3.38 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas (Keighley): It is always a painful matter for a man to separate himself from those with whom he has been associated for many years, and I appreciate the way in which my colleagues of the Labour Party have treated me in this matter. From my reading of history I imagine that there has been a great assuagement of Parliamentary manners since the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) crossed the floor of the House in the year 1903. This, as I say, is a painful matter but, in the last resort, the value of our Parliamentary institutions depends upon the readiness of individual Members to take what action they consider best for the country irrespective of the consequences to themselves.

The Gracious Speech contained much with which all of us will find ourselves in agreement, much that is non-controversial in character and which would, I hope, be brought in by any Government. There are, however, two matters of great contention in it, though really they are but one matter. In accordance with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to deal with them in detail, but I should like to make a few general remarks about these two matters before passing to some still more general considerations.

The Prime Minister yesterday taunted the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) for asserting that the time was unsuitable for bringing in the Iron and Steel Bill. I do not know myself what is meant by the nationalisation of iron and steel in general. That may be a fit subject for debate in the London School of Economics or in some other academic society, but the only Measure that the House of Commons can be concerned with is the only Bill for the nationalisation of steel that has been brought before us, and that is the one which has just been given a First reading. I cannot dissociate the Bill from the time in which it is brought in. To bring in a Bill for the nationalisation of iron and steel at this time, when there are such grave events abroad, calling for rearmament at home, and when our balance of payments is in such jeopardy, seems to me a wanton and reckless act. As for the Parliament Bill, we all know perfectly well that the only reason for this Bill is to get the iron and steel Measure through. The more the Leader of the House asserted that there were other objects in mind, the more people seemed to think this could be the only real object. It is perfectly true that nationalisation of iron and steel was mentioned in the Labour Party’s electoral programme and I am bound to say that this seems the main reason why the Government are going ahead with this Measure. I am certain, however, that the wiser heads among them and among hon. Members opposite realised that this is a most unfortunate Measure at this time and they can well wish that some means could be found of avoiding this issue. But that is one of the difficulties of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench: they are so much the prisoners of formulas.

It is worth noting that the Labour Party’s electoral programme did not contain provisions for the Parliament Bill. Indeed, in my submission, it said exactly the opposite. As I expounded this programme – and certainly no other explanation was vouchsafed to me – it was that, if the House of Lords rejected a Measure approved by the electorate, the Government would then take steps to curtail the power of the House of Lords. That seems to me entirely reasonable. If the House of Lords, for example, had rejected the nationalisation of the coal mines the Government would have been entitled to seek powers to amend the Parliament Act and to have gone to the country if need be. I believe that that was done in 1910. Indeed, the Government of that time went to the country on two occasions in order to get assent to the Parliament Act of 1911. That seems to be the entirely proper constitutional doctrine. I have long wanted to see a reform of the composition of the House of Lords, and if this matter had been settled by inter-party agreement, or if there had been a clear verdict of the people upon it, that would have been entirely reasonable; but if the Prime Minister and his colleagues, when they put this sentence into "Let Us Face The Future":

"We give clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people’s will by the House of Lords"

had in mind the present Parliament Bill, I am bound to say that they were guilty of political chicanery which I should not have expected of them.

Mr. Alpass (Thornbury): Is it not a fact that the hon. Member subscribed to that doctrine when he was adopted as Labour candidate?

Mr. Thomas: That is exactly what I am saying. In this document I read:

"We give clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people’s will by the House of Lords"

I can see only one meaning in that sentence, which is that if the House of Lords rejected measures approved by the electorate then the Government would seek powers to curtail the powers of the House of Lords. I certainly never conceived that there would be such a Measure as the present Parliament Bill to curb the power of the House of Lords in anticipation. That is all I wish to say on the Gracious Speech. The time to debate the various subjects in detail will come later.

On this occasion it is, perhaps, more appropriate to ask ourselves, "What is the nature of the society we are shaping as a result of the legislation so far passed and now proposed, and what is the type of men who will compose it?" When I try to answer these questions I am left profoundly uneasy in my mind. The most obvious result of the Government’s activities in the past three years has been an immense concentration of power in the hands of the State and a corresponding weakening of the power of the individual to stand for himself.

Mr. Bechervaise (Leyton, East): Did the hon. Member vote for the Parliament Bill?

Mr. Thomas: Looking at the records I see that I voted for the First and Third Readings of the Parliament Bill the first time it was introduced. These breaks come gradually. By the time of the special Session I was not prepared to vote for it. Now it is my intention to vote against it.

Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East): Would the hon. Member explain when it was that this feeling began to grow that what he had voted for was a piece of political chicanery, and what exactly it was that, between that first time when he voted and the second time when he did not vote, brought him to that conclusion?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member must recollect that I did not say the Bill was a piece of political chicanery. I said that if the Government knew at the time their electoral programme was composed, that they were going to introduce the Parliament Bill in 1947, that was political chicanery.

In the past three years nationalisation, economic planning, taxation policy and housing policy have all contributed to this result which I have mentioned: tight concentration of power in the hands of the State and the weakening of the power of the individual. I do not say that this concentration of power has been deliberate, and most hon. Gentlemen opposite would be horrified if they could see the type of society they are unconsciously creating. They would deprecate it as strongly as the rest of us. If it was not the intention of Government policy it certainly has been the consequence of it, and it has now reached a point where it must give anxiety to all thoughtful men.

Let me say a few words under the various headings. First, I will deal with the Measures of nationalisation. I am certainly not opposed to nationalisation as such and, in answer to a recent interjection, I did, in good faith, pilot one nationalisation Measure through this House. The attitude of sensible men in all parties has always been that the public ownership of any industry is a question to be considered on its merits in each case. In the case of all the Measures of nationalisation so far carried out, I believe the reasons, on balance, were sufficient. Many hon. Members on these benches will not agree but I still think that, on balance, they were sufficient. I make no stronger claim. But the nationalisation of iron and steel and the still wilder schemes with which some hon. Members opposite are toying [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] are in a different class from the public utilities. I refer to such questions as the land, of course.

This strikes me as nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. It is dogma run mad. To dislocate the iron and steel industry at this time, when the national need is so great, is something that I find very difficult to understand and, perhaps, later in the Session I may have more to say about that. On this occasion what I am disturbed about is the intense gathering of power into the hands of the State which these further measures of nationalisation would give. It is not that the socialised sector of the national economy is yet so very great. I reckon that the capital value of the industries so far nationalised does not greatly exceed the figure proposed for capital investment for the next 12 months, £2,000 million. But the nationalisation of iron and steel, coming on top of all the other Measures we have had, will give the State a power of control over our economic life through the control of essential raw materials with which no persons, however well intentioned, or however competent, deserve to be trusted. Frankly, after the experience of the past three years, I have some doubts about both the competence and the intentions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I am, however, much more disturbed by something other than nationalisation. That is the economic planning to which our national life is subjected, this vague, amorphous –

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale): May I ask whether, in view of all the hon. Member has just said and the strict probity of his conscience, it is his intention to resign his seat forthwith?

Mr. Thomas: I have consulted the constitutional doctrine and the precedent set when the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) was received into the Labour Party. I do not find that the Prime Minister, in welcoming him into the Labour Party, raised any question of his resigning his seat. I was beginning to refer to the vague, amorphous control exercised by the gentlemen known as the planners, who are trying to make a land fit for zeros to live in. In the sense of studying the trends of supply and demand, planning is, of course, essential to every business, but there is a difference between planning which seeks to supply what the consumer wants, and planning, with a capital "P", which tells the consumer what he ought to want. This is the Government’s type of planning. I was astonished some time ago to read of an answer given at a Press conference held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is very fond of Press conferences – like the Leader of the House who has just gone out. I read that someone asked a very sensible question: why we did not buy £10 million worth of goods from France instead of lending France £10 million to help her out of difficulties. The Chancellor replied that France does not supply the things we want. I do not know if the Chancellor has ever drunk a bottle of claret or eaten a little Brie or Fontainebleau, but certainly France supplies quite a lot of the things I want. The Government’s economic ideas in this field of planning remind me of the man who kept a donkey –

Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook): We have let it go now.

Mr. Thomas: There are still plenty left. It grieved him to see the donkey eat so much food, and he thought it would be an excellent plan if he could reduce the donkey’s diet till, eventually, it could do without food. The plan went very well, but, just as he had accustomed it to doing without food, the donkey died. The poor British donkey is not dead yet. It is still allowed 81 per cent of its 1938 imports and it is promised a "technically adequate", though "dreary", diet for the next 12 months. Perhaps in 1950, just before the General Election, it will get a carrot. If not, let the master take care, or the donkey may kick.

With nationalisation, a man does at least know where he stands, or he would if the Government could make up their minds about the relationship between Ministers and public boards. But, with planning, nobody knows where he is – except that the private manufacturer would soon be in Carey Street, if he followed the same methods as Whitehall. If I were a private manufacturer, I should feel strongly tempted to say, "If you want my business, take it and pay me out; but if you do not, for heaven’s sake leave me alone". But the itching fingers of the planners cannot leave well alone. Their grasping hands stretch far beyond the confines of industry to the man who wants to run up a building for himself and the woman who keeps a pig, or a few hens, in her backyard. The system is supported by elaborate private police forces, of which we all know in our constituencies; and this is not the least disturbing feature of the system.

In the past, some individuals – too few, perhaps – have been able to resist the encroachment of the State because they have retained in their hands the assurance of economic independence; and they have been nuclei round which others could gather. But, on top of the universal control of our economic life, the Government are now wiping out the last vestiges of independence by confiscatory taxation. Not the least of the services rendered by Lord Catto to the country is his blunt warning to the Chancellor that personal saving is incompatible with the present rate of taxation. The disastrous effects on the capital reequipment of industry were seen between the wars, and the social consequences are no less disquieting. [An HON. MEMBER: " Between the wars?"] Yes, I said between the wars, deliberately. Saving was very much reduced even under the rates of taxation at that time. I say the social consequences have become no less disquieting. Hard work, thrift and honesty no longer pay. The paths of duty today lead but to the tax-gatherer’s office. The incentive of financial independence, which has been the mainspring of our economic life for centuries, has disappeared, and nothing has taken its place. Those who have no savings see no point in trying to accumulate any, those who have, are encouraged to spend them before the tax gatherer gets hold of them. The Government have created a paradise for the football pool and the bucket-shop., but they have undermined the foundations of our industrial greatness.

I turn to the fourth aspect I have mentioned, housing policy. There has been one form of saving against which the Government have acted with a harshness peculiarly difficult to understand; that is the ownership of a man’s own house. For a man to own the house in which he lives is an expression of his personality. It makes him independent and self-reliant, it gives him roots in the ground and makes him and his family a stable element in society. The building society movement, which has made this possible, is the finest social service of the century. But do the Government want their citizens to be independent and self-reliant? Or do they want them to be docile and obedient? Their housing policy would suggest the latter. They say to people without houses, "Only one of every four of you shall have a chance of owning his own house. The other three shall pay rent to the council".

Mr. Shurmer: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how many people in his constituency can afford to buy their own houses at the present time?

Mr. Thomas: The building society movement is exceedingly strong in my division and in neighbouring constituencies. I may say it is particularly evident in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where the virtues of industry and thrift that I have mentioned are still powerful. This policy has not only prevented the building of many houses which otherwise would have gone up, but it is turning the British working class, the finest working class in the world, into a proletariat. If this analysis is true it is necessary to call a halt to the present drift towards the omnipotent State. We should aim not at the concentration of all power in the hands of the State but the widest possible diffusion of power. No Government, even though it were composed of angels and archangels – and certainly the present Government is not – can be safely entrusted in time of peace with the powers which the present Government seek to possess. This wide diffusion of power can be achieved by refraining from further measures of nationalisation, by making the planners our servants instead of our masters, by reducing taxation to a point where saving again becomes possible and by encouraging the widest possible ownership of all forms of property, and especially a man’s own house. If I mistake not, this policy approximates to that which is described by the Conservatives as "A property-owning democracy," and by the Liberals as, "Ownership for all." Before either of them coined these terms a member of a Kensington family of house agents, Gilbert Keith Chesterton, a twin soul of that Belloc who was quoted just now by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), had thought it all out under the name "Distributism", and how right he was! Is not this a far nobler ideal than the Great Leviathan which the Government are creating? Does it not correspond more closely to human nature? Does it not offer far better assurances for the individual than the all-powerful State? – If I mistake, not also, there are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who, although they may not express themselves vocally or in the Lobby, share this ideal. But they are powerless within the Labour Party to halt the drift to the totalitarian State –

Hon. Members: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Shurmer: Do not be ridiculous.

Mr. Thomas: I am speaking for myself.

Mr. Shurmer: Do not speak for me.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman speaks so often and so well for himself that I have no need to.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite like to think of themselves as carrying through a revolution, and so they are. But what sort of revolution is it? The French Revolution did, at least, give the world the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. The slogans of the Labour revolution appear to be utility, priority, austerity. One of the problems of revolution is that it is a chain reaction. There are always other revolutionaries behind, and today the Labour Party is being rushed into courses which its wiser Members deplore. The chief problem of the Labour leaders at all levels, from the shop steward to the Prime Minister, is the man just behind them who wants their job. [Interruption.] Probably hon. Members realise the truth of what I am saying. And the problem of the Labour party as a whole is that the Communist Party wants its job. The Labour Party is:

We have had before a revolution in this country which was threatened by still more revolutionary people called the Levellers. This was suppressed by Cromwell, but there is no Cromwell in the present Government, and Praise God Barebones is today in control.

For long I hoped that a Labour Party, pledged to sensible courses of reform, would be the best bulwark against the evil flood of Communism. Today, I regret to see that it is no bulwark, but a leaky dam. For long I hoped that the Labour Party would give political expression to those Christian principles on which our Western civilisation is based. But I see that, whereas Christianity says, "What is mine is thine", right hon. Gentlemen on the Government bench say, "What is thine is mine". For long I hoped that the Labour Party –

Dr. Morgan: You are a dirty dog.

Mr. Churchill: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is in Order for an hon. Member to call another a "dirty dog"? I should like to be authoritatively advised.

Mr. Speaker: I did not quite gather whether the hon. Gentleman was being called "a dirty dog" or whether it was some other expression. If the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) did call the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) "a dirty dog" that should not have been said. It is out of Order and he should withdraw it.

Dr. Morgan: If, in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you think that, after the remarks we have heard from the hon. Member for Keighley, I said anything which would reflect on the dignity of the House, I will willingly withdraw, and perhaps outside –

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: In a withdrawal there must be no proviso.

Dr. Morgan: I am making no proviso. I will make my provisos outside.

Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member has withdrawn and I think he would be well advised to say nothing more.

Dr. Morgan: I am quite prepared, Sir, to abide by your Ruling. If you think I have said anything to offend you, or the dignity of this House, I am prepared to withdraw.

Mr. Thomas: May I say that I take no exception to it. For long, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Labour Party would be the best instrument for raising the standard of life, both material and spiritual, of the poorer classes of the community –

Mr. Crossman: And for giving you office.

Mr. Thomas: Really, I do not think it lies in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to reproach me with seeking office. I see that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side are bent on levelling down, not levelling up. But the heart of the country is still sound, and when it again has good leadership it will recover its place in the world. Even though no leadership has come from Downing Street in the past three years, the authentic voice of Great Britain has still been heard – as it was heard after Dunkirk, at Fulton, at Zurich, at The Hague and at Llandudno. And when that voice can again command action as well as attention, there will be a national revival which will astonish the world. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: It is most improper for hon. Members to boo like that. It is most unparliamentary, and I reprove hon. Members for doing it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Paton (Norwich): I am sure that the House will not expect me to make any comment on the arguments in the incredible speech by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). I have a much more serious purpose today than to attempt to detain the House by making any examination of the feeble apologetics and special pleadings which we have just heard. No doubt some of the acid of his comments arose from eating sour grapes during the past few months. [Interruption.] Did I hear someone say "cheap"? Did anyone dare ejaculate the word "cheap", after the speech to which we have just listened? I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Keighley feels himself sufficiently rewarded by the enthusiastic plaudits of the Tories behind him. The labourer is worthy of his hire. I have no intention of pursuing the hon. Member’s puerilities..............