CO537-3702 — Page 51

775

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. HYND.]

are Socialists, any more than in a Conser- vative believing that it will not be effec- tive if there are Socialist Governments to interfere?

Mr. Foster: But a Conservative does not believe that. He believes that it can be fully effective when each component part decides itself what kind of internal politics it wants. I believe that to be true, and I am not trying to give a debat- ing answer. I believe that a Socialist who is so intransigent as to believe that it cannot work without each part being Socialist ought not to be on this delegation.

Mr. Warbey (Luton): Will the hon. Gentleman say, in that case, if each Gov- ernment determine their own economic policy, how we could have any effective planning for the whole area?

Mr. Foster: Of course, we can have effective economic planning, and Marshall Aid, O.E.E.C. and E.C.A. are proof of that fact. Both the American and British Governments are achieving a very respect- able degree of economic co-operation.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chan- cellor did not meet the charge. He did not say, "I made a mistake; perhaps it would work, but I rather think it will not work well unless every part is Socialist." That is one answer which the right hon. Gentleman might have given, and he might alternatively have said

66

as

Socialism is such a wonderful thing that we cannot have anybody in Western Union who is not a Socialist." He did not deal with that at all.

I wish to support the protest from the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay). We had a very long speech from the Foreign Secretary, the length of which I do not complain about, but I think it is a pity that two long speeches have been made from the Front Bench opposite, one of them evidently founded on the basis that we do not read the newspapers, and the other on the idea that we ought to hear all the details of Labour Party con- ferences. Neither of these, in my sub- mission, contribute to a Foreign Affairs Debate, in which people should make suggestions, and in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should not give an account culled from the newspapers of what has happened, but should give his

110 A 38

Foreign Affairs

776

views of what the future is going to be, and should detail the problems and the principle on which he will deal with them.

2.51 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Mackay (Hull, North- West): This Debate has ranged over many subjects, but I want to confine my remarks to European unity as it has de- veloped under the Brussels Treaty and O.E.E.C. I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) about the dele- gation chosen to represent this country at the Paris talks. It is high time that hon. Members opposite gave up this point and recognised that the delegation which has been appointed is a very good dele- gation. In the first place, its leader is the only Cabinet Minister sent from any country on any delegation. If hon. Mem- bers will look at the Resolution which many of them signed in this House, they will see that it asked for a body of this kind, namely, representatives nominated by the Government. If the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who referred to this matter this morning, would only look at the submissions made by the body of which he said he was president to the Committee in Paris, he would find these words. Of course, this is another example of the way in which the Tory Front Bench says one thing and other Members behind them say another. It is the memorandum on the whole question dated 23rd November, 1948, and submitted by Mr. Duncan Sandys and others yesterday. It says:

"On the other hand, the decision that the members of the Committee should be selected by Governments instead of by Parliaments raises an issue of principle. But the practical significance of this change depends upon the actual composition of the delegations. In fact, the Governments have designated persons of high public standing, who, taken together, cover a wide range of political opinion. The authority, independence and representative character of the Committee as a whole, appears thus to be assured."

It is completely ridiculous when a body like the European movement, of which the right hon. Member for Woodford is the president and about which he spoke this morning, submits a document on these lines for the right hon. Gentleman to come to this House behind the backs of the people who submitted the docu- ment and criticise the delegation who went to Paris. He said that the people composing that delegation were chosen

777

Foreign Affairs 10 DECEMBER 1948 on party lines and that they should have been chosen from other parties; that they should not have been the particular people chosen.

Mr. J. Foster: I wish to repeat the criticism which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). His objection was that the Government had chosen people who were not the right people to take political decisions. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the terms of reference, he will sce that the delegation was to consider and report to the Government on the steps to be taken towards securing a better Western Union.

Mr. Mackay: This Committee has to work out practical problems, such as what is to be the agenda of any council created, how it is to be created, and what is the best way to deal with the question. It is an entirely working committee. That being so, why not have people who are used to political procedure? After all, the Secretary of the Cabinet in this country is very well versed in the prac- tical problems which will arise in an assembly or a council of Europe set up for the purpose of considering how the Brussels Treaty and O.E.E.C. can be more widely extended to give them poli- tical effect. This is entirely a question of political science and how one deter- mines the way in which this organisation is to be created. All the other con- ferences which have taken place during the past two years have been organised on the same basis.

I spent last week seeing some of the delegations in Paris and talking to people from different countries in Europe who are interested. They all wanted to know why, when a chance is given to get an organisation going, the people in Britain who want it should seek to depreciate the qualities of the people sent over. Every- one who has been there will appreciate that. It seems a complete absurdity for hon. Members opposite to criticise the delegation and its leader when they have been working harder than anybody to see that the things for which they stand are properly ventilated and brought before this Commission.

The Chancellor of the Duchy will agree that if anyone has a complaint against him over the Scarborough Con- ference, it is myself. But hon. Members

110 A 39

778

Foreign Affairs should recognise that the debate in which he was taking part and the discussion on this point were entirely a question of the federation of Europe. He said that one cannot federate Europe because one is going to put the control of the economy of Britain in the hands of the people in Europe who do not agree with control so that the benefit of four years of development since 1945 may go by the board. It is an argument which hon. Members opposite have used on many occasions; it was used when they walked out of the Interlaken Conference not long ago.

It is completely wrong for the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leaming- ton (Mr. Eden) to quote a small part of the speech without appreciating the whole Debate. If he reads the Debate, he will find that it was on a resolution for a federation of Europe. The proposer of the resolution does not say that every country must be Socialist. The Chan- cellor of the Duchy, on behalf of the executive, said that we did not want a federation. He was arguing that case all the time. He argued that if this country went into a federation we should have to put the controls which exist here at the present time, such as for example, over taxation, and

over our indebtedness abroad, and things of that kind under the control of people in other countries. I want to see that happen, but he does not. It is a complete distortion for hon. Members opposite to take a few words out of a speech without reading the whole speech.

I wish to deal shortly with the com- mittee in Paris. I do not want to go into details of schemes proposed by the different Governments, because I have not seen them and know nothing about them, apart from what one reads in the Press. I ask the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, in the discussion which will take place during the next few weeks, as to whether there shall be either a council of Europe or an assembly, to bear in mind two major questions. The first is that the council should be large enough to be really effective. A council of Ministers can meet at any time. That is not what we are talking about. What I want is something bigger, something which will bring in a number of repre- sentatives so that we can have a wider discussion of the whole question of