8795
167
International Situation
168
International Situation HOUSE OF COMMONS
trol. The first step to national efficiency is to create a single economic unit, to ensure that nobody makes profits out of national needs, particularly armaments; and that our resources in coal and power, transport, iron and steel and textiles no longer remain in private hands, and that every idle acre of land should be brought under cultivation. I am not concerned now about the kind of mechanism re- quired, whether it be State ownership or some form of public utility.
[Mr. Shinwell.] What are the Government going to do Has the matter been men- about it?
Is the tioned in Government circles? Board of Trade getting busy? Or are we to rely upon appeasement, upon Herr Hitler's good will? If so, it will bring cold comfort to our major industries, where there are already indications of depres- sion. I shall not occupy the time of the House by relating the facts; we are all Our more or less familiar with them.
Our Mercantile exports are declining. Marine is in a condition of depression. We have 2,000 fewer vessels than we had in 1914, and the tonnage building now is 300,000 tons less that at this time last year. The tramp shipping industry con- templates a scheme which will lay up many vessels, which means more unem- ployment and reduces the prestige of the Mercantile Marine of this country throughout the world, The Minister of Labour said to-day, in reply to a ques- tion I put to him, that unemployment had reached a figure of nearly 1,800,000. That is a very serious situation.
Let me make it perfectly clear that no one on this side desires to prevent the German nation from engaging in trade. I say that advisedly, because of what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. The German people have to live, and we wish them well, whatever our views may be about totalitarian States and the methods employed by Herr Hitler. But in this Debate we are considering the effect of Munich. It is no use pretending that the position now is better for us than it was before. It is worse, and, unless we take proper measures, we shall find ourselves in a desperate position. In these new circumstances, in my view, we must pro- ceed to reorganise our industrial and economic forces in the most efficient fashion if we wish to retain our trade, much less add to it.
I attach some importance to the Anglo- American Trade Agreement, but it will take more than that to counteract the evil consequences of Munich. There are two possible lines of approach. One is the economic policy of this party; the other a policy, less valuable in my view, which may prove more acceptable to this House. We must develop a new tech- nique, however unpalatable it may be to certain interests is the country.
If we had our way we should bring essential industries and services under public con-
But, as I recognise that this policy is unacceptable in the present state of opinion in this House, I pass to consider the alternative. It will be agreed that Germany is a complete economic entity. We are not. Can we do anything in this direction? First, I maintain that manu- facturers might be induced to agree to a larger measure of control
over their operations than it has yet been possible to introduce in our industrial affairs. We should create a Government Department equipped with power to direct and, within limits, control trade. We could establish import boards. We should refuse to tolerate harum-scarum methods of buy- ing, not related to national needs or the state of our own industry. There are many articles imported which we could do without, and this should not be left to the arbitrary decision of private individuals.
Moreover, we should be prepared to What assist our exports if necessary. other hope is there for textiles and for coal? There is a challenge for the right hon. Gentleman. What is the solution for the depression in the textile industry other than some kind of State assistance, which is more required than ever in view of the economic situation which has emerged? Industrialists must be ready to agree to priority in production. If it is in the national interests to produce steel for home industry rather than for export, for example, it must be done. The matter is one for the State to decide. It ought not to be left to the discretion of private trade interests. Our imports and exports are not the sole concern of private traders, but In short, the the concern of the State. methods which suited us in the past are no longer effective, least of all since the Munich Agreement. If all this looks like the approach of the regimentation of in- dustry, as indeed it does, I must remind the House that we are in a new situation, and that fresh and radical measures are
169
International Situation
170
problems and whose whole existence is insecure from the cradle to the grave. These are facts which cannot be disputed. Once that gulf is bridged we can have national unity, but any appearance of national unity, in face of conditions of social injustice, would be spurious and temporary.
International Situation I NOVEMBER 1938 necessary. The best safeguard aginst un- due dislocation of industry is the Parlia- mentary forum, where adjustments may be made, not in the interests of any par- ticular section, but in the interests of the State. That is precisely the difference beween the methods of democracy and of the totalitarian States. In this connection the co-operation of the trade unions should be sought.
That brings me to the question of a Ministry of Supply. I shall not discuss the merits of the question itself. That
will be a matter for another Debate. The Prime Minister said that compulsion was essential if a Ministry of Supply was to be created. I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman and to point out that so far no attempt has been made to enlist the industrial man-power of the country by voluntary means. There has been no approach to the trade unions and no defi- nite proposals have been placed before them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to try out that voluntary method by an effective approach to the trade unions. That, surely, does not prevent the creation of a central organisation, with power to direct on the basis of voluntary agree- ments reached both with the employers and the workpeople in the various indus- tries.
There is one vital matter to which I
invite attention. An appeal has been made in the course of the Debate by more than one hon. Member for national unity. As I understand it, national unity is a corollary of another National Govern- ment, but we have had a National Gov- ernment for the past seven years, or is it really a National Government? Why are there these appeals for another National Government? What is wrong with this one? [An HON. MEMBER: "Holds- worth."]
Mr. Holdsworth: It is a lot better now, Mr. Shinwell: We think an appeal of that kind will meet with little success. I will state the reason very shortly. What is it that keeps us apart? It is simply explained. We hold a different concep- tion of how society should be organised, of how the workers should be treated and of the principal implications of democracy. We cannot see the least justification for maintaining at one end of the social scale a few thousand people whose wealth is enormous, while at the other end there are millions whose lives are filled with
We recall that those who speak of national unity increased the length of the miners' working day, intro- duced the Trade Dispute Act which limited the rights of trade unionists, im- posed the means test, and we remind our- selves that they are now speaking of re- When we ducing the social services. detect a change of heart followed by appropriate action, then we shall consider national unity and not before. That does not mean that in a national emergency Give us we should let the country down. a just cause and the workers will respond, but the workers are suspicious of the Gov- ernment all the more since the betrayal of Czechoslovakia.
The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon of fouling one's nest. I ask him not to confuse criticism of the Government with criticism of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman attacked my right hon. Friend on the ground that we had been broad- casting the alleged decadence of this country. We have done nothing of the sort. We may have said something about the decadence of the National Govern- ment, but we have a profound faith in the ability of this country and its people to rise above the existing difficulties. There- fore, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the nation is sound at heart; it is the Government who have failed. If we are to have real national unity to deal funda- mentally with the problems that imperil our trade and the country as a whole, the best advice we can give is that the Gov- ernment should make way for a Govern- ment more concerned with national inter- ests and less with the interests of a small section of society.
10.31 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I hope that in the rather controversial atmosphere raised, as it very often is, by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the House will not think it inappropriate of me if I feel that I cannot pass over in silence the speeches that were made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by the right hon. Gen- tleman the Leader of the Opposition and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.