HC Deb 11 June 1917 vol 94 cc590-1

asked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) on whose advice the decision of the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office was taken to suspend the printing and publication of the "Kew Bulletin"; whether his attention was called to the importance of that publication for the "spread of valuable information throughout the Empire relating to plant culture and the supply of fibre, timber, and plant products; if he can give the names of any experts concerned in the scientific and commercial development of Colonial industries connected with plant culture who were consulted in the matter; whether the editor was consulted; and whether any estimate was made of the consumption of paper involved in the continuance of the "Kew Bulletin" as compared with the consumption of paper for dramatic, sporting, pictorial, and other fashionable papers which have no practical value for the development of the resources of the Empire either during or after the War?

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury)

In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, it is understood that, the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Publications were consulted by the Controller of the Stationery Office prior to the suspension of the "Kew Bulletin," and that the Controller's decision was acquiesced in by the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens. The editor of the paper was, I am informed, consulted by the Controller before any action was taken. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and that to the third part in the negative. The consumption of paper for dramatic, sporting, pictorial, and other fashionable papers is not within the jurisdiction of the Controller of the Stationery Office.


Will the hem. Member say whether in this case acquiescence implies approval?


I do not think I am qualified to answer that question.