COMMONS DEBATE ON STERLINGCONFIDENCE MOTION

Grey River Argus, 28 September 1949, Page 5

COMMONS DEBATE ON STERLING—CONFIDENCE MOTION

LONDON, Sept. 26 In the House of Commons, the Government tabled the following motion of confidence which will be moved by Sir Stafford Cripps when he opens the devaluation debate in 'he House of Commons to-morrow: “That this House approves the action taken by the Government in relation to the exchange value of the pound; and supports the measures agreed upon at Washington by the Ministers of the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom which are designed to assist in restoring equilibrium in the sterlingdollar balance of trade for the purpose of enabling the economy of the sterling area to maintain stability independent of external aid; and calls upon the people for their full cooperation with the Government in achieving this aim while maintaining full employment and safeguarding social services.” T.U.C. ADDRESSED BY MINISTERS There was a two and a half hours talk between Sir Stafford Cripps and other Cabinet Ministers and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. The trade union leaders, whc represent 8,000,000 British workers, apparently only sought information. A formal statement after the meeting said merely that there had been a general exchange of views on devaluation. . The T.U.C. Council decided not to formulate any policy on devaluation for some weeks to come. Usually reliable quarters said the possibility of a national minimum wage was among the suggestions discussed. It is also understood that Mr Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, indicated that he hoped soon to be able to order five per cent, cuts in the prices of some household goods. A COMMENT ON GOVERNMENT’S MOTION Reuter’s News Agency said: The Government believes that it will be most difficult for members to vote against the motion as it stands and that their only way of opposing it would be to put down a reasoned amendment. It is substantially a motion of confidence, as it asks the House to give its* support to the Government’s policy. The latter part of the motion is ingenious, as it places any member in an awkward position of appearing to vote against full employment and social services if he opposes the motion. A LIBERAL CRITIC Addressing the St Andrew’s Unionist and - Liberal Association, Lord Simon, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, called the- devaluation of the £ “an experiment to avoid the consequences of a policy of overspending and extravagance since the war.” He said that to write down the £ so that an American could buy a British car priced at £3OO by producing 840 dollars instead of 1200 dollars ought certainly to have the result of selling more British cars to Americans. But that was not the only effect of devaluation. It reduced the number of dollars earned for the same exports. If Britons wanted more dollars, they must do more work. It was surprising to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps) ,in his broadcast on devaluation, speak as if the rise in the cost of bread and flour was the only adverse result that mattered, Lord Simon continued. ‘‘What about cotton, or meat, or metals, or oil imported across the Atlantic?” asked Lord Simon. “When I was Chancellor of fhe Exchequer, the French heavily depreciated the franc, and for a time French exports benefited. But such consequences are temporary. A whole series of reactions follows in many countries, and it needs an iron resolution in the spirit of our democracy to get the advantages of this step—the gravest step in the financial field since 1931 —withqut other results which would nullify its effect.”