I observe that the Government have taken up half the time spent on this proposal, and have said nothing on it. In fact, the position is, at the moment, that the head of the Government does not believe this recommendation will achieve anything, and the Minister, on the other hand, hopes to get something out of it. The House is left in a position in which the Government has no faith in the recommendation it makes. Deputy Norton, in recommending the motion to the House, quoted an extract from a leading article in the London Times. There were certain omissions from that leading article. They may not have been regarded as important by Deputy Norton, but they are not without some significance. Deputy Norton stopped in his quotation from one part of the leading article at the word “collapse”, which referred to the inflation which took place in Germany after the Great War. These words were omitted: “...even grimmer than that which followed the post-war inflation.” These words are important for the reason that it is difficult, in present circumstances, correctly to estimate what steps have been taken in Germany to deal with the financial situation there. The words omitted were developed in a speech made by the German Chancellor as far back as 1933, in which he said that, since the year 1918—a period of 15 years—there had been 225,000 suicides in Germany. That is to say, they were at the rate of 15,000 a year. Applying the same proportion to this country, it would mean that there would be two suicides every day, excluding Sunday. The deaths of about 250,000 people, attributable to the collapse of the German effort in the war and to difficulties which affected Germany after the war, ought not to be ignored by those who lightly speak of inflation.
There is another omission which occurs after the words "the rest of the world would do well to imitate them". This is omitted: "Where does the truth lie between these two extremes?". Those are rather important words, because if one were to take— I am quite sure that Deputy Norton did it without any intention of misleading—the portion of the leading article which he read, one would be inclined to the view that The Times people were themselves satisfied that the German proposal for dealing with the situation was a sound one and that we ought all to follow it. That particular decision, or that particular conviction or view would not be taken if one were to add the words “Where does the truth lie between these two extremes”? Further, there is another omission. Deputy Norton stopped at a particular part of the article. He stopped about half way down, and there is in the following paragraph a rather significant statement by The Times. It says:—
"More characteristic was the rigid control which they"—that is the German authorities —"established over the foreign exchanges to insulate their currency from the inflationary effects of what was the mainspring of their system—the so-called closed financial circuit by which money made available by the State to set industries going was carefully sucked back again by loans and taxation, aided by a vast network of controls and restrictions which kept wages down and hours up and prevented all spending except such as suited the Government."
Now, it is practically an impossibility for people like Deputy Norton or myself, or even for the Government with all the information at their disposal, to weigh up and to pronounce upon the methods which have been adopted in Germany in connection with finance and in connection with their industrial expansion during those last seven, eight, or ten years. We have much to learn by the mistakes that other people make, but we do not contribute much towards improving our own industrial output, our own efforts at providing employment, if we take only certain parts of the programme which have been found, up to a point, to have achieved certain results in connection with the provision of employment.
This resolution and this amendment, to my mind, do not deal and do not attempt to deal with the big problem that we have here. It does not appear to me that the Labour Party can be absolved from any of the mistakes which the Government has made during the last eight or nine years. Since taking over office they have, to my mind, seriously damaged the sound, stable employing agencies that there were in the country. That is a rather serious statement to make, but I can prove it. I have taken out and have published already comparisons between the agricultural export position in this country and the sums of money which accrued to agricultural producers. After paying for all agricultural imports the average for the five years from 1927 to 1932 is £14,800,000 per annum. I am giving the Ministry the benefit not only of the whole of the period up to date but even the ten months of 1940; I am extending it at the same rate, and their average over that period amounts to less than £8,000,000 per annum. Now, they got office on the assumption that they were going to improve the agricultural industry in this country. One of their claims was that they were going to make every person engaged in agriculture in this country earn £16 per annum per person more than had been obtaining before they took up office. Not only has that not happened, but they have not even kept up to the record of their predecessors, or anything like it; that figure has diminished from £14,800,000 to £7,900,000. What does that mean? There is a loss there of almost £7,000,000 a year of money coming into this country. There are sets-off, if the Minister likes, of the £5,000,000, and so on, which used to be paid, but, if we are to take off even that much, the advantage is still against the Ministry. When they came into office they had an average of 11,400 persons going into occupation every year. This has diminished so that the number of persons going into occupation now is only 9,375. On either of those two examinations the Government has failed in its economic policy in this country. It has failed notwithstanding the fact that it is collecting something like £5,000,000 a year in taxation — probably £6,000,000 — more than its predecessors; that it has had extensive tariffs, extra taxation, extra costs in connection with cement, sugar, butter, bacon and industrial alcohol; notwithstanding the fact that it has not balanced the Budget, and that it has incurred a huge deadweight debt in respect of housing. I calculate the sum total of all this extra money that it had to spend as something like £50,000,000. Notwithstanding that, the position is that they have not been able to keep even within easy distance of the economic situation they entered into control of when they came in here.
In those circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the Government pronouncement is that there is no faith in this commission, how can they expect the House to vote for their amendment? I do not know what is the Labour view on it; I do not know whether they are going to stand on their own resolution or are going to accept the amendment. Neither of the two proposals, to my mind, will effect the purpose which is apparently intended in this resolution. An inquiry into what has happened during the last 13 or 14 years ought to be instituted in order to see what mistakes have been made, to see how it is possible to remedy them, and to see what opportunities there are for improving our industrial and agricultural position. Unless we are determined to correct the mistakes that have been made, to mark an improvement for the future, and to see what opportunities there are for improving employment in this country, there is very little hope.
I observe from Deputy Norton's statement and from much of the discussion that took place here this evening a disposition to belittle British credit. I presume it is one of those things that one must do in order to show how patriotic one is. It is all nonsense. If we are going to trade principally with Great Britain we ought, at any rate, examine carefully the state of British credit before making statements about it. An unprejudiced examination of Deputy Norton's statement would indicate that he is satisfied that German finance is superior to British finance. I express no view on it. I am satisfied on one point, that taking the last 20 years or even a longer period, no country has a better credit record than Great Britain. I am not an apologist for them; I am simply stating what can be borne out by the facts. There is, perhaps, a country stronger in finance than Great Britain at the present moment. It is possible the United States of America is stronger, but it has not yet been definitely established that American credit is better than British credit and that is not belittling in any way the credit position in America. Our trade here is bound up with, and must be dependent upon, British prosperity.
