HC Deb 03 December 1948 vol 458 cc2378-400

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

I want to raise the subject of a rather complicated and difficult industry. I do so entirely as a layman who does not understand one end of a radio set or a television set from another and has not the slightest conception of how they are put together or the means of doing so. I raise this subject of the television industry because I believe that potentially it will be one of the most important and valuable industries existing either in this country or in the United States of America. Whatever we may think of the social merits or demerits of the ownership of television sets in the home, it cannot be doubted that at some point there will be as many television sets in the world as there are motor cars today. The instrument has been invented, it is in use, it is bound to be developed and to become available to many hundreds, if not to say millions of people.

When there is a new industry of such a type in process of development, it is extremely important from our point of view to see that we give such an industry every possible chance so that it may compete in the world's markets for the capture of a great proportion of the trade that is undoubtedly coming to this industry. This is particularly important from our point of view because, after 1952, we shall have to depend more and more upon the skill of our craftsmen and technicians to capture new export markets and to develop new industries.

I do not think it would be disputed that primarily in such an industry the overspill from the home market is always the factor which operates to an extensive degree in the export market. In order to have a good export trade, it is necessary to have a good home market, so as to expand from that basis. In the United States of America millions of pounds have been spent since the end of the war on the development of television sets, television stations, the improvement of reception, and so on. At least one company, the Radio Corporation of America, has spent 100 million dollars on these things since the end of the war. That is a measure of the earnestness with which the American industry regards this particular new development.

In Britain we are far behind the Americans from the point of view of quantity of output and expenditure on the industry. Whereas in America there are some 39 television stations in operation, in Britain today there is only one. It is quite true, of course, that America needs more television stations than we do in this country. Nevertheless, we have not yet produced our second station. It is due to open in Birmingham next year, either in the late summer or the early autumn. We have not yet developed our plans for producing a station for Scotland, the West of England and the North of England, which it is proposed to base on Manchester. The Americans are pressing forward much faster than we are in this particular field. We have only some 85,000 television viewers as against some 700,000 in America. Our output of sets is something like 10 or 12 times fewer than that of America. We are producing, roughly, 70,000 or 80,000 sets a year, whereas America is producing nearly 750,000. But, by and large, the British set compares quite well with the American set of approximately equivalent price. Indeed, the pictures seen on the British screen are probably slightly better and of slightly higher quality.

What I want from the Government this afternoon is something in the nature of an exploratory inquiry rather than a statement of facts. On my part I find it a puzzling industry, and it is difficult to get any concerted information from those concerned in it as to what line should be pursued. I want the Government to say what they are doing about promoting research and the export of British sets and transmitters. As far as I am able to find out, much depends in exports on the type of transmitter used by foreign countries. I heard a complaint today to the effect that the British Government have not been exceptionally wise or helpful over the attempt by the British industry at the recent exhibition in Copenhagen to persuade the Danes that our 405-line system was sufficiently good to be worth developing, and on it to base a transmitter which they would purchase from this country. After the engineers had nearly succeeded in tying up all the details, the British Government then let it be known that they were allowing a station in Hamburg to experiment with 625 lines, and to develop in that direction. That at once made the Danes think that it would be no use pursuing the 405-line system developed by us.

There seem to be two main disputes as to the type of transmitter to be generally adopted. One has to do with the type of definition, the number of lines employed in projecting the picture on to the screen. For some time ahead, we have chosen to stabilise the 405-line system which is a lower definition than that at present used in America. They use a 525-line system. From what I am told, there is not a lot of difference between the two systems at the moment. The real difference comes when the 800-line system is used, and when, perhaps, colour is added to the process. That is a point with which I shall deal in a moment.

I am informed that, even supposing a transmitter were sold to the Continent which depended primarily on the use of 405-line sets, if it became possible later on to produce a British set with higher definition, it would, nevertheless, be possible to keep the old set in use. Some apparatus can be fitted to the transmitter to adapt the picture so that it can be received by either the higher or the lower definition set. I am also told that the question of which system of definition is generally accepted is not so vital or so serious to the industry as the question of what system of modulation is adopted. Apparently, the Americans use what is called a "negative modulation" in the projection of their television programmes, and we use what is called a "positive modulation."

The technical details of all this are completely beyond me, but I am told that negative modulation does something which is called "peaking on white" and that positive modulation does something which is called "peaking on black." Whether or not one is better than the other, I do not know. The industry itself cannot agree upon it, but the important point is that if the negative modulation is adopted, it is much more difficult to make the adaptation of the sets based on positive modulation than it is if it is merely a change from one kind of definition to another, because the whole set has to be recast.

It is rumoured in the industry that it has been agreed, more or less, to accede to the American desire to plug the negative modulation and to give up the British plugging of the positive modulation. if that is so, it is a very serious thing for the industry because it means that they will have to gear their work to produce an American-type set for export, and it would then not be possible to base the export market on an overspill from the home market. It would be a pity if this proposition were accepted, and I hope the Government will be able to tell us that they have not accepted it, and that they propose to continue to try to popularise our own system abroad, and to persuade other countries to develop along these lines. But if this adverse decision has been made, I think that our first necessity in the next few years will be to concentrate on research rather than, as at present, on the production of sets so as to counteract such an eventuality.

Let us assume that such a decision has not been made. In that case, we have one definite advantage over the Americans at the moment. They have spent so much money on developing their present type of set and their present system of transmission that, if they suddenly produced a new system of definition, all the money spent on the original development would, to some extent, be wasted, and they could not recoup their losses. For once in a way, being a little behindhand in the matter may help us, and we may develop along the lines of the best system.

The first thing I want to suggest to the Government is that they should examine whether it is possible for the industry to make transmitters available to other countries, particularly to the Dominions, either at cut-rates or on a subsidised basis which would enable them to be given away for nothing. If that were done, it would mean that the countries which used British transmitters would tend to look towards Britain for the supply of sets to be operated in conjunction with those transmitters. I hope the Government will seriously consider that, because I believe that the trade which would follow would be very considerable, particularly if it were made a condition that, say, for a period of five or 10 years the country concerned would not put any tariffs specifically against the imports of sets from this country.

I am told that one of the difficulties which face the television industry today is that because of the present restricted size of the home market, to say nothing of the export market, all these developments and researches into new processes are highly expensive and not necessarily likely to result in a profit to the individual firm which undertakes them. It is asking a lot of a comparatively small firm to spend a high proportion of money and the time of technicians on a particular line of development if they are not to be assured of getting their money back in the end. I should like the Government to say what they propose to do particularly through the National Research Development Council, which is to be set up to assist inventions and new developments in industry, for the television industry, in order to help in the very necessary research in regard to colour processes and higher definition processes.

This particularly applies to another industry, the film industry because, as the House was told yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade, new processes are being developed in the film industry which means, in simple terms, that by using a television camera one is able greatly to reduce the cost of making a film. Once the process has reached the right level, one is able, so to speak, to take it off the back of the television camera and put it on the screen without the expenses of rushes and so forth. I know this question is interesting the Board of Trade and also the company of which the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is a director. They are very properly interesting themselves in it and trying to develop these processes.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting that the company in question are asking for any money for these processes. They are carrying them out entirely on their own.

Mr. Wyatt

I completely accept that and I know it to be the case. With a great measure of public spirit the company is attempting to develop these processes, but the noble Lord will appreciate that the originators of these processes are also interested in getting their inventions further developed. But, when they approach a firm, the firm will say, "This is an interesting order but, unfortunately, we are full up with orders and very short of technicians and we do not know how big a market there will be for this sort of equipment. We do not feel inclined to risk the money involved on research in order to bring the instruments up to the high standard necessary and you will have to wait a long time before we are able to do so." I want the Government to assist in the development of this type of research in order that it may be possible more quickly to allow this equipment to be available to the film industry as a whole so that the costs of film production may be reduced as early as possible. There is also a great export trade involved, because the independent frames can be exported to other countries and so add to our export revenue.

Another difficulty from which television in this country is suffering today is the restricted studio space at Alexandra Palace. That is giving tremendous difficulty in raising the quality of pro- grammes. It is time that someone in this House complimented the technicians at Alexandra Palace on the good work they have been doing since the war and the high quality of programmes they have been producing. They have been foremost in many of these developments, but I am assured that it is difficult for them to continue their output of programmes and impossible to expand their present output in their restricted space. They have only two little studios there in which they produce a programme of about 28 hours a week, which is equivalent to several full length films a week. That is becoming increasingly difficult in so small a space. One of their difficulties is their inability to get more manpower to build more studios and more material with which to build them. I should like to know what the Government intend to do in that respect. Assistance in that direction would have an enormous effect on the industry as a whole, because the higher the standard of the programmes the higher would be the psychological effect on foreign buyers who come to study our processes.

An important matter which has been raised is the difficulty the television industry are experiencing in getting the required amount of cathode rays tubes to put into sets. I think present output runs at 140,000 tubes a year, which means, with the replacements needed for existing sets that for the production of new sets not more than 120,000 a year is available. Although the glass is available the plant required to step up the production to the amount required by the industry is extremely expensive and people concerned with making these tubes are not putting in the plant because they fear that in four or five years' time there may be a new development, making their new plant unnecessary and this type of cathode ray tube redundant. It is very important that we should get the television industry working all out at the moment and I want to know what the Government are prepared to do in the way of subsidising this new plant, or guaranteeing against loss through new developments.

I should also like to know what the Government are doing in the way of helping this industry in its research and development and in reducing the price of sets, which is a very important factor, to something about the£25 mark which is. I believe, considered a reasonable possibility in the industry and would certainly mean a tremendous increase in popularity, not only in this country, but abroad, from the point of view of the export trade. I wish to urge on the Government not to take the defeatist line in regard to the United States of America because I believe that our technicians are sufficiently skilled to do better in most respects than those in the United States at the moment. They will be discouraged if they find that the Government as a whole, are, for any reason whatever, conceding the issue to the Americans and are not backing them throughout the world in the sale of British transmitters, which may be followed by the sale of British sets.

2.59 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

Like the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) I am no expert in this matter, but I rise because I desire to say that in an otherwise well-informed and admirable speech the hon. Member allowed himself to make one or two observations which somewhat frightened me. I hope that the Government will look askance at those particular suggestions. They were to the effect that the Government should step in and subsidise the production of transmitters in order to ensure that overseas countries were enabled to take the kind of transmissions which we in this country are at present producing by the 405-line system. The hon. Member rather deplored the fact that we had failed to make headway with the Danes in the way of inducing them to accept equipment of the same kind, and also that there was in existence a rather newer German station operating on an increased number of lines.

Finally, the hon. Member said that he wished to see certain firms manufacturing cathode ray tubes subsidised by the Government against loss. I regard that as a most dangerous procedure. It means, in effect, giving to these firms every kind of encouragement to go on producing a type of apparatus in vogue at the moment but which, in five or 10 years' time, by the normal interplay of competition, will experience a reduced demand because of the successful work of other competing firms. I hope, on the contrary, that the Government's hand will not be heavy on this whole matter of production of types of transmitters, and that we shall not standardise a new industry in any way but give the utmost encouragement to all new firms entering in the industry to plan their own research—I agree that the Government should positively aid research in these new industries—so that technique can be advanced over the whole field.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)

I am sure that we are all obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for bringing this subject forward this afternoon. I often wonder, when I hear my hon. Friend, whether it is a prelude to an article in the "New Statesman and Nation" or the other way round. This time it is the other way round. The raising of this subject has been valuable because it will help somewhat to counterbalance the rather pernicious and I think ill-advised propaganda which is growing up to the effect that expenditure on television is at the expense of the ordinary radio listener, and should, therefore, be discouraged. That is unsound and will do considerable harm to the industry.

One of the most important of the sales factors in television, both inside and outside this country, is that the quality of the programmes should be maintained and improved. If my hon. Friend had had a television set, I think that he would have spent a little more time in paying tribute to the absolute marvels in production which are achieved by the production engineers at Alexandra Palace, and the way in which, particularly in recent months, they have combined the use of the film with outside "shots." An admirable example of that was in the magnificent production of "Nurse Cavell," in which they combined the technique of the outside "shot" with the inside "shot" without the change being noticed. The general quality of that type of production is an extremely important aspect of their work. The appropriate Ministry, and the people at the B.B.C. who are in charge, would do well to continue on the lines which they are pursuing of constantly trying to improve the quality, and of giving greater aid and freedom to the excellent people who are responsible for production.

I am not trying to tell the House that the whole of the programmes are fine. I believe that they are making a mistake in trying to fill far too much programme time, and that they would be much wiser if, instead of putting on second-rate and third-rate cheap films as "filling" in the afternoon, they cut them out entirely and went back to the pre-war practice, when sound was broadcast from Alexandra Palace during the daytime and the transmission of pictures was closed down for long periods. I do not know whether there is any system of research into the actual number of viewers, but I very much doubt whether the number of viewers really justifies television transmission in the afternoon.

I am sorry that there is such a thin House this afternoon when we are discussing this important subject, because it is a case which statesmen and would-be statesmen have to face in the future. I can quite well see that in about 10 years' time, if not before, instead of the country being treated to the sight of eminent gentlemen hiding their faces behind a sound microphone it will be treated to the picture of budding Prime Ministers and leading figures coming before the televisor. I know that it sounds an airy sort of fancy, but I am quite certain that when we get the mass production which the hon. Member for Aston visualises, the political parties will have to put their leading figures before the television camera. That is a pretty awful prospect. A moment ago I visualised my own Front Bench and some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite in that position, and the Lord forbid that the photogenic test should have to be applied to them.

I wish to express my gratitude to the B.B.C. for the magnificent work they are doing in the matter of television, and what criticisms I have seen fit to make I hope will be helpful.

3.6 p.m.

Mr. McAllister (Rutherglen)

The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has performed a signally useful service in raising this subject. I do not think that we can have heard many speeches which began with such a modest disclaimer of any technical knowledge of the industry and which was followed by such an erudite exposition of knowledge of the main facets of the industry.

I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that it is probably not a good idea to subsidise the manufacturing side of the industry. But nevertheless this is an infant industry, and an industry in which, before the war, Britain had a complete lead over all other possible competitors. There is a disquieting fear that we are beginning to lose that lead; that our research is not going ahead as it ought; that the building of transmission stations is not going ahead as it ought. The fact is, of course, that the industry, as an industry, cannot go ahead unless the Government take some action first. That is the important point. It is not a question of finance; it is a question of how can the industry progress unless the Government themselves take the lead in the matter. I am always delighted when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is replying, but I think that the Postmaster-General's Department should have been represented on the Front Bench this afternoon.

I wish to say a word about Scotland. I have raised this matter at every possible opportunity before. We in Scotland feel rather strongly that many modern industries have by-passed Scotland. Until after the second world war that undoubtedly was true of the radio industry itself. It is inevitably true of the television industry, so long as there is no possibility either of television transmission or research in Scotland. At the moment the people in the Midlands are waiting patiently for the establishment of a transmitter in Birmingham. There is no suggestion at the moment as to when a transmission station in Scotland will be built and put into action. People in Scotland are deeply concerned about this, because we do want our share of this industry.

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will recognise that Scotland has a special claim for many reasons. It has the claim of a former distressed area to some measure of any industry which could be distributed by Government action. It has a special claim, as it was a Scotsman who invented the television system. The work of Baird of Helensburgh was a most important factor in giving Britain its lead over other countries in the years before the war. I express the hope that, if not today, then at some time in the near future, we shall learn that the Government are going ahead with the vital work of research and development and with the building of further transmission stations.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

In common with other hon. Members, I feel we are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for drawing the attention of the House and the public to this important subject. It would be difficult to exaggerate the immense possibilities of television. In America immense strides have been made in producing television sets during the last year or two. As my hon. Friend said, and as I think the fact is, there are now something like 800,000 television sets in daily use in the United States. I am informed that they are being produced at the rate of 100,000 a month and that they are being sold at the same rate.

The demand is even greater than the supply. In America that means that in due course supply will catch up with demand. It will not be a matter of many years before a television set is a normal part of the household equipment of an American home. There is no reason why, if we take the appropriate steps in this country with Government assistance in research, equally rapid progress should not be made here, to enable our manufacturers to develop television sets both for our population and for export markets. The possibilities are unlimited.

It is difficult to foresee what effect television will have either on cinematograph films in theatres or on any existing forms of domestic entertainment. It also has a profound effect on advertising. Those who use the television medium for advertising purposes in America have found that by using one-fifth of the time on the television screen which they used to use on the ordinary wireless, they obtain better commercial results. It is a question for the future whether or not we shall ever admit television to be used as an advertising medium in this country. I am profoundly thankful that so far we have kept advertising off B.B.C. broadcasts. Nor is it far-fetched, as the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) seemed to suggest, to think that one day television may be a recognised political weapon or that it may be necessary, if not desirable, for political leaders to make use of television. In fact, both the Democratic and the Republican Conventions in the United States this summer were televised with great success—at any rate from a technical point of view.

Attention has been drawn to what is the most important feature of this problem at the moment. I refer to the question of the type of system or line-definition that is to be used. As the hon. Member for Aston said, in America they use a 525-line definition. Here we use the 405-line definition. Hitherto, it has been thought that it would be of doubtful commercial value to use a much higher definition. I hope the Government will give the greatest incentive to research and development and that we shall be able to capture export markets. I am not sure that the loss of the Danish market is, in the long run, very important, because before we do embark upon large-scale manufacture of television sets it is most important for us to decide what is the best, the most technically efficient and the most economical system to use.

In this context, the most revolutionary development has occurred during the last two or three days. The French Government announced the other day that they propose to make their standard television 819 lines, and friends of mine who have just returned from Paris, where they went for the express purpose of seeing a demonstration of the 819 lines transmitter, have told me that the quality was startlingly better than anything they had ever seen before.

I am sure that our industrialists in this country will follow that up immediately, because it looks as if it will be better to adopt a much higher line definition television system in the future than the one to which the American industry is already committed. The results are infinitely better, and, given large-scale manufacturing, the costs are not substantially higher. Therefore, it would seem that in view of the French experiments in this technique we may be making a mistake if we concentrate too long on the low-definition system transmitter.

I am sure that hon. Members will realise that the system of transmission also governs the type of receiving sets which are used, with this difference, as I understand it: If in France, for example, they have an 819-line system, they would be able, subject to the difficulties of distance to pick up transmissions sent out over a lower definition system such as the 405-line system or 525-line system. They would, therefore, be able, if the distances were right, to pick up transmissions from this country. On the other hand, with a 405-line receiving set it is not possible to pick up transmissions from a higher line transmitter. This difficulty may, of course, in time be overcome by technical methods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aston said, it may not in the long run be a drawback if we are a year or two behind the Americans in our efforts in this important new industry, but I do think that it is of the greatest importance that the Government should give every facility for encouraging this industry at the present stage.

The other feature of the subject which is vitally important has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston, and that is the necessity to secure the closest co-operation between the cinematograph industry and the B.B.C. We all agree that the station at Alexandra Palace has produced highly satisfactory results under conditions of very great difficulty—cramped space and so forth—and I hope that it will be possible for the Postmaster-General to arrange for the B.B.C. to have additional studio facilities so that they can embark upon television programmes with greater ease and with the kind of conditions that obtain in the United States.

It is most satisfactory that the deadlock between the film industry and the B.B.C. has now been broken. Within the last few days an agreement has been announced whereby a number of films, up to about 30, are to be made available for transmission over the B.B.C. system. It is particularly noteworthy that the films which are being selected for public transmission are not only to be feature films, but that a certain number of them are to be documentary films. In return for that, the B.B.C. have agreed that a limited number of cinemas, six in all, will be wired for receiving television, in order that the public in those selected six cinemas will be able to enjoy on the screen the ordinary, current B.B.C. tele- vision programmes. I am convinced that it is only by the closest co-operation, both in research and development. between the film industry and the B.B.C. that we in this country shall be able to make the strides in developing this important new industry which we ought to make.

3.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman)

I want to join in the compliments which have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on the able way in which he has raised this subject. He differs from many hon. Members of this House in that we often have the privilege of reading his speeches before instead of after we hear them. On this occasion I think his speech has suffered nothing in the speaking and that he developed his case with considerable skill.

Before going any further, might I refer to a remark which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister)? The Postmaster-General would, of course, have been here this afternoon had he not been detained elsewhere and, as some criticism of him was made in that respect, I want to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston specifically informed us that he would talk principally about the production side of this industry rather than what I might call its distribution side, which is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General. That is why I am replying to the Debate instead of my right hon. Friend. He will, of course, have his attention drawn to some of the very pertinent points which have been made during the course of this Debate and which fall within the field of his responsibility.

I also want to deal with one other small point, which was not germane to the general argument, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen raised. That is the question of Scotland. He seems to think that it is within our power, quite apart from setting up transmission stations in Scotland, in some way to establish a large branch of the television production industry in that country. Of course, that is not practical politics at all. This is an industry which is growing out of the established electrical industry and we have to make use of the industry as it exists to get the work done. Whatever may be the Government's policy in connection with the establishment of industry in Scotland, this particular point cannot be taken in isolation from the remainder of it.

Mr. McAllister

I fully accept that, but my hon. Friend would, of course, agree that the manufacture of television sets in the London area arises from the fact that Alexandra Palace is there and is transmitting, and that Scotland will not be able to have a television manufacturing industry until at least one transmission station is established?

Mr. Freeman

Precisely. When Scottish transmission stations are opened at some time in the future, no doubt that opportunity will arise. Nothing, however, can be done from the production point of view, at the moment, to solve that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aston spoke first of the importance of this industry and I fully agree with him. So do the Government. The potential which we have in the television industry is almost unlimited. He quoted unfavourably to us, as did other hon. Members, the American production figures. It is quite true that American production figures are impressive at the moment. It is also true that there is very general agreement that in the quality of reception we are in no way behind the Americans. In fact, I am inclined to think that we are probably ahead of them, and that without regard to any technical argument that may exist about the differing qualities of the 405 or 525-line definition. By virtue of the exceedingly skilful work on the part of the B.B.C., and of the manufacturing qualities of the electrical industry in this country, we are up to the Americans in quality, though, of course, they are substantially ahead of us in production.

However, the question to which we have to address ourselves is, whether we are doing the best that can be done in the circumstances as they exist. My hon. Friend pointed out, quite rightly, that one of the principal limitations on television production at the present moment is the shortage of cathode ray tubes. The difficulty arises not from any particular shortage of glass. Obviously, the volume of glass used is very small. It arises from the shortage of capacity for the blowing and the pressing of the bulbs from which the finished cathode ray tubes are made. That capacity is being and has been considerably expanded in recent months. The Government have also recognised the particular importance of this in granting import licences to allow a limited number of both bulbs and finished tubes to be imported from overseas. The figures are obviously at the moment not very large, but it is a fact that some 60,000 to 70,000 bulbs and some 40,000 to 50,000 tubes are likely to be imported into this country in the year running from about this autumn to the autumn of 1949. The fact remains that we have to step up our own production of these tubes very considerably, and we are, indeed, in the process of doing so.

The question of the introduction of the automatic pressing machine, to which my hon. Friend referred, is not quite as he put it. In fact, we have no reason to suppose that the industry is deterred from investing its capital in this direction at the moment because of fears of taxation penalties or anything of that kind. The truth is that we have in this country at the present moment such a machine, but to put it into production a very expensive relaying of production lines, and of training in new techniques, and so on, would be required, which would not be justified until the stage is reached when the demand becomes sufficiently great to absorb the whole or practically the whole of the output of such a machine. When we examine the output figures for automatic machines of this kind we find they are astronomical, and there is no doubt that one such machine could provide the whole requirements of the country.

There have been certain commercial difficulties in recent months over the production of these tubes—difficulties, that is to say, not directly related to lack of capacity, but which arise out of the way that that capacity has been used. My Department has recently taken the initiative in providing the industry with a solution of these problems, which the industry has accepted. The effect of that acceptance is likely to be that in about a year's time there will be cathode ray tubes which are sufficient for the pro- duction of up to 300,000 receiver sets in the course of a year. That is a very high figure, and almost certainly as much as we can expect to get in the immediate future.

I ought, however, in fairness to warn the House that if we do find we can get production up to 300,000 sets as regards cathode ray tubes there may be certain other limiting factors which will come into play at that stage. For instance, the television receiver industry uses a large quantity of plywood, and if they contemplated stepping up production to the level of 300,000 a year we might have difficulty in getting them a sufficient quantity of timber to make that possible, because, as hon. Members realise, that timber has to be imported. But we have in mind plans to overcome that difficulty. I have little doubt that the ultimate solution is the substitution of plastic materials for plywood. Well, that is not as easy as it looks; it cannot be done overnight; it requires a great deal of retooling, and one thing and another, and the industry is not at the moment ready to make that change. I sound that note of warning in order that hon. Members should not surmise that because we have succeeded in breaking the cathode ray bottleneck there will be no further limitations on production, because I think there may be.

As regards the production of transmitters and the export market in general. I want to assure the House that the industry is fully alive to the necessity for staking its claim in the export market as widely as it possibly can at the moment, while it holds a certain advantage, and by using every legitimate commercial device in order to make certain of securing those markets. I must exercise a certain discretion at this point of my speech, because obviously these are matters of commercial negotiation between individual firms in this country and firms or Governments overseas. I can assure the House, however, that negotiations which are going on at the moment, and which are within my knowledge, are quite sufficient to prove to me that no suggestion which has been made on those lines this afternoon is not very fully in the minds of the people running this industry, and I do not think that hon. Members need be uneasy about that.

Nor do I think that there is any necessity at the moment for the Government to step in and offer any special subsidy, or anything of that kind, to meet this particular need. I need hardly say, of course, that if in the course of such negotiations a particular firm in this country found itself handicapped by the import licensing policy of a foreign Government, then the Export Promotion Department of the Board of Trade would naturally do everything it could to help them get over the difficulty.

The next major point made by my hon. Friend was the question of subsidising research. It is not very often that I find myself in agreement on economics with the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), but this afternoon I am bound to say that I had far more sympathy with what he said on that subject than with what my hon. Friend said. We must preserve a sense of proportion in talking about Government financial subsidies in a matter of this kind. There is nothing the Government can undertake in the way of research now which does not mean robbing some research effort which is going on somewhere else. That is the first important consideration. The second is that it is just because it is of vital importance that prices in this industry must come down. and because it is at the present moment a private industry which is working within a limited geographical range in highly competitive conditions, that it is better to let the industry undertake—as it is quite prepared to do—its own research, in accordance with its own commercial judgment.

If we start subsidising wholly uneconomical research at the moment, one of the effects will certainly be to keep prices a good deal higher than they otherwise would be. That is not to say, of course, that the Government are not themselves conducting a good deal of basic research into radio and electronics, which has its bearing on the problems of this industry. This is, of course, being pressed ahead, for reasons which are not intimately concerned with the subject of this Debate, as hard as possible. But the more detailed commercial research, which applies particularly to commercial television, is something which is being undertaken by the industry, and can properly be so undertaken.

The two technical questions which my hon. Friend and others raised were those of the fineness or otherwise of the line definition and the negative or positive modulation. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding on both those points. It is a fact that the British, that is to say the United Kingdom television service, are using at the moment the 405-line definition. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has already told the House that he proposes to accept that standard and to stabilise it at home for a certain definite period, certainly for a period of years, in order that people may have confidence to buy sets and know that the transmission will be on those lines for a period of time.

It does not follow that the industry is not pursuing very actively the question of raising the number of the line definition. It does not even follow that the industry cannot at the moment produce television equipment with a much higher line definition than what we are using at present. Once again I am in danger of trespassing on the field of commercial negotiations which are at present in progress, but I can say that the British industry, in parallel with manufacturing equipment which is being used on the United Kingdom television service, is now able not only to offer for sale but actually to produce 525-line definition, as well as line definitions substantially higher than that, if they were required. So far as my information goes, we cannot yet reach the very high figure which France has just announced, namely, that it is about to use 819. If that is so, I think they are temporarily ahead of us on this subject.

I am bound, however, to advise the House, without prejudice to other matters, that one does sometimes notice that announcements from France about technical achievements of this kind are not followed immediately by production and that they are sometimes made at a comparatively early stage of the research. It should be said, therefore, that we may not be entitled to read into that announcement all that my hon. Friend did read into it.

On the question of negative versus positive modulation, the scientific and technical experts are divided in their views, as on many other technical and scientific problems. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the system we use in this country is positive, and that which is used in the United States is negative. The view of the Post Office is that we are using the better method of the two, and that we should stick to it. Nor have I any reason to suppose that the Postmaster-General's view is not going to prevail. I do not believe that we are in danger of capitulating to the American technique in this matter. Indeed, if our system is satisfactory, why should we? The same set cannot be used to receive both programmes. If we believe that we are on the better line of development, the advantage is just as likely to be with us as it is with the Americans. We should be far better advised to pursue it.

I think I have covered most of the points which have been raised this afternoon. I would emphasise that there is no question either of the Government or of the radio industry being defeatist in this matter. This is a private industry and one which is competitive, vigorous and active. It is going ahead as fast as it can to conquer this new territory. The Government can help in a variety of ways. It can help, in the first place, by clearing away as quickly as possible the industrial and production bottlenecks which all too frequently arise in present conditions.

One of the ways in which the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston. as spoken, differed from its form as written was that he did not refer this afternoon to the shortage of materials, notably steel. I assure the House that while nobody can avoid an occasional hold-up of one kind or another arising from shortage of materials at the present moment, by and large this industry has had what it wanted, and so far as it can be managed, it will continue to have what it wants. There is no ground at all for saying that its steel allocation has not been adequate to meet the reasonable demands which ought to be made on it. That is one way in which we can most decidedly help. We are also helping by giving the greatest possible facilities for special imports of one kind or another for research, development and so on That we have done, and will continue to do. I do not, however, think that we should be asked to subsidise the industry. and I, and, I am sure, most hon. Members, would require a very great deal of convincing that that was a wise course to follow.

I believe I have covered the ground which my hon. Friend wanted me to cover, and in conclusion I would say that the Government have the greatest hopes that the next 10 or 15 years will prove to the world that this industry really is as important as we think it is now and that the British industry is quite capable of going out and exploiting the great opportunities which it undoubtedly will have.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes to Four o'Clock.