the Secretary of State for War is wholly unsatisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For the rest, I have only to say: Let fair-minded people read—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was not referring to hon. Gentleman opposite but to the people out of doors. Let them examine the context and arguments that have been put forward and answered on one side or the other today, and I am absolutely satisfied that they will be of the opinion that the Secretary of State for War has furnished us with another instance proving that he is unfit to hold his present position.

§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I think that every responsible person felt on reading the newspaper reports of the speech made by the Secretary of State for War, that this was a matter which must be the concern of the House of Commons. They felt, as I sought to express to the House when the question was first raised, that His Majesty's Opposition could have no alternative to putting a Question on the Order Paper, asking the Prime Minister whether the statement as reported represented any change in Government policy. That being so, I and many of my colleagues were not surprised when such a Question was put down. Indeed, had it not been put down from the Opposition side, it might well have been put down from this side of the House, in order that we could have a clear statement as to what actually was said, and where the Government stood in regard to the statement that had been made by the Minister.

The Question having been asked and having been clearly answered by the Prime Minister in the terms in which it was—to the effect that there had been a misapprehension as to what the Secretary of State for War had intended to say and there was, in fact, no deviation whatever from the line of policy previously announced by the Prime Minister with regard to the warm acceptance by the Government of the Schuman Plan—one would have thought that the responsibility of His Majesty's Opposition in the House had been discharged and the matter had been satisfactorily cleared up.

This afternoon we have been treated to a most remarkable spectacle—a spectacle which is in line with the vendetta pursued 1177 by the Opposition for many months. It is in accordance with the line of tactics that they seem to have adopted in this Parliament of attacking a particular Minister and pursuing a vendetta against him on every occasion, using certain elements of the Press to assist them in that vendetta, in order to create a feeling in the country that there is something wrong with that Minister's capabilities, and hoping that one clay an opportunity will arise of which they can take advantage.

It has been clear from today's exhibition, which is not, I say, to the credit of the Opposition, that the purpose of today's Debate has no other objective than to pursue that vendetta on what appears to be an appropriate occasion. That is shown by the fact that so much time has been taken up by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues on the Front Bench in repeating words and phrases and in endeavouring, in a laboured fashion, to prove by some means or another, that what the Secretary of State said, and what the Prime Minister accepted as having been said, was not said, or, if it was, that the implications of what was said were entirely different, and that what they put to the House were the proper implications.

If anything further were needed to prove the object of that type of attack, it was quite clear when the opening speaker for the Opposition rose from the Front Bench. We noted that he was the eminent K.C. who went to Nuremberg, the man most fitted of all on the Opposition Benches to prove that some of the words meant something entirely different from what they did mean. He spent over half an hour in trying to prove that the word "plot" was attached to a particular part of the speech instead of to another part, and that was all.

The issue which was previously raised by Members on the Opposition Benches, was one which, quite properly, might have been raised on behalf of the Opposition by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), but I assume that it was one of those matters which he could not stomach, and that he wavered when he realised what was meant. One day last week, when we were debating the very serious situation in which this country and the rest of the world found itself, 1178 arising from the Korea affair, he displayed a high level of statesmanship and a high level of appreciation of the need of the unity of this country and of the House of Commons—a national unity—which received the cheers of all sections of the House. I am not surprised that he has not made himself a party to this particular exhibition.

That the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition sought to follow up the laboured and, I say, malicious attack of his right hon. and learned Friend to try to prove his case, is not surprising in view of the exhibition he gave us on the occasion of the Schuman Plan Debate. This is not irrelevant because he went out of his way on that very momentous and serious occasion, when the whole purpose of the House was to demonstrate the maximum of national unity, to divert from the main portion of his speech and turn deliberately towards the Secretary of State for War and ask him in heavy, ponderous tones whether, in this situation, he should not search his conscience and try to reconcile his past behaviour with the present situation.

I have long known the Secretary of State for War, and I am unable to recall anything of which he need be ashamed in his political career. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Every Member on this side of the House, when he saw this incident, thought it was deplorable as, apparently, did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because I have never seen a party leader so beautifully put in his place by his second-in-command as was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. There was no criticism of the Government in his speech.

Inevitably, as we watched that exhibition, we came to the conclusion that it was entirely unworthy of the situation. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford ever tried the experiment of searching his own political conscience and reconciling some of the things, which he has done in the past, with the great responsibilities which he ought to bear as Leader of the Opposition. So far as I know, the Secretary of State for War has never been guilty of paying tribute to either Hitler or Mussolini, and it came very ill from the Leader of the Opposition, on the occasion of the 1179 announcement of affairs in Korea, to make the attack which he did make, because he might well have remembered his own past.

Today, in the House, we have had a repetition of that spirit. Today, when we are supposed to be pursuing a bipartite foreign policy and bending all our efforts to convincing people abroad that in the international sphere, here there is unity, when we should be bent on convincing our friends on the Continent, especially in Paris, that this House of Commons welcomes the Schuman Plan and that this opportunity must be seized by this country and by all others—though certain considerations must be safeguarded as the negotiations proceed—the Opposition have gone to extreme lengths to try to direct a personal attack upon the Secretary of State for War in pursuance of their long carried out vendetta against that Minister. That vendetta has even been carried by the Opposition into the field of foreign affairs, creating uneasiness, confusion and misapprehension among our friends on the Continent, and it is because of that that every Member on this side of the House deplores what has been done and the attitude which has been adopted.

Whatever might have been the original impression given by the Press reports of this speech, and however much many of us felt a sense of apprehension and whether, indeed, the Secretary of State for War had not made a great mistake, we were satisfied by the explanation given to the House by the Prime Minister. We are equally satisfied with the explanation given by my right hon. Friend today. We deplore wholeheartedly the unfortunate and undignified exhibition of the Opposition, which, in present circumstances, can be no contribution to the unity which it is so necessary for ourselves and for Europe to maintain at present.

§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I have entirely failed to follow the attitude of mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). He began by telling us he was greatly disturbed by the report of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; that it had filled him with apprehension; but all that was wiped away because of the malicious attack now made upon his right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. J. Hynd

No, I did not say that; what I did say was that I had been completely reassured by the categorical assurance given us by the Prime Minister when the issue was first raised, and properly raised, at Question Time.

§ Mr. Davies

I will accept that. He said that he was supported in his attitude by the fact that there was malice in a vendetta being carried out against the right hon. Gentleman. Will the hon. Gentleman accept it from me, that there is no malice from myself towards either him or his right hon. Friend? Might I also follow on the last words uttered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe—the need today to maintain good feeling between the free peoples of the world? That is so, especially in Europe. There could be nothing more disastrous at present than any kind of attack upon this association. The Prime Minister was absolutely right in saying that all of us ought to weigh our words with very great care, especially in dealing with foreign nations and affairs.

Let us consider what has happened. The plan, put forward by the French Government through M. Schuman, undoubtedly had a tremendous effect throughout Europe, this country, and the Commonwealth of Nations. An added feature was that when the plan was propounded, it was welcomed by His Majesty's Government, by the Leader of the Conservative Party, and by myself, and, therefore, on behalf of the whole House. It was welcomed immediately afterwards—I think on the same day— by the United States of America. There was no dispute in regard to that.

I agree there was a distinct difference between the view of right hon. and hon. Members opposite and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, as to whether it was right for the Government to go to Paris and take part in the discussions at this stage, because it was a condition of their going—[Interruption.] These matters are well within our recollection; I do not need any assistance from the other side of the House as to what has happened. It was made a condition of their going that there should be an agreement to pool resources, but to what extent was to be left for discussion. If an agreement were made, some particular body or other would have to see that the agreement was carried out. The Government and their supporters felt they 1181 could not agree to that at present, and that was the reason why they would not go to Paris. That was the distinction between the two sides of the House.

Not only on the first day, but throughout that Debate last week, the Government had nothing but kind words to say about the Schuman Plan. They hoped for its success, and went so far as to say that they would prepare their own part so that they could make their contribution towards it. They hoped that this would go through successfully. But what does the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War then do? Whether the word "plot" applied to the Conservative Party or to the Schuman Plan, is to me of secondary importance. What did the right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Government, say when these people were meeting in Paris? We have had references to the delicacy of the international situation, and at that particular moment, while those delegates were sitting in Paris, representing, as well as the French Government, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Italy, the right hon. Gentleman described their meeting. How did he describe it?

It is said he might have altered certain words in his speech. Maybe he did. We do not know. I am very bad at reading from notes; I cannot do it and very often I have to discard them. What is certain in this case is that the right hon. Gentleman handed to the Press Association what was a deliberately and carefully thought-out version, knowing that that would be sent not only to the newspapers of this country, but to newspapers abroad. What has been handed to me is the handout, as sent by the Press Association, after insertions had been made to the manuscript supplied earlier in the day. I wish I could read this otherwise than as a direct attack upon all those taking part in Paris on the Schuman Plan. Let me read it to the House. This brings me to the Schuman Plan, a plan to give the control of the coal and steel industries of Europe,"— Of Europe. So it is an attack on Europe. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but let him smile when I have finished including the British coal and steel industries, into the hands of a council of eight or nine men. Where does he get eight or nine men? No one has mentioned them before. No 1182 one has mentioned their powers, their numbers, or who they are to be. The right hon. Gentleman was using his great position as Secretary of State for War to tell the people of Colchester: "I know. I am telling you what is in this plan." These men were to have complete power over those industries. Who said so? We were to go to Paris and discuss all this, what powers and limitations they were to have. It is now becoming interesting, in view of the words that immediately follow in the next paragraph. These men were to have complete power over these industries, and were not to be responsible to any government or parliament or other democratic body. Again, I ask, where did he get that from? Even before the agreement could be regarded as finally settled, it would have to be debated and agreed upon by every one of the parliaments that sent their representatives there. The Plan was put forward, no doubt, from excellent motives. Then, mark these words: These dictators"— Who? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories."] No, the Government of France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It means these dictators of the Schuman Plan who plan to get control of the coal and steel industries of Europe. These dictators appointed by the Government of France or Italy who are responsible to no one but themselves. There is not a word about whether we were taking part in this. There is not a word about Britain so far.

§ Mr. Nally (Bilston)

The right hon. and learned Member is not doing himself justice.

§ Mr. Davies

I wish the hon. Member would remember that he is in the House, and not somewhere in Fleet Street, which he always has in his mind. This House has certain traditions which he would do well to learn. These dictators, responsible to no one but themselves, were to have the power, for example, to close down half the coal mines in South Wales, or the steel mills of Sheffield, if they thought fit—and if they thought it would profit the shareholders to do so. And the British Government and Parliament was to have no say. 1183 One of the main points that was not made was that there are now no shareholders in the steel industry or the coal mines except the Government. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that for the time being. Is it not obvious that the real purpose of this plan"— Put forward by M. Schuman, by everyone in France, agreed upon with the free countries of Europe— was to put up a barrier against control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people? All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe; therefore they put up this sort of plan, by which the real power in these industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control. Then comes this, and there are no headlines in what was handed out to the Press. It just goes on: We shall get more and more of these schemes, no doubt, which under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system. Well, Labour had only, of course, to expose this plot in order to defeat it.

§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)

Now let Members opposite say "Hear, hear."

§ Mr. Davies

Exactly. That is in the handout which went to the Press and to the Continent. That, to me, is an attack upon foreign friendly countries at one of the most delicate moments in the history of the world. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman himself admits now that he has gone too far. The Prime Minister had to stand at the Box the other day and to-day, and say that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman were not in consonance with the policy of His Majesty's Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman, who is shaking his head. say he is in favour of the Schuman Plan for anyone? Surely that is an attack on a plan of that kind; whereas the Prime Minister has again said today that he welcomes this Plan and hopes it will succeed. How can the right hon. Gentleman, holding the office that he does, remain a member of His Majesty's Government. because that is the position?

§ Mr. Strachey

I will answer that question at once. My position is that I could not accept the Schuman Plan or any such plan containing the particular provision, and so long as it contained the particular provision, we have the question of the 1184 supra-national authority. I have been asked several times by the right hon. and learned Gentleman from where I got the authority of the information. I got it from the Prime Minister. These are his words: Now we have been learning just what is the intention and idea of this supra-national authority. It requires to be looked at closely because it means that we are to hand over to the control of a number of appointed persons the two basic industries of this country. And those persons are not to be responsible to Governments …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2166] The Prime Minister has repeated that. When I said that we objected to that, I was in complete accordance with the Government's policy.

§ Mr. Davies

That is the very point I am making. The Prime Minister gave his reasons why he and the Government cannot go to Paris at this moment. I understand that, although I do not agree with it and have voted against the Government. But the Prime Minister certainly did not attack the Schuman Plan on the part of Europe, but welcomed it. Reading this, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he still hopes that the plan will be put into operation for Europe and will succeed? If he does. I do not understand the meaning of this speech—it is nonsense from beginning to end.

§ Mr. Alport (Essex, Colchester)

My only reason for taking part in the Debate is that I have the honour to represent the town at which this notorious speech was made some few days ago. We in Colchester are particularly anxious that truth should in all cases be available to the public in this country. That applies to both modern and ancient events, and we have found no difficulty in turning from the work of excavating the foundations of the Temple of Claudius in the Castle Park for a diligent search for the true story of what the Secretary of State for War said in the Recreation ground a mile away.

The Secretary of State will remember that on the occasion of his speech he and the Press Association reporter were not the only people present. as has appeared from the various statements which have been made. There happened to be an excellent representation of the local Press, including three experienced reporters. I have 1185 made inquiries among the ladies and gentlemen concerned as to whether they remember any mention of: Turning to the work of the House of Commons"— or words to that effect, with which the Secretary of State alleges that he prefaced his allusions to the plot, and it is curious that none of those ladies and gentlemen has the slightest recollection of such words.

Apart from these reporters. there were also some of my supporters present, and I am glad to say that after the meeting they came away fortified in their determination to work even harder for me than they have done in the past.

To return to the reporters, they recollected one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman turned to the question of what was happening in Parliament, and I will read the words which are recorded as having been used by him. In order to show their proper context I will read the first and second paragraphs. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will enjoy the first paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman said: No, we shall never be safe against the return of the dole queues and the means test until not only the basic industries which we have nationalised but also steel is in public hands and may he run by the Government for the benefit of the country instead of for the profits of their shareholders. He went on: That brings me to the thing which we have been discussing in Parliament this week, the Schuman Plan. What is the real issue underlying the Schuman Plan? There followed the various paragraphs, according to the records of the ladies and gentlemen concerned, quoted in "The Observer" report from the Press Association representative, and the evidence of the accuracy of the Press Association reporter is that he checked it against the report of another reporter who was there, and both agreed the amendments to the handout which had previously been issued before they left the Recreation ground. Clearly, they realised, because they are ladies and gentlemen of considerable experience, the slippery customer with whom they were dealing and were taking no chances. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is dirty."]

This means that the reference to a "plot" followed at the end of the section 1186 dealing with the Schuman Plan and referred directly back to the plan itself and not to any action of the Conservative Party during the Schuman Debate or at any other time. If the right hon. Gentleman had interpolated the sentence as he alleges, then it seems reasonable to suppose that some of those who heard him would have remembered his doing so. It would, as we agree, have made a difference to the meaning of his remark. But I can only give this evidence, which I believe to be given in honesty and good faith by those who were present on that occasion, and naturally, the House must weigh up the evidence on both sides.

There is one thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the House and that is that at this present critical time we have in an office of great responsibility and presiding over the discipline and welfare of a Service which is not allowed to take part in political controversy, a Minister who apparently has gone out of his way to stir up the most bitter and damaging political controversy on the international front that could possibly be imagined. I believe that it is constitutional custom for Service Ministers to try to refrain from entering controversial politics, and I believe that this aspect of the Secretary of State's action can do nothing but harm to the discipline of the Army over which he presides.

There is one other matter, and that is. that at this critical time in our history, when we can hear the distant rumble of war, it is the view of the French people,. and other foreign peoples as well, that our Army is under the direction of a man, whose mind moves at a lower level than that of any previous Minister in the memory of the French people. In support of that I will quote the report of the Paris correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," who said: It is difficult to remember a speech made, by a British Minister in any Government which has given the impression of a mind moving at quite so low a level.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)

That is the. stuff.

§ Mr. Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I think we ought to have on the record' the remark of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who claims to be such an upholder of the 1187 tradition of this House, when he said, of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), "That is the stuff."

§ Earl Winterton

Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

That was the stuff. Now we have the nonsense.

§ Mr. Poole

The speech to which we have just listened and the other speeches from the Opposition ought to make me angry. I am sorry to say that they only make me exceedingly sad. [Laughter.] I am sorry for the ignorance of hon. Gentlemen, many of whom have not been in the House for very many minutes and ought really to learn something about the House and its finer traditions before they indulge in foolish laughter and show their own colossal ignorance.

I have not risen to make a political speech or to defend the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I have risen to say something in defence of the House of Commons. I believe that today the House of Commons needs defending. I am amazed that the noble Lord can find it in his heart to listen to the sort of stuff which has been poured out in the Chamber, without being appalled at what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) called "prostitution."

§ Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

It is senile decay.

§ Mr. Poole

If ever we have seen the prostitution of the purposes of Parliament, we have seen it in the manipulations of the Opposition in the Debate today. I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) could find it in his heart to be associated with something which I regard as the basest episode which I have witnessed in the 12 years that I have been in the House.

What this H