DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

§ Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

I must frankly confess, as I look around, that I like the appearance of these Benches better than what we had to look at during the last 4½ years. It is certainly refreshing to feel, at any rate, that this is a Parliament where half the nation will not be able to ride roughshod over the other half, or to sweep away in a Session what has been carefully and skilfully constructed by generations of thought, toil and thrift. I do not see the Attorney-General in his place, but no one will be able to boast "We are the masters now." On the contrary, if it be not presumptuous for me to say so, we are equals. So far as the Conservative and Socialist parties are concerned, we seem to have reached in the electoral field that position—if I may listen to the echoes of the election—of equal shares for both. I will not say equal shares for all, for we certainly have not achieved even fair shares for all.

Here, I must guard myself carefully against any suggestion of uttering what are called blandishments to the nine representatives of the Liberal Party, most of whom we see in their places under the guidance so generously provided by the Principality of Wales. I do not often quote from "The Times," but I must say that I found myself in some agreement with their leading article of 27th February, that the Liberal leaders who are here, and others out of doors, have performed a national disservice"— 142 these are not my words: I am only quoting, having read them with some relish in "The Times "— by the irresponsible spattering of the electoral map with hundreds of candidatures for which there was never the remotest chance of substantial support, but which 'might just deprive the Members elected of certainty that they represented the majority of their constituents The legislature, by requiring the £150 deposit, has expressed its disapproval of frivolous candidatures; but it was never foreseen "— it is not me; it is "The Times." a paper I do not often quote— that a great and historic party would use its considerable financial resources to evade the spirit of the rule The object of the Liberal leaders was nakedly stated by Lord Samuel in his broadcast of 7th February, when he said: It may be that no party will have a working majority in the new House of Commons In such an event the Liberals might be called upon to form a Government. It is quite true that one of the objectives mentioned by Lord Samuel has been gained. No party has a working majority. A stalemate or deadlock has undoubtedly been produced in the effective government of the country and the certainty of a prolonged electioneering atmosphere at a time when the situations both at home and abroad are grave and crucial.

Lord Samuel's second objective—the formation of a Liberal Government—still remains in a sphere so speculative as to be outside even the bounds of Lloyd's insurance. It has, perhaps, been too readily assumed that the nine gentlemen below the Gangway on this side will have in this Parliament a position of exceptional and undue influence. I hope that the House of Commons is not going to allow itself to be dominated or let its fate and future to be decided by any small body of hon. Members. We do not wish to emulate some foreign Parliaments where small parliamentary parties are able, by putting themselves and their favours in the balance, to sway the course of considerable events. Indeed, it seems to me that this would be an undignified attitude for the Mother of Parliaments. especially in a time so serious as this

I have lived nearly all my life in the House of Commons and I believe it to be the enduring guarantee of British liberties and democratic progress. I do not think we ought to assume that this new House of Commons, elected by the greatest vote ever recorded in our history, and with 143 earnestness and heart-searching by tens of millions of our people, should fall into petty bargaining almost before it had breathed. The House of Commons is founded on the party system, and, in the main, very much in preponderance upon the two-party system. But, personally, I have the feeling—as I ventured to say the other day when offering you, Sir, my congratulations on your election as Speaker—that this assembly, fresh from contact with the people, is a more potent body than the mere numerical aggregate of its parties suggests, and I hope that this feeling will play its full part in our Debates, whether its life is destined to be long or short.

Whatever view we may take of particularist manoeuvres to frustrate the will of democracy as expressed through majorities, and thus creating the present grave embarrassment to the country, we must not be blind to the anomaly which has brought to this House of Commons 186 representatives who are returned only by a minority of those who voted in their constituencies. Nor can we, to whatever party we belong, overlook the constitutional injustice done to 2,600,000 voters who, voting upon a strong tradition, have been able to return only nine Members to Parliament. My experience of life, becoming a long one, has led me to the belief that ill-conduct often results from ill-treatment. I do not think this is a matter which we can brush aside or allow to lie unheeded.

I therefore make the following proposal to His Majesty's Government—namely, that we should set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of electoral reform. A Select Committee of the House of Commons would not be likely to lose its way amid the endless arguments and details with which this question bristles. I am well aware that it has several times been examined before, but we have never examined it in the light of a practical situation of major importance such as has now been brought about.

I believe a House of Commons Committee would take a practical view and give us advice which would be a guide to future Governments in this Parliament or in another Parliament. As to the composition of the Committee, I would suggest that it should be based not on the 144 numbers of the Members here, but upon the numbers of votes recorded by the electorate for the three parties which are represented in the House, as, otherwise, I do not see how the Liberals would obtain any representation at all on a matter which is certainly of keen and special interest to them.

I ask the Government—I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President who, I understand, is going to follow me—in the course of this Debate to say whether they will allow such a Committee to be set up or not. We have certainly reached a parliamentary deadlock or stalemate differing in its character from any in living experience. It is not true that the Liberal Party here or, what is of far more importance, the Liberal Party in the country, can, by simply throwing its weight on to one side or the other determine the issue. Any step that was taken as a mere bargain or deal might not only be difficult to implement, but might well produce unfavourable reactions for those concerned. The nation might deeply resent the feeling that its fortunes had been bartered about without regard to principle by a handful of politicians, no matter what party they come from, and that its vital interests were but a piece in a jigsaw puzzle. In such a situation candour, sincerity, simplicity, firm adherence to well-known and publicly asserted principles, combined with a dominating regard for national rather than party interests, will be found to be the surest guides.

We have of course, on this side of the House. to discharge our duties as a Parliamentary Opposition, and the period before us will be very difficult. Moreover, it is by no means certain that another election, held in a few months under conditions which no one can foresee and arising from occasions which perhaps no one can select, would remove the conditions of deadlock which now prevail. I am one of the very few who lived in high office through the year 1910. I was Home Secretary then—[Interruption]—well it is a very important office and very well discharged by its present occupant.

There was an election in January, 1910, and another election in December. There was virtually no difference between the two results. The people remembered how they had voted last time and they meant to vote the same way again. Unless some 145 entirely new facts can be found to place before the people there is no certainty that the electors will alter their opinion, however much we might plead with them in the interval covered by the compass of a year. There will, therefore, be an indefinite period of uncertainty, extremely detrimental to our country at this critical time. Every action of the Government will be taken, no doubt, in regard to the impending election. We all have to be careful of every word we say or fact we cite.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

You especially.

§ Mr. Churchill

I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted.

§ Mr. Churchill

I do not think I am the only one who needs to be careful.

Every word we say may be pounced upon and made the peg for some monstrous misrepresentations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am quite willing to carry the whole House with me on that. The reasoned Amendment which was moved to the Health and Insurance Bill—which we originated in the Government over which I presided, and which I did my utmost to help forward—was recently misrepresented to the electors as Tory hostility to the principle of the Measure. Certainly it will be very difficult to find good solutions in the national interest for the grievous, dark and difficult problems which press upon us. Yet there never was a time when good solutions and drastic remedies in our financial and economic life were more needed and more overdue. We must do the best we can.

I am coming now to the text of the Gracious Speech to which we listened yesterday. A friend of mine has suggested that it might have been stated more shortly. This was his suggestion: "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government will not introduce legislation in fulfilment of their Election programme because the only Mandate they have received from the country is not to do it." There is however one paragraph in the Gracious Speech about the need for a renewed effort to expand the production of food from our own soil, which will. I am sure, be wel- 146 comed by all sides. It conforms very closely to the statements contained in our Agricultural Charter and in the Conservative election manifesto. And I said myself, at Luton Hoo in June, 1948: Anyone can see that the vigorous pro. duction of food on the largest possible scale in this island holds the first place. Let us be under no error in this matter. The prosperity of agriculture and food production depends on larger supplies of labour, and to have the labour we must have the rural houses in which they can dwell and rear their families. These the Socialists have refused. It also depends upon a full supply of the agricultural machinery which the Government has so recklessly exported to foreign countries. This was indeed devouring the seed-corn. In our Agricultural Charter, published this morning, we have declared that the proper level of agricultural production in this country must be half as much again as pre-war. This is our aim. I see I also said at Luton Hoo: The State is entitled to give guidance and, if necessary, to see this is enforced, to ensure that farmers and landowners do not flout the rules of good husbandry and good estate management. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought you would like that. This speech was at the time dismissed by the Prime Minister somewhat curtly as "Luton Hooey." That of course is a joke.

Well, we have a more helpful response in the Gracious Speech. I assume of course that it is not intended to use compulsory powers to nationalise marginal land, or to nationalise water supplies in rural areas, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the House as a whole, that no other method is available in certain exceptional cases. If this be so, I see no reason why this important paragraph. which I admit was not contained in my abridged edition of the Gracious Speech. should not provide some common ground between us during these next few months

I cannot leave this agricultural topic without referring to the Bill announced in the Gracious Speech for the placing and maintaining of cattle grids on the highways. I see the Patronage Secretary is in his place. We are always glad to see him in his place. Surely he should study with special attention in times like these any measure to keep the herd from straying.

Much was said upon the hustings about mass unemployment. There is no real difference between the parties. on this subject. All the leading men on both sides agreed to the White Paper laid before 147 Parliament in 1944 by the Government over which I presided. We adhere to that Paper, though happily the conditions with which it was intended to deal have not yet arisen. Moreover, the principal Ministers concerned have frankly told us that there would have been between 1,500,000 and two million unemployed but for the American aid which we have been receiving. That was an altogether unwonted slip on their part, I am sure, for which I must say they have had to endure a good deal of punishment in the discussions which have taken place. But we have not challenged them upon that point. There is, therefore, a broad measure of general agreement between us, although of course Socialist Ministers naturally claim all the credit, past, present and prospective, for everything good that has been done in this field.

There is, however, another aspect which the House should bear in mind, especially as it presents itself as an addition to the statements about the help of the American subsidies to which I have already referred. I state these points simply as facts, but serious facts. If we compare the present situation with that under the Chamberlain Government in 1939, the year before the war, there are four important differences on the point I am making. There are many other differences, but these four are relevant to this problem of employment or unemployment.

First, there are 750,000 more national and local government officials than existed then. Secondly, there are 250,000 more men in the Armed Forces—I do not say whether rightly or wrongly; I merely mention it. Thirdly, about 400,000 young people are withheld from the labour market by the extension of the school age. I am not arguing this afternoon whether that is good or bad, though personally I am not greatly attracted by overcrowded schools and underpaid teachers. However, that makes a total of 1,400,000. Fourthly, it has been estimated that there are 500,000 people employed in making unrequited exports, in the main to India and Egypt—that is to say, exports in return for which nothing comes back into this island from this heavy expenditure of our life energy expressed in sweat and skill. Again I do not attempt to argue this afternoon the merits of the so-called sterling 148 balances or repayment of unfair British war-time debts as they are in fact, though I should be quite prepared to do so on a suitable occasion.

Nor do I say that the Government are wrong not to make a violent change in this method of preventing further unemployment in the circumstances that prevail. Nevertheless we should not shut our eyes to the realities. We should not go on without being conscious of the fact that we are getting nothing back in return. Trade is exchange, or, at the simplest, barter. It would be much better, for instance, if some of this work could find its reward in the spread of goods to the public convenience at home, or in their sale to other countries in the sterling area, which would repay us to some extent in nourishing imports for this immense outward stream of valuable commodities.

There are the four differences. There is one more. Finally, there are the 350,000 persons who are actually unemployed at the moment, many of whom no doubt are changing from one job to another. This makes a total of 2,250,000 persons altogether not now employed in productive industry, comparable with the 1,100,000 unemployed at the time of the Chamberlain Government in the year before the war. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) is not a new Member: he should not show himself so conspicuously needing Parliamentary education as he does this afternoon.

This is, of course, without taking into consideration at all the fruits of the American subsidies. I am quite sure that there is now more real unemployment in the sense of people not being employed in requited or productive work than in the years immediately before the war—not that I in any way under-rate the valuable services rendered by those very numerous categories which I have mentioned. I think the party opposite might address their minds to this topic because it plays an important part in the understanding of our affairs.

There is another whole series of difficult questions connected with the Ministry of Food. The discussions on food subsidies and rationing are, of course, hampered by the fact that an election cannot be far off, and we may, no doubt, be again exposed to the slander 149 that the Conservative Party wish to make food dear so that the rich can live in luxury while the wage earners are impelled by "empty bellies," to quote the official document of the party opposite, to work harder.

I see that experienced politician the Lord President of the Council opposite me: he is, I believe, the supreme author of the manifesto in which this incident was mentioned, and it does astonish me. He and his friends must have very strange opinions about their fellow countrymen if they think that 12,500,000 of them would support such a cruel and wicked policy as that. I do not believe a word they say on the subject. Where they go wrong is that they assume that the mass of the people are taken in by arguments of manifest unfairness and untruth. But for that there would not be this thoughtful, pensive air upon the Government Front Bench. No doubt, every word spoken in our Debates on food subsidies and other aspects of the food problems will be liable to be wrested from its context, carefully scanned and pulled out if there is anything worth having in it, in order to provide material for electioneering of this disreputable kind.

Our policy is, in fact, aimed at full and better meals for the nation and we are quite sure that the more food manual workers can get to eat, the better will be our output. I do not think we should be deterred from discussing these grave problems by the peculiar and, I admit, unpleasant conditions which prevail in this precariously balanced Parliament. I do not hesitate to say that it is foolish to prevent production through oppressive taxation by paying food subsidies to enormous numbers of people who do not need them, and that it is our duty to search for more sensible solutions of the problem, while maintaining a basic standard for all. I was glad to read the statement of the new Minister of Food—I do not think he is in his place—that he would think in terms of food and not of calories. This seemed to me the most helpful contribution we have had on this subject from the Minister of Food so far. We wish the right hon. Gentleman success in the arduous office which he has undertaken.

The food question is, however, not one which can be judged apart from the state of our national finances. The need to 150 reduce the heavy burden of taxation and arrest the continued fall in the purchasing power of wages, pensions and allowances of all kinds is urgent and, as we believe, vital. The House was, I am sure, impressed with the figures given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) about the ever-increasing drain of the sterling balances upon us. On the top of all this comes devaluation which, apart from its effects at home, so far as they have yet been manifested, also means that British labour—and I would be most grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could attend just to this one point: I know he has to prompt his colleague, for it would be lamentable if a different theme were developed: devaluation means that British labour has to work one-third longer hours to earn the same quantity of dollar imports as before. It is a terrible fact—one-third longer hours and what you get back is no more than it was before. You call yourselves the Labour Party, and yet it does not even rouse you and strike a note in your breasts. It is a shocking and odious thing that we should so handle our affairs as to have to work 12 hours instead of eight to obtain the same return.

There is also the danger that further devaluation may become necessary, From this crowded island our life blood is draining away in an ever more copious flow without compensating nourishment. That is my very deep fear. We are a hard-pressed blood-donor whose general health has already been weakened by his war service. This deadly process is to some extent, no doubt, veiled by the American subsidies under Marshall Aid, but they are coming to an end. Indeed, they may soon be offset by the obligation to repay the first £1,000 million loan so blithely dispersed as soon as it was received. They are now coming to an end, it is said.

The restoration of the £ sterling at home and abroad and the re-establishment of confidence and credit will not take place as long as there is a Government in office which, even though held in check in this Parliament by lack of voting strength, is known to be animated by bitter hostility to accumulated wealth and is the declared enemy of the capitalist system to which all the rest of the free 151 democracies of the world outside Scandinavia, and with some exceptions there, constantly affirm their adherence on a basis of universal suffrage.

It would be vain to touch in the Debate upon the vast sphere of finance and economics. I ask that an opportunity for a full Debate upon it may be accorded to us in the next fortnight or so.

§ Mr. Churchill

It will take more than the oscillation of the Lord President's head in this Parliament necessarily to convince us that our desires must be put aside. I ask for a full Debate. So much has been concealed from us and distorted by the speeches of the Ministers concerned during and before the Election that we really do not know where we are. [Laughter.] The hon. Member opposite should not think it is funny or be delighted that half the House of Commons has not been properly informed. I am sure he is no better informed than we are.

I ask that the true facts should be laid before the House as soon as possible. If they are good we shall rejoice. If they are bad we must all face them, if not together at any rate at the same time. I find encouragement from the fact that the Government evidently wish to continue in office. There is something real about that. It gives one a certain assurance that the prospects in the next few months are not too bad. I trust my intuition has not misled me on this point. The Government would, I am sure, be well advised in the interests of the country as well as in their own interest, which they are not prone to overlook, to make a full and candid statement before we separate for Easter.

We have certain Supply days at our disposal if no facilities are given. We shall expect a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he refuses to give one, we shall certainly not hesitate to draw any inference we choose, but we are quite sure that if he had a favourable statement to make he would be the first to put it out either in the House or over the broadcast. I see the Prime Minister arriving: he has been away on duty and I should like to put him in touch. I was asking for a Debate on the financial situation so that we may have a 152 general statement made on the position before we separate for the Easter Recess. We shall try to press that by every means open to us, which are more numerous than they were.

We have thought it our duty, in accordance with our political convictions, and those of the constituents who returned us here, to place two Amendments to the Address upon the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

The right hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

§ Mr. Churchill

The two sides of the House face each other deeply divided by ideological differences. I have lived through many of the fierce quarrels of the past, about Irish Home Rule, about Church or chapel, about Free Trade and Protection, which all seemed to be very important at the time. They were, however, none of them, fundamental to our whole system of life and society. Those who believe in the creation of a Socialist State controlling all the means of production and distribution and exchange, and are working towards such a goal, are separated from those who seek to exalt the individual and allow freedom of enterprise under well-known laws and safeguards—they are separated by a wider and deeper gulf than I have ever seen before in our island.

This was, in my view, the moral and intellectual issue which was at stake in the election, and which a substantial Socialist majority, if obtained, would in four or five years have carried, in all probability, to irrevocable depths. It is a significant and serious fact which should not escape the attention of thoughtful men that the differences which separate us have become more pronounced by the voting, because each of the main parties has very often increased its strength in those very parts of the country where it was already the stronger. We shall certainly not survive by splitting into two 155 nations. Yet that is the road we are travelling now, and there is no sign of our reaching or even approaching our journey's end.

The basic fact before us is that the electors by a majority of 1,750,000 have voted against the advance to a Socialist State, and, in particular, against the nationalisation of steel and other industries which were threatened. The Government, therefore, have no mandate, as is recognised in the Gracious Speech, to proceed in this Parliament with their main policy. The Prime Minister is the only Socialist prime minister in the Englishspeakng world—the only one: and he has behind him a majority of only seven—or it soon may be only six. Nevertheless, he continues not only to persevere upon his path, but to state the differences which separate him and his followers from the rest of us all over the world, in the most extreme terms.

The right hon. gentleman complained during the election that I quoted his interview with an American journalist, which he had not disavowed for some time after it was published and which was much commented on. In fact I saw only the comments and then searched for the actual text. I will meet the right hon. Gentleman. I promise him that I will quote that interview no more. I do not need to quote it any more because in his letter to his candidate at Moss Side he has proclaimed his faith and policy beyond the slightest doubt and in the most sweeping terms. He wrote on 2nd March: Labour stands for the policy of equal shares, and for the ordered and progressive realisation of a society based on social justice. The last part covers both sides of the House. But this "equal shares" declaration goes even further than the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his election campaign at Bristol, when he spoke of "fair shares for all" being only a preliminary step to "equal shares for all." It is at least an advantage that the differences between us should be stated so plainly, because there can be no excuse for anyone making a mistake about them afterwards.

The "Tribune," which is believed t, express the views of the Minister of Health, fully supports the Prime Minister's pronouncement. I quote from its latest issue of 3rd March. 156 It is the faith of Socialism carried across this land with a new crusading zeal which can win the second election in 1950. And once that fact is securely grasped, how futile becomes the talk of compromise and manoeuvre in the House of Commons, which must continue until the new appeal to the country takes place. The Prime Minister has accepted the burden of government in virtue of his majority of seven; and no one doubts that it was his right and his duty to do so. But we on this side feel that he, and those whom he leads or with whom he goes, have inflicted deep injury upon our country in years when our task of recovery was heavy enough, and we are sure that the course he now proclaims has only to be followed far enough to lead to our economic ruin, and to our inability to maintain 50 millions of people in this island, still less to maintain them on their present standards of living, such as they are.

We are therefore bound to confront him and those who follow him with our united and resolute resistance, and we believe that this is the first duty which we owe to our country, to the British Commonwealth of Nations, to Western Europe and to the English-speaking world.

§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

The right hon. Gentleman, in opening this Debate, took an unusual course for a Leader of the Opposition opening a Debate upon the Address. Usually, one expects the first attack to be made upon the Government of the day, but on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to make the attack upon my colleagues and myself, who form the representation on this bench of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman seems to labour under a desire to attack two parties, and I am not sure that his main attack is not usually levelled against the Liberals rather than against the Labour Party. Apart from that, it is rather in conformity with what we have learned to expect.

It is always the case that anyone who leads a particular party or particular creed directs his bitterest attack against those whom he has left and hopes thereby to gain popularity. The right hon. Gentleman used to use his main weapons against the party which he left in 1902 or 1903; he used far more bitter language against those whom he has now rejoined than he ever used against us. The right hon. 157 Gentleman began by suggesting that perhaps I and my colleagues might misunderstand his opening phrases—and think they were blandishments. It is not the first time these blandishments have been turned towards us, either during the election or before the election.

He then went on to suggest that this was not the moment to indulge in party manoeuvres. I should have thought that he would have been well-advised to steer clear of such a phrase as that, because never in the history of any election has there been such party manoeuvring about the use of the word "Liberal" as there has been in this election. We have had Liberal - Unionists, National - Unionists. Liberal-Conservatives and ConservativeLiberals—in fact, the Conservatives have done their very utmost to make the fullest use of the name Liberal," and the principles for which it stands, in an endeavour to get the representation in this House of a party which was always anti-Liberal. All I can say is this: I believe that there are, or there were, things made and sold in confectioners' shops which would best describe the hon. Gentlemen sitting behind me who have all these various names —"liquorice all-sorts."

The Government, undoubtedly, in the programme set out in the Gracious Speech recognise that a new situation has been created by the General Election. They are in a chastened mood, and have entered into a sort of self-denying ordinance. It is in the power of either of the two major parties to act with a deep sense of responsibility or to act in an irresponsible manner. Should either choose the second course, it will not only bring about chaos in the country, but will cause serious injury to industry and ruin to democracy 'and democratic institutions.

The government of the country must he carried on: people have voted and made their choice, and it is our duty, as their elected representatives, to take upon ourselves the responsibility put upon us. The holding of another General Election immediately or within the next two or three months is unthinkable, and for several reasons. As the right hon. Gentleman himself asked, "Is there any ground for expecting that the position between the two main parties will be materially changed?" I do not think so far one moment. In the meantime, the supplies for the various Government Departments 158 must be voted, otherwise the machinery of government breaks down, and, moreover, there is very little time during which those Votes must be taken.

The outstanding problems facing us are the problems of finance and the economic position of this country. Whatever Government is in power, that Government must expend all its energy, all its thoughts and all its abilities in solving those problems so that the country can be put upon a sound economic basis. We are still not paying our way; we are still dependent upon American aid; we are still spending more than we can afford, and we still have the duty of putting our own house in order.

So, however strongly we may feel, however antagonistic may be our ideologies, this is a time for toleration, understanding and,a real will to try to work together, if only for a short time, so that the main difficulties and problems confronting the country may be overcome. This calls for restraint on the part of every one of us, and no party, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said earlier, can now say, "We are the masters." We have been sent here, each one of us, to serve not to dominate.

As I have said, the Government must be carried on. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is no reference in the Gracious Speech to the programme which was put before the country by the Government, and so, yesterday, I welcomed the speech made by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, but I thought that yesterday he delivered, not only one of his best speeches but one of the most statesmanlike utterances made in any Parliament. I agree with him that this would not be the moment for indulging in fractious or factious opposition, and I was glad to hear him say that there was no intention on the part of the main Opposition to indulge in it.

What I therefore ask—and I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for the answer—is the purpose of the two Amendments which were tabled last night? Is it intended, as apparently it is, to drive each of those Amendments to a Division? If it is, then the country may be faced once again with a General Election.

159 Let me take the first one, which deals with iron and steel. We of the Liberal Party, in the last Parliament and in our manifesto, were opposed to the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry, and we said that we would repeal that Act, just as the Leader of the Opposition said he would repeal it. We desire that that Act should be removed from the Statute Book. But nothing can be done under that Act until August next—even the first move—and no effective action can be undertaken until 1st January, 1951.

What, therefore, is the point of bringing this issue before this House at this moment? Before 1st January, 1951, much can happen, and it may well be that it will be decided that another election will have to be held in the autumn. Strongly as I am opposed to that Act—and indeed to any other further nationalisation Acts—I say that no good purpose is served in bringing this issue forward at this particular juncture, especially as the Government themselves have recognised the effect of the election and the votes that have been cast.

Again, suppose the Government did make a statement such as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that nothing will be done until after the General Election, whenever that may be held. Would that really relieve the minds of the steel owners or the industry? It would only extend the period of the truce: they would still be awaiting the result of the next General Election, and until that is decided they would not know their fate.

Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman rightly claimed that the majority of the votes cast in the country was against nationalisation. That would mean that he was adding the votes cast in favour of his party and the votes cast in favour of the Liberal Party. An equal retort can be made, that adding the votes cast for the Government to the votes cast for the Liberal Party there was an outstanding vote in the country against Tory administration.

We are all agreed that every family in this country should have a good and comfortable home. That is not only essential for the well-being of the people and their better health, but it is also necessary for better production. There may be—and I am sure there is—room for criticism and 160 for helpful constructive proposals: but, again, is it necessary now, before Easter, and before Supply has been voted, to drive this to a definite issue? I should have thought that that can come later, and the issue will then depend upon what the Government does or fails to do.

As I have said, the main problem, without a doubt, is the financial and economic one. The question of housing, and indeed the welfare of the State and all else, will depend upon the proper and quick solution of that problem. Everything turns upon it—our standard of living, and the question whether we have or have not full employment. Moreover, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that time is short.

The real question is: how can we get trade moving better? It has not been moving as we desire it to move during this last four and a half years, otherwise we should be able to pay for the imports that we require. That is why we have had to make the cuts that the Government have made during these four and a half years. That is why we have again to rely upon Marshall Aid. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman referred to high prices. Again, the only way high prices can come down is by increasing production. The old law of supply and demand still applies: increase the supply and at once it will affect the price, which would either come down or, at any rate, remain steady. That is the urgent matter, and surely with regard to it, each one of us can come forward with our helpful suggestions.

Quite clearly, our people are asking for sound administration, and for guidance with regard to the economy of the country. I should like to go more fully into this now, but this is not the moment. The right moment will be when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces his Budget.

I should now like to turn to another matter, which, to me, is of equal importance with that of the economic position of the State, and that is the question of individual freedom. I would ask the Government to abandon the power they took under the Supplies and Services Act, which they first introduced into this House in 1945; and, still more, to withdraw the suggestion that was once made by the Lord President of the Council, that he would like to make that Act a permanent one. I should also like to see 161 removed from the Orders in Council those which are obnoxious to us as British people, with our love of liberty, such as the Orders in Council referring to the direction of labour. The Government have never dared to make full use of those Orders, but they are there, and they are a threat to our liberty. So, also, is the Order in Council, for example, making strikes illegal. The Government have never dared to use that, but it is there, and it is the kind of Order that undermines the very basis of trade unionism.

I should like to see, on the other hand, in place of those, a Bill introduced giving full effect to the Charter of Human Rights. We asked for that in the last Parliament, and I am asking again that it should receive the early attention of the Government. I should like them once again to consider the Bill that was introduced in another place in the last Parliament, by Lord Reading, dealing with the rights of the subject. While I am on this, I would still more like them to consider the Report of a Committee that is almost now forgotten, the Report of the Donoughmore Committee of 1932—I believe it was a unanimous report, of a Committee on which sat Professor Laski, the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards)—recommending a restriction on the powers of Ministers and of Ministries—a power which has grown considerably since that Report was made.

I would refer to defence. We are anxious, of course, not only that the liberties of this country should be maintained, but that we should render the best service we possibly can in the interests of freedom throughout the world. We desire, therefore, that our defence should be made as effective as possible. But we are also convinced that conscription in time of peace is wrong, and that instead of strengthening our defences it is weakening them. So confident are we of the wrongness of this that we would be prepared to submit this question to a tripartite conference, which could make a full investigation of all the facts and then report to the House on what was most likely to give us the finest and best defence.

I turn to the King's Speech for a few moments. I am glad that attention has 162 been again directed to food production and conditions in rural areas. More food will have to be provided in this country, and it can be provided if proper help is provided—for example, in bringing marginal land into cultivation and in making better provision for rural housing and building and supplying water and electricity to all. I have, time and again, called attention to the conditions in my own county of Montgomery, which has a dwindling population. It has been steadily dwindling for two generations at the rate of some 500 a year, yet it is one of the finest agricultural counties in the country.

I not only welcome what is said in the Gracious Speech, but would urge upon the Government the need for intensified action in trying to secure better conditions in the countryside, so that everyone there may be supplied with a comfortable home and with the amenities which modern conditions require should be given to every family. Surely, with modern scientific methods and implements we can raise far more food for our growing population than is the case today. Upon this, I should have thought, all parties could have agreed, as the need is so obvious and the position so perilous.

There is one matter, however, in the Gracious Speech that I regard with apprehension, and that is the encouragement of further transfers of industrial undertakings to the development areas. I should like to see these industrial undertakings encouraged to find a home in more congenial surroundings. I should like to see more encouragement given to our old market towns. That would bring benefits to all, better production and a healthier life for the producers, and proximity to the agricultural fields where their food is being produced.

May I turn to one other matter—namely, what I conceive has happened during the election? The General Election seems to have been more of a referendum than an election in the ordinary sense. There has been, more than ever, a gulf between the industrial areas, on the one hand, and the rural and residential areas, on the other. Broadly speaking, the Government have consolidated and even strengthened their hold in the industrial areas, whereas the opponents of the Government have strengthened their position in the rural 163 and residential areas. There is this geographical and sectional division of the country into two nations almost equally balanced in political strength. There is an unreal and artificial division, and one which ought to be deprecated. No one should want a clash of interests and a consequent division of the country. In this time of financial and economic peril, every effort should be made to try to work together for the common good of all.

I had intended to refer, later, to the effect of our electoral system. To save time, may I refer shortly to it now, in view of what has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition? I gratefully accept the suggestion he has made to the Government. Would it not be possible for us to follow up that suggestion- now, and for the meeting he has suggested to take place? I only wish that his party had been more ready to accept this when a Bill for electoral reform was introduced by the 1929 Government. That Bill for reforms in our electoral system was introduced by the present Prime Minister. It will be remembered by the House that that Measure passed through all its stages, but that the General Election came along before it could become law.

There are two other matters to which I wish to refer quite shortly, and the first is the position of Parliament today. Those of us who have sat in the House for a number of years realise that the House is overworked and cannot deal effectively with the numerous matters that are brought before it. The House has four major functions. The first is, and should be, to be the leader of public opinion, the forum before which all matters should be discussed. It looks today as if its place in that respect has now been taken by the public Press, where all matters are discussed in full before they are debated in the House. Secondly, the House should keep a very careful watch over public administration. That has now become so complex that the House does not carry out that duty.

Thirdly, it should be the trustee of the public purse and the strong critic of public expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when introducing the last Budget, pointed out that the House no longer carries out that duty, and that, in 164 fact, he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, has to watch more carefully over these matters than the House. Fourthly, it should be the legislative body. We all realise that during these years the tendency has been to delegate more and more of its powers to Ministers and Ministries. The result is that the House cannot possibly carry out its proper functions. I suggest, therefore, that the time has come, in the interests of this old democratic institution, to have a further devolution of many of the powers which have to be exercised here to local parliaments. Why is it that Scotland and Wales should not be given the same rights and position as are given to Northern Ireland? I will not enter into that further at this stage, but I hope that my colleagues will put down an Amendment calling attention to these two countries and their just rights.

Finally, I refer to the foreign situation. It is a tragedy that, having come through two world wars which brought untimely death to millions and devastation and destruction that will take generations to put right, we should still be spending more and more money on preparations for another war, and that the minds of our finest scientists should be turned not to helping their fellow-men but to devising more fiendish methods to destroy them. We had the League of Nations on which we pinned our hope and faith. We then had the United Nations, but, again, we have been disappointed. Is there nothing that can be done to relieve the world of this distressing situation and the fear of a third great war breaking out?

The Leader of the Opposition made his suggestion during the election. I certainly welcomed it. I did not think it was a stunt—I am sure it was not. I am sure it was sincerely made in the hope that some good might come out of it. I should like to see the Prime Minister having consultations with the Prime Ministers of the great Commonwealth, and, possibly, with the leaders of free Europe, and then making an effort to meet the President of the United States and Mr. Stalin. Something might come out of it—one does not know. It is worth trying if it will remove fear from us and there is some hope of getting an agreement. It could, at any rate, be given a trial.

165 Just before the House rose in December, Lord Samuel, in another place, and I and my colleagues in this House put down a Motion suggesting to the Government that they might consider putting the atom and hydrogen bombs in the same category as gas. It will be remembered that an agreement was reached in the Treaty of Paris of 1926 about the non-use of gas. Evil as Hitler and his myrmidons and allies were, they did not attempt to use gas in the last war. It may be that even now—

§ Mr. Churchill

Honestly, I do not think there was any moment when it would have been an advantage to them, because of the fear of more terrible retaliation which would have come upon them,

§ Mr. Davies

It may be that that was the reason why gas was not used, but at any rate there was an agreement. What we suggest is that the Government might consider obtaining the agreement of the free nations of the world not to use atom or hydrogen bombs against one another. It might be that the example, so set would ultimately be followed by the other nations who did not come in at the first. This Parliament has great work to do. A Government is always at its best when there is a strong Opposition, as is the case today, and when there is a very narrow majority for the Government. I hope each one of us will remember our tremendous responsibilities towards our country, and do our best to act wisely, tolerantly and in the best interests of all.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

The Debate on The Address has often been referred to as "the grand inquest of the nation." I always think it would be a good thing if the planning of the Debate were such that all the main issues of public interest at the time could be covered in the course of the Debate. I suppose that in some ways it will so work out. There used to be a plan whereby the subjects were agreed upon day by day and a scheme was worked out. There is a good deal to be said for that. The Leader of the Opposition has intimated that a request will be made for two days to discuss financial and economic matters, a sort of pre-Budget Debate, as far as I could fully understand it.

§ Mr. Churchill

No.

§ Mr. Morrison

Well, something of that nature. I should have thought that if that was desired it could have been done during the Debate on the Address. It is very near the Budget itself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be put to very great inconvenience if he were called upon to speak so near the presentation of his Budget. What the Opposition do with their Supply days is, of course, within their discretion but, as I explained in moving the Motion on Government Business, we have no margin of time up to Easter. That just could not be helped. lf, however, the Opposition wish to use Supply days for any purpose they can do so, but I must reserve the rights of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may take the view that, so near the Budget, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to be useful to the House. However, we shall see what turns up.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) very rightly made some protest against the somewhat unworthy and sneering references to the Liberal Party in the early part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. It is always the case that the convert feels rather more bitter against the party he left than the man who never belonged to it. We have had some experience of that in the recent election in the case of one or two of the departed. Not only did they depart from the Labour Party, but, having joined the Tories, they have now departed from Parliament as well. It is rather curious that one of them stood for a steel constituency [HON. MEMBERS: "Both did."] Yes, both of them did. While I would be the last to say that the steel constituencies should be the people to determine whether steel should be socialised, it is curious that these two gentlemen both stood in constituencies very much associated with steel. They had the support of the Conservative Party and they lost.

I must say that the way the Conservatives deal with converts does not give anybody anywhere any encouragement to be converted to Conservative principles—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Mr. Horabin? "] It is perfectly true 167 that Mr. Horabin has joined the Labour Party and that he was unlucky. That is a fair comeback, a fair retort by the Opposition. He freely chose the constituency, in consultation with the local people. We did not do to him anything like what the party opposite does to its converts. It was a free choice. He thought he was a good candidate for the place. It did not come off and for that I am sorry.

No doubt, the Leader of the Liberal Party had in mind all these considerations when he was listening, first of all, to the rudeness and then to the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We had all these in the election. In fact, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition yet knows that the election is over, judging by the speech to which we have just listened. He was harsh on the Liberal Party. He was denying their right to run candidates, almost talking as if this were an iron curtain country and he was the father of the fatherland front. It was with utter sincerity that I and my friends said that the Liberals had the right to fight where they liked and to put up as many candidates as they liked. In saying that I and my friends knew that it was a matter of the greatest speculation as to who would be hurt and who would be helped by their intervention.

The Conservatives, including the right hon. Gentleman, assumed—it just shows how much they know about politics—that such intervention was bound to be helpful to the Labour Party. They are slowly beginning to think again. From correspondence I have had from many people, including ex-Liberal candidates, and from my own observations, I should be inclined to think it was not worse for them or better for us, but fifty-fifty. Indeed. I am not at all sure that the extent of Liberal intervention did not harm the Labour Party more than the Conservatives. Even so, I am here going to affirm the right of any lawful political party in this country to contest an election. I repudiate, reject and condemn the efforts of the Tory leaders to deny the Liberal Party the right to see what they can do.

Having failed, the right hon. Gentleman comes here and engages in petty, 168 cheap sneers at the expense of what is, after all, a small party in this House. It is true that there are only nine of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is sneering now? "] I am stating a fact and expressing my views: I am not sneering at all. The fact that the Liberal Party is a small party is no reason to be contemptuous of it and sneer at it in this Debate. Then, having done that, the right hon. Gentleman typically switches clean round and tries to come to the rescue of the Liberal Party by suggesting a Select Committee for the purpose of examining our electoral system. If that Select Committee were to make recommendations which would help the Liberal Party but damage the Conservative Party, the right hon. Gentleman would reject those recommendations with as much certainty as he is sitting in his place now.

All he wants is to make a gesture of sympathy and understanding without the slightest intention of being helpful to the Liberals or anyone else excepting the Tories. It would be a time-using expedient in which talk could go on and, at the end, whether they were in power or in opposition, they could repudiate even their own people if they so wished.

§ Mr. Churchill

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is refusing my request?

§ Mr. Morrison

At the moment I am commenting upon the right hon. Gentleman; I will come quite soon to the merits of the proposition as far as we are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman combines it with an extraordinary proposal that the Select Committee should not be based upon the proportionate strength of parliamentary parties. He has a new one, namely, that it should be based on the proportions of the electorate who voted for political parties outside. I have never heard of such an unparliamentary and, I submit, almost unconstitutional proposal in all my life. It is a mere device to pack a committee so as to suit the political convenience of the Leader of the Opposition and his friends. It is a most preposterous proposal to come from a gentleman who once stood for Parliament under the title of "Constitutionalist"—that was in his transitional stage between Liberalism and Toryism.

169 Now I will deal with the merits of the case. In our judgment, if the electoral system is to be reformed there ought to be a mandate for it from the electors of the country. There is no such mandate on the part of any party in this House, with the exception of those who voted for the Liberal Party, but they did not command enough votes. As far as the Conservatives and ourselves are concerned, neither of us asked for a mandate to reform the electoral system in these directions, and it is far too serious a matter to appoint a Select Committee and then pass legislation presumably in readiness for the next election.

§ Mr. Morrison

I should have thought so. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is now giving the Liberals nothing for the next election. It just shows what an unworthy attempt at sheer deception this proposal was. The right hon. Gentleman held it out as a proposition of hope to the nine Liberal Members. Now he says, "Not for the next General Election," so he can go on dodging the issue during the next Parliament if he wants to do so.

§ Mr. Churchill

I did not say for the next election. I said that a Select Committee of Members of the House of Commons would, in the light of present circumstances, give us practical advice upon the subject, with which future Governments might be able to deal as and when they had the power.

§ Mr. Morrison

if the right hon. Gentleman consults his political advisers inside and outside, he can get all the advice he wants. So can I, and so can the Leader of the Liberal Party. I do not think that such a proposition would add to our knowledge. The basic issue is really this: I quite agree that the Liberal candidates have had a rough deal, just as we used to have a rough deal in earlier years. In our days of climbing at the beginning we had exactly the same difficulty of the split vote that the Liberals now have.

I admit that some of our people were then in favour of proportional representation, though not all of them. As the party grew older, and got to know more, it rejected proportional representation—well before it was a majority party. One 170 must admit that the Liberals have had a raw deal statistically, but if one studies the Liberal case—I am not studying the case of the Leader of the Opposition because he has not made a case and has not said what he wants—for something like mathematical proportional representation it would not solve the present parliamentary situation. It would tend to perpetuate a situation not in which there was a majority overall of seven, which we have—and let nobody forget it: they shall not if we can help: let us make the most of it—but perpetually may be, no majority for any political party.

In my judgment that system has proved an evil to great countries on the continent of Europe, and as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned we do not agree with it on the merits and we do not think that the method of a Select Committee, especially the peculiar, packed Select Committee suggested under the novel proposition of the Leader of the Opposition, would be a wise proposal to commend to the House.

§ Mr. C. Davies

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would be prepared, if he is not in favour of proportional representation, to introduce what the Prime Minister introduced in 1931, the alternative vote?

§ Mr. Morrison

I do not think the Prime Minister introduced it. I was a member of that Cabinet but my right hon. Friend was not, although he was a member of the Government. I remember the circumstances very well. It was a case of force majeure, like many other things we suffered at that time. I am bound to tell the House, if it asks me whether that Government really believed in it, that they did not.

§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)

Typical Socialism.

§ Mr. Morrison

The Government were, quite frankly, acting under Liberal coercion in the circumstances of that time. Indeed, that situation, in which the Government were forced to introduce a Bill in which they did not believe, is in itself a condemnation of this remedy for our state of affairs.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is great need in the country and in Parliament for concentra- 171 tion on our economic problems, and it is profoundly important that the country shall co-operate to the end of getting our economy as healthy and as sound and as good as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about steel?"] I will say, what about something else in a minute. I thought that was a sound and public-spirited thing to say but I did think, when the Leader of the Opposition talked in such terms about devaluation—though hon. Members opposite did not oppose it and they have not made—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but hon. Gentlemen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] We listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and the party opposite have not proposed to put the valuation up.

What I thought was really bad and quite unfortunate was when the right hon. Gentleman, in the hearing of the world as one might say, went on to predict that there would be a further devaluation. It was absolutely contrary to the public interest, irresponsible, and even vicious to take such a line.

§ Mr. Churchill

I made no such prediction. I merely stated the fact that there was said to be a danger—a danger—and I based myself on the statement recently made by Mr. Kenney.

§ Mr. Morrison

My clear recollection was that the right hon. Gentleman said there was a danger. He himself, on his own responsibility, said there was a danger. I say that talk like that from the Leader of the Opposition is irresponsible—

§ Mr. Churchill

Rubbish.

§ Mr. Morrison

—and contrary to the public interest. In my judgment it was calculated to be injurious to the interests of the country. This came after the much more statesmanlike and public-spirited speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). This is what he said yesterday: At the same time, I admit that the fact that our numbers are now so nearly equal does place upon us all a special responsibility. The essential machinery of Government must not be brought to a standstill. In such conditions as these there would be no excuse for indulging in factious or fractious opposition and we have no intention of doing anything of the kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March. 1950; Vol. 472, c. 501

§ Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

Since the right hon. Gentleman has quoted me, may I ask him if he will tell us the difference between what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said today and what Mr. Kenney said, which I quoted yesterday?

§ Mr. Morrison

There is the difference in the way in which it was stated, for one thing. There is also the great difference that it is one thing for the right hon. Gentleman—I appreciate his trying to come to the rescue of his Leader; it is typical of his good conduct in these matters—to quote a person outside this House whose opinion counts for what it is worth, and it is another thing for the Leader of the Opposition, who sought to be Prime Minister of the country after the last election, to engage in this kind of mischievous and irresponsible talk. Anyway, I must say that we prefer the spirit of the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday to the speech which we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the uncertainty about steel. Otherwise, he took the view that there was no great hurry to submit this matter to the arbitrament of a vote of the House. However, if the vote comes, the Government will be ready to meet it. This comes under the proposition of the Leader of the Opposition that we are to take the line that nothing must be done about steel in any circumstances until another General Election has taken place, in order that the steel industry shall be put into a position of security and certainty. That seems to me to be a quaint idea. Who knows how long this Parliament will last? At one point I thought that the Leader of the Opposition believed it might be lasting for some time. I thought he was a little optimistic. He did not say it, but he began to get into that realm. I suppose that that would be plus the nine months which he suggested as an addition, and which would leave the industry in a state of uncertainty for quite a long time. There are arguments against that sort of thing.

Then the Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the Supplies and Services Act and to the speech which I made at Blackpool. The present position is that we are acting in these matters under what 173 is, in fact, a survival of war-time legislation. It is true that they were confirmed by an Act introduced by the Home Secretary, the Supplies and Services Act, but the content of what can be done is a survival from war-time defence regulations. I would beg the Leader of the Liberal Party to make up his mind on this matter. The Conservatives have made up their mind that it is both wrong and bad. We take the view that if we are to maintain full employment and to get the best we can out of the country there must be the power of economic planning and control. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party will go back to the "yellow book" I shall be surprised if he does not find some good guidance on my lines in that very famous volume. I have asked for the book again and I will look it up. It is good for me to refresh my memory.

§ Mr. C. Davies

Not only is it not in that book but we have never been in favour of the direction of labour at any time. Nor was the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Mr. Morrison

I am on a much wider issue than that. As a matter of fact, the Liberal Party believes in compulsory co-partnership and compulsory co-owner-ship. It is all very well to condemn the whole principle of compelling anybody to do anything, but some of the items in that programme were compelling people to do quite a number of things. What it really amounts to is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is ready to compel people to do what he wants them to do, but he thinks we have no right to compel them to do what we want them to do. That is a very understandable state of affairs. [Interruption.] Let not the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) join in the fray. Directly he does that with me we start quarrelling.

In our view, it is necessary to have the power of economic planning and control. I think that the Conservative Party are opposed to both of those things. I did not think that the Liberal Party were opposed to both of those things. The only question is: are we to renew the Supplies and Services Act by resolution of the two Houses each year? As the substance of it is war-time regulations, that is the basis upon which it works. Or ought not Parliament to face up to the whole situation.

174 review it anew and say what powers ought to be available to the Government, subject to adequate Parliamentary checks, on a proper peace-time basis?

That is our proposal and that is what I said at Blackpool. I have been asking the Conservative Party ever since whether they would repeal the Supplies and Services Act and put nothing in its place, and I have had no answer so far. The implications of their policy and speeches are that that is exactly what they would do. I want to regularise the situation on good, peace-time, Parliamentary lines. I should have thought that, so put, that proposal would not lack the sympathy of the Leader of the Liberal Party.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Norwich, South)

Would the right hon. Gentleman—

§ Mr. Morrison

No, Sir. I come back to the Leader of the Opposition. There was a reference to the National Health Service Act, and an allegation that we had misrepresented the view of the Conservative Party. On the Second Reading the Conservative Party moved a reasoned Amendment—I agree that it was a reasoned Amendment: that is the technical name for it—which included the proposition that the House should not give the Bill a Second Reading. Is it to be argued that that was only a conditional rejection? Then I want to know why the Conservative Party voted against the Third Reading? I think that we were perfectly entitled to make the point that the Conservatives voted against that Measure.

§ Mr. Churchill

That was on a reasoned Amendment to the Third Reading. The Amendment was: That this House while welcoming a comprehensive Health Service, declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill which discourages voluntary effort and association: mutilates the structure of local government; dangerously increases Ministerial power and patronage; appropriates trust funds and benefactions in contempt of the wishes of donors and subscribers, and undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession to the detriment of the nation."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 26th July, 1946: Vol. 426, c. 398.] Those are the blemishes which the Government introduced into policies that were set on foot by a Conservative Parliament. with a majority of more than 100.

§ Mr. Morrison

This nicely balanced and peaceful Parliament is already going 175 strong. It is all very well. If the argument applied only to the Second Reading I could not accept it fully even then, but by the Third Reading the Bill had got to a stage when this House could not amend it and when the House had to say either "Yes" or "No" to the Third Reading. I do not care if the reasoned Amendment covered four pages of the Order Paper. It was still a proposition which, if it had been carried, would have meant that the Bill would have been dead: and the right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it. The right hon. Gentleman should not go in for these subtle arguments, especially when he gets to the Third Reading stage. And, of course, he argues that the Coalition Government proposed it themselves. I was a Member of that Government and we did all that we could to make it as good a Government as we could; so did the right hon. Gentleman—we all did our best.

§ Mr. Gammans (Hornsey)

Very kind of you.

§ Mr. Morrison

It was; we could have been very mischievous. We did not go around making speeches damaging to the country. It is true that proposals were made by that Government. They were proposals that had a good deal of merit. It is no good suggesting, however, that they were the same proposals that were produced by this Government, because in a number of material respects they were very different.

The right hon. Gentleman argues that in agriculture there is a great deal of agreement between the parties. History is on the records, and history shows that the Conservative Party, after the First World War—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. I am quite ready for that. Having heard all this from the Tory Central Office trained hecklers throughout the election I was quite ready to hear it here—"Do not remind us of the past. We want to forget it." The Conservative Party let agriculture down. They repealed the Corn Production Act. They let the farmers down and they let the agricultural workers down.

§ Commander Pursey (Hull, East)

Twenty-nine shillings a week.

§ Mr. Morrison

Since this Government has been in office the Minister of Agri- 176 culture has produced a wise and progressive agricultural policy, which has been a great blessing to the well-being and prosperity of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition comes along behind, dragging his steps and trying to catch up with us, and says, "Me, too," as the late Mr. Lloyd George once said. "We also believe in your agricultural policy," says the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Morrison

That is what it comes to: they are copying. They would not publish their manifesto until ours was out. They would not publish their earlier document until "Labour Believes in Britain" was out. They watch us closely and then try to copy us to the best of their ability and, having tried to do that, they then denounce us as the worst Government the country has ever known. This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman says, "There is a shortage of agricultural labour and, within those limits, there is a limit to what could be done." The agricultural labour position, however, is not so bad. I am told that the agricultural labour situation on recruitment is quite good and that we have not had a shortage of agricultural labour which has seriously baffled the Government in agricultural production. It is going very well, side by side with mechanisation. This Government on agriculture, as in so many other things, has a first-class case for the support and encouragement of the nation.

Then the right hon. Gentleman says that rural housing is needed. I am quite prepared, as, I am sure, are my right hon. Friends, to compare the rural housing efforts of this Government with those of the Conservative Governments between the wars. I am quite sure that we have done better, and that we shall go on doing well. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about rents? "] The right hon. Gentleman says we have been guilty of exporting agricultural machinery. We had to export many things we would like to have kept here. Does he think we were wrong? Did he want the balance of trade position to be still more difficult? We were right to export. Even when all that is said and done, British agriculture is, today, the most highly mechanised, I should think, in the whole of the world, or very nearly so, and, therefore, there is no case on that.

177 Then the right hon. Gentleman makes a joke about the cattle grids—nearly as sneering as his joke about the Liberal Party. If he were a farmer he would know that this little Bill will be a very valuable Bill. It is a thing which is asked for by farmers. It is of great value to them and the right hon. Gentleman should not make jokes about these things.

§ Mr. Churchill

I was very glad to see it included: I thought it might be helpful to the Chief Whip on the other side of the House.

§ Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he referred to this modest Measure in contemptuous and sneering terms. I invite my hon. Friends, in talking in the countryside, to quote what he said and to tell people how he said it.

It is also said that there is no difference on full employment between the political parties. In our judgment there is. In our judgment there has been an acceptance by Conservative spokesmen, and capitalist Conservative spokesmen, either of the inevitability of unemployment or of the desirability of unemployment—up to a point. I am not saying that they say it for reasons of cruelty or of wanting to hurt people. They, no doubt, believe it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]