PLANNING IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25328, 30 October 1947, Page 7

PLANNING IN BRITAIN

Failure Alleged By Opposition MR CHURCHILL’S SPEECH (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) LONDON, October 28. The nationalisation of industry in Britain had proved a failure, said Mr Winston Churchill in the House of Commons to-day. Food and coal were dear and would soon be dearer and transport problems had weakened Britain’s competitive power in foreign markets. Mr Churchill was moving the official Opposition amendment to the Address-in-Reply. He said that Sir Stafford Cripps last week had made an important and courageous speech. “In it he proclaimed the complete failure of the whole policy of State planning and peace-time management of industry,” said Mr Churchill.

Sir Stafford Cripps had called for a spirit of unity in bearing new national sacrifices so that he could continue with greater vigour his Socialistic experiments, which had already made Britain’s economic survival uncertain.

In the same week the Prime Minister (Mr Attlee) had announced that the Government intended to nationalise the iron and steel industry as a contribution to industrial recovery and to establish what was virtually a single-chamber government as a stimulus to national unity. Mr Churchill added: “Export trade cannot be founded upon a starved home market. No doubt it is right to emphasise exports, but exports are only the steam over the boiling water in the kettle.

“No long term scheme for keeping a vast community alive can be based upon export trade alone. While the sellers’ market abroad is ending Britain has been unable to create a free, thriving and productive business at home. I do not believe in the car pacity of the State to plan and enforce & gh grade productivity.” Mr Churchill continued that State control could not approach the high level of economic production under free enterprise. Personal initiative, competitive selection, profit motive corrected by failure, and personal ingenuity constituted the life of a free society.

4 “Organising Scarcity” . are able to earn a living in the world because we are not allowed, he said. “This policy of equalising misery and organising scarcity instead of allowing diligence to produce abundance has only to be prolonged to kiU this British island stone dead.”

Mr Churchill compared British methods with the United States. - He said the United States was able to throw out an export surplus from an immense volume of home production All great economists condemned the absence of a strong domestic market He had thought that with the aid of the American loan and a sellers’ market for exports Britain might review her industrial activity, but the sellers’ market had gone and they had no thriving business at home. The Government could not approach the level of production under free enterprise no matter how many committees were set up or how many hordes of officiate were employed. Mr Churchill criticised the Government for incompetent administration. He said that Mr Aneurin Bevan’s campaign against the small builder and private enterprise in building had caused the collapse of the housing scheme.

He also spoke of “the astonishing maladministration and mismanagement of the armed forces.”

Conservatives’ Policy Mr Churchill, giving a summary of the Conservatives’ policy, said that it meant establishing an adequate basic standard. Above that, within just and well-known laws, “let the best man win.”

He said: “Here is the Conservative policy. Establish a basic standard of life and labour dnd provide the necessary basis for food for all. Then set the people free, get out of the way and let them all make the best for themselves and win whatever prizes they can for their families and the country.” The Government in all fields except foreign affairs had forfeited all claim to guard the national interests. Appeals for a Dunkirk spirit were inconsistent with the partisanship displayed in the Government’s “low-down party game.” * The Government’s intention to shorten the House of Lords veto power to a one-year period showed that they feared defeat at the General Election. The Parliament Act as it stood did no( hamper any Government unless it was afraid the people would not support it at the polls. The issue of the Lords’ powers was a formidable one to throw out at a time of economic crisis. It was “a cheap, paltry, and disreputable deal between jarring nonentities and a divided Government,” Mr Churchill concluded. “I am sure this Parliament has exceeded its usefulness.” “Dreadfully Reactionary” The Lord President of the Council (Mr Herbert Morrison) said in reply that the Government had considered restricting the powers of the,House of Lords 12 months ago, but the legisla- 1 tive programme was then too full. He was surprised that Mr Churchill should declare nationalisation a failure when only one industry had been nationalised. Mr Churchill’s had been a dreadfully reactionary speech, more fitting to the early nineteenth century than to the twentieth, said Mr Morrison. Should they have left the co?il industry to go back to where it was before the war? Mt Churchill wanted to go back to a political set-up that would inevitably lead to depressed conditions. Mr Morrison claimed that Labour had built more houses in two years than had been built during the two years after the first World War.

There was no question of precipitating a constitutional crisis over the House of Lords. The point was to avoid a constitutional crisis. This Parliament, said Mr Morrison, had been one of the liveliest and most vital in the history of this great institution.

The debate on the Conservative amendment was adjourned to to-mor-tow.