The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1947. THE ECONOMIC DEBATE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25139, 21 March 1947, Page 6

The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1947. THE ECONOMIC DEBATE

The British Government’s White Paper—the Economic Survey for 1947—and the Commons debate on it assume their due importance if, and only if, the 10 weightiest words in the paper are kept in mind. “We may never restore the foundations of our national life”. This is, of course, a conditional statement. The essential factors in the national problem are set out; the demands they set up, which must be met to solve it, are defined. And failure to meet them will mean the end of rich promises, whether in the Coalition’s sketch of post-war reconstruction or in the present Government’s plans and programmes. On the other hand, if the demands are met, the crisis passed, the problems solved, the future of Britain can be one of sustained social and economic progress.

The Crisis The crisis is one of fuel and power, of manpower shortage and manpower distribution, of raising exports high enough to keep the people well fed and industry supplied with raw materials. Behind the winter fuel and power shortage, accentuated by the snows and Mr Shinwell’s optimism, is a deficiency which the mildest winter and the most prudent Minister could not have corrected; and only long-term measures will correct it. If the Government’s declared aim of 200,000,000 tons of coal this year is reached a breath-ing-space will have been won, not a victory. Manpower, such are the needs of industry and the distributive trades, is not nearly adequate to-day, although the working population is 1,000,000 greater than before the war; and it is ineffectually distributed. short of materials have an excess of labour; industries having enough materials want labour to process it; and the proportion of manpower engaged in public administration and in nonessential trades and industries is excessive. The export drive has achieved a 10 per cent, advance on the pre-war volume of trade—a remarkable achievement, indeed, all conditions considered, but a long way below the 75 per cent, increase necessary; and the 1947 aim is fixed still, at 40 per cent., well short of it. Even under stiff control of imports, the American and Canadian loans are being rapidly drawn on to make good the shortage of oversea purchasing power. At best—given full and rapid progress now—this reserve will barely serve to carry Britain through to a stable balance on international account. If the reserve gives out before equilibrium is reached, Britain will either have to seek more credit and longer credit and get it or havg to cut down imports, cut down living standards, cut down plans, cut down tiopes. Needs and Proposals In view of the facts just summarised, the Commons debate was in some respects disappointing; and, although the facts are the White Paper facts, that too may be said to fall short, not in their presentation, which is superlatively good, but in the next step, to proposals. To take three examples, the declared objects for 1947 include exports at 140 per cent, of the 1938 volume, expenditure on capital equipment and maintenance (other than housing) is to be at least 15 per cent, above a normal pre-war year, and total civil employment is to be raised to 18,400,000. But, first, the export aim cannot be realised unless labour is redistributed as well as reinforced; and the White Paper is vague—not to say evasive —about the possibility of redistributing it. The Government believes it can be redistributed “ if the nation “ as a whole sets itself ” to the tasks described. Second, the White Paper does not show how the major shortages of coal, steel, timber, lead, jute, hemp, etc, can be overcome, as they must be if capital expenditure is to be systematically lifted. Third, the supplementing of the labour force depends on the response of women to the call upon them to re-enter industry, on the will and ability of industry to reorganise for their convenience, on the foreign labour drafts which everybody Applauds and nobody promotes, and on the trimming of public administration. It is too early to be confident that the streams will flow strongly and converge in success. And ail this is apart from the question of -productivity—of continuous production and improving output rates—which Sir Stafford Cripps expects to answer by promoting employer-em-ployee co-operation nfith the Government’s new economic planning Staff.' But to return to the debate, it was disappointing on the one hand because the Opposition tended too often to attack the Government instead of the problem, and the Government tended too much to defend and excuse itself and to explain the past instead of exploring the future. It is a crude but useful comment that, in this respect, the debate reflected the respective weaknesses of Mr Churchill and Mr Attlee. The National Interest But it reflected more and shone with a corresponding promise. The vigorous but constructive criticism of Mr Clement Davies (Liberal) helped to bring the debate and keep the debate to the point that the Government has thought too much of legislation and too little of administration. Mr R. A. Butler (Conservative), while not sparing the Government’s tender skin, carefully discriminated between the sort of control and planning Conservatives would approve and would not hesitate to adopt and the Government’s sort. The Government, he said, set up “ control without proper plan-

: “ ning ”, so that on the one hand consumers had no choice and on the other production was not regulated by effective priorities according to the country’s needs. The Conservatives wanted “a stronger central “ policy and less interference at the “ circumference In dissociating the Conservatives from laissez faire and committing them—so far as he could, which is as far as a possible future leader may—to the view that there is no way out of the present jamb but a democratically planned and con trolled jway out, Mr Butler spoke with real helpfulness; and he increased it in some remarks on the broadening strategy of Sir Stafford Cripps at the Board of Trade. These and similar tendencies in the debate were no doubt in Mr Attlee’s mind when he said tflat the debate had revealed a larger measure of agreement' than might have been expected. But the all-important question follows, whether the Government will move to take full advantage of this agreement and develop it, modifying its policy to obtain Wider parliamentary support than its own large majority affords and offering the country the stimulus of a leadership lifted above party to a national level. It may be significant that, within the last few days, the Government has yielded on two important points, one in the Transport Bill, the other in the Town and Country Planning Bill. The faith, as Mr Charles Morgan said recently in the “ Sunday Times ”, is not at issue: “ To abate the ‘full Socialist programme’, to “see facts, as they are and to put “ first things first, is not to repudi- “ ate the Socialist principle ”. It is for the Government now to show “ whether it has the competence, the “goodwill, or the moral authority “to lead all England out of ‘dis- “ aster ”. -