LOAN ACCEPTED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26027, 15 December 1945, Page 7

LOAN ACCEPTED

VOTE IN THE HOUSE A SEVERE LABOUR CRITIC BARBARIC SETTLEMENT (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON. Dec. 13. The Government motion for the acceptance of the United States loan and conditions was carried in the House of Commons to-night by 345 votes to 98. Mr Oliver Stanley (Con.), resuming the debate, said the alternative to the loan would mean years of austerity far greater than any yet experienced. The standard of life, food, and necessities would hardly be sufficient'to maintain physical heaitn, social uiscipUne, and industrial efficiency. • Mr Stanley doubted whether there would be sufficient reserves to provide capita,!, equipment, and raw materials for the elective recovery of export trade. Several members had suggested that if Britain were to refuse the agreement the Americans before long would return with something much more favourable. “I feel that the present alternative of rejection, followed by a better offer, is a mirage.” Mr Stanley said the injection of the loan would lead to a catastrophe from which there would be no recovery. Turning to Bretton Woods. Mr Stanley declared that he approached the agreement with profound disquiet. ’ 1 think Bretton Woods would have been an admirable agreement b Jiore > 1 and a satisfactory agreement before 1939. There is not sufficient accu modation under the agreement to suit the disequilibrium of the present day. When we went off the gold standard in 1931 and allowed sterling to find its own level it fell somewhere near 22 per cent. The 10 per cent, variation permitted under Bretton Woods would be quite insufficient to meet the remedy then required.” Mr Stanley said he found the commercial agreement most difficult to understand. Potentially the most dangerous fundamental point was how

far was the Government committed by the agreement? He hoped the Government had not classified Imperial preferences as discriminatory practices, according to article 7 of the agreement. He warned that whatever Imperial preferences might mean to the United Kingdom and the dominions, they wefe a matter of life and death to the colonies. Mr Stanley said there was no doubt that the United Kingdom would be able to produce £30,000,000 worth extra of goods to discharge the annual obligation under the loan agreement. It was very doubtful, however, whether the United States would be willing to receive those goods. “There is nothing in this loan which gives us any reason to suppose that an Administration which can offer a niggardly, barbaric, antediluvian settlement such as this can solve the unemployment problems in theif own country, much less help the world,” said Miss Jennie Lee (Lab.). She added that the loan - would mean, roughly, £lO per head for the people of Britain. She was not clear how much it would cost in the long run for £lO worth of tobacco and films. Sir Thomas Moore (Con.) __pointed out that the Government said there was no alternative to acceptance of the loan, but what if Congress refused to ratify the proposals? “I will give an alternative. I say, drop the stupid nationalisation of free export tradeRally our sterling area friends to our side; our goodwill is enormous, our credit is untarnished, and our purchasing power is immense. . Our people’s courage and endurance, our scientists' and engineers’ skill, our craftsmen’s capacity are unrivalled. Give them a chance. That is my alternative." Mr Churchill's Complaint Mr Churchill said: “.I resent the indecent haste with which this most serious and complex matter. has been thrust before us to be settled.” He complained that the Government allowed itself to be browbeaten in the matter of time and added that December 31 for the ratification of the Bretton Woods agreement had no sanctity. The whole matter should have been disclosed to both the British and the American people. They should have been given two months to allow public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic to form itself. He was astonished that the United States should think it worthwhile to exact the equivalent of 1.62 per cent, interest from a debtor in Britain's special circumstances. The interest charge could play a very small part in United States economy and must be a deterrent on the United States exporting power. Mr Churchill added that some speakers had described the loan as harsh. These considerations applied to other creditors besides the United States. We owed £1,200,000,000 to India and £400,000.000 to Egypt. Neither country had, made proposals similar to lendlease. Everything had been charged against us without the slightest recognition of the common cause. The Italian and German armies would have pillaged and ravished Egypt had we not defended her with our life blood and strong right arm. Were we not entitled to say "Here is our countercharge for defending you from the Axis powers? ” The same argument applied to India. He sympathised very much with the United States argument in connection with the loan. Mr Churchill considered it a great pity that a commercial transaction should be mixed up with non-commer-cial transactions. He had said recently that the general election results would prove a disaster for the country, ' and the hard terms for the loan were undoubtedly one instalment of that disaster. United States public opinion was affected by the thought that the United States was the last refuge of free enterprise, while the rest of the world was sinking into Socialism or worse. Mr Churchill added that the Opposition refused to accept the responsibility for the transactions. It was for the Government, with its great majority, to bear the burden. He called for a general abstention from voting on the part of the Conservatives.