NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES (Hansard, 18 July 1950)

§ Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)
I consider myself fortunate to have the opportunity of debating the short supply of newsprint at this present time just after the newspapers have been reduced in size. British newspapers at the present time are the only section of the Press which is controlled by the Government. My information is that the British newspapers are smaller than in any other country in the free world. At the same time the magazines and periodicals are free to print as much as they like, including the "Soviet Daily News."
I have no quarrel with the magazines or periodicals which play their part in the social life of the country, having the newsprint they require; but it does not seem proper that a paper like the "Soviet Daily News" should be free to print just what it pleases and have as much paper as it requires. I believe that the freedom of the Press is impaired owing to the shortage of newsprint, and the situation is likely to worsen in the future. For a few months earlier in the year, round about the time of the General Election, the papers published an average of seven pages a day, and that continued for a time. But since 2nd July newspapers 2220 have been forced to reduce their size to six pages daily.
The provincial daily papers, which have the responsibility of printing not only local news, but national news, have also had to cut down; and the provincial weekly papers have been cut pro rata. It seems quite a wrong time for newspapers to have to cut down their space. I am told that the stocks of newsprint are so low and future supplies so uncertain that newspapers may even have another cut in the near future, which might possibly bring them down to four pages a day. What a thought, that in 1951, with the Festival of Britain coming along, this country may have four-page daily newspapers!
I understand that it was agreed between the Government and the newspapers that the stocks of newsprint should not fall below 100,000 tons, which was considered a safety line to maintain a regular Press. On 1st July this year the stocks of newsprint for newspapers had fallen to 91,500 tons. For the next six months the total foreseeable supplies from the home mills are 171,000 tons and imports 77,000 tons, making a total of 248,000 tons. On the basis of a six-page paper, the newspapers consume something like 10,500 tons weekly, which means that supplies fall short of consumption by 25,000 tons for the half year. This has to be made good from the national stocks reducing it to something like 66,000 tons, which is only a six-week supply.
This figure allows for no hazards of any kind. We all know that we are living in very difficult times. Difficulties may take place with regard to shipping and so on, and I should have thought we ought to have adequate supplies of newsprint to ensure that our daily Press carries out its proper function. Furthermore, the people should be informed of what is going on throughout the world as well as at home. I am told, and I have no quarrel with the football pools, that in August they are to receive another 10 square inches of space. Perhaps it is to enable the investors to see more clearly what they are doing, and to save something on the ophthalmic services of the National Health Service.

§ Mr. Nally (Bilston)
What space does the Press give to the football pools?

§ Air Commodore Harvey
If the hon. Gentleman will stand up and ask his 2221 question in a proper manner I will gladly give way to him.

§ Mr. Nally
Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me, if he takes the eight months ended in March, what proportion of the newsprint of Sunday newspapers was devoted to permutations and tips on the football pools?

§ Air Commodore Harvey
I do not display the same interest as the hon. Gentleman does in football pools. I am only pointing out that at a time when the country is desperately short of newsprint that additional paper is to be given to the football pool firms.
The Government must carry full responsibility for the present situation because they have had full control over the raw material. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time to give the impression that this is run by the Newsprint Supply Company who have got themselves into this position. But nothing of the kind is correct. They have been carrying on, on their own behalf, dependent on Government licences and instructions to a very great extent.
Before the war something like one-third of our total supplies of newsprint came from Canada. This was also the case during the war when the supplies from Scandinavia were cut off. Without Canadian help the newspapers of Great Britain would not have been capable of carrying on at all. The 1950 imports from Canada, which have only recently been agreed, are set at 25,000 tons. The wartime minimum yearly was 67,000 tons. Until devaluation last September Canadian newsprint was cheaper than any other in the world. Today the right hon. Gentleman in answering a Question of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing)—which was on the tape machine this evening—inferred that the industry had only itself to blame.
Lord Layton went to Canada in 1946 to arrange supplies and contracts for 1949, 1950 and 1951 on a basis of 300,000 tons per annum. He carried with him a written assurance from the Government that licences would be provided. Unfortunately the Government broke their contracts, and in doing so they upset the whole of this great industry in Canada which happens to be second to agriculture. In 1945 Canada and Newfoundland shipped to the United 2222 Kingdom 198,458 tons. In the autumn of 1945 the present Minister of Town and Country Planning announced that licences were available for only 93,000 tons. The Government went back on their contracts. The price of Canadian newsprint was £25 at ton against a British controlled price of £34 a ton. The Canadians made great sacrifices in this matter, and the British Government demanded cancellation of contracts.
Had coal been supplied to the Canadians as they wanted we should have had the newsprint. Coal could have been sent at a freight rate of 10s. a ton and newsprint could have been shipped back at an additional freight rate of 35s. a ton, but the Government broke its contracts. It seems to me that this Government completely lacks the ability to work out its priorities. The right hon. Gentleman will tell us, no doubt, that it is due to the shortage of dollars. We know we have been through a dollar crisis, but since the American loan has been forthcoming a lot of money has been spent in the United States on a lot of unnecessary items. I do not want to weary the House with figures, because they are all well known. If the hon. Member wants to interrupt I will give way.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)
I should like to invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to weary the House with one of the items on which we have spent dollars unnecessarily.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
Tinned oysters, chewing gum and marbles.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
Rubbish.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
It is not rubbish, it is well known. I will not waste any more time on that. The onus is on the Government to maintain these contracts and to make proper arrangements for newsprint to be imported from Canada.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
I cannot give way any more because of the time. The responsibility is on the Government to ensure that the country's supply of newsprint is maintained and that papers of sufficient size are made available. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give this matter full consideration and 2223 assure the country that something is being done so that the position is not jeopardised.

§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)
In raising this question tonight, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned two or three points which I should like to dispose of before coming to the main points with which he has been dealing. He spoke of "Soviet News." May I inform him, as I am sure the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), knows, that "Soviet News" is not printed on newsprint.

§ Mr. Beverley Baxter (Southgate)
On paper better than newsprint.

§ Mr. Wilson
It is not printed on any paper that the newspapers could use, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that. We have de-controlled the paper used for periodicals because they use very little newsprint. Therefore, the allocation of newsprint for "Soviet News" does not arise. Football pool forms are not printed on newsprint either. In spite of the increase to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, the amount of paper allocated to football pools at the present time is only 5.8 per cent. of pre-war usage.

§ Mr. Baxter
All this paper has to be pulped.

§ Mr. Wilson
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his very considerable knowledge of this subject, has made that intervention.
Finally, before coming to the main point, the hon. and gallant Gentleman produced what I thought was an irrelevant series of remarks in answer to the question by my hon. Friend about certain items imported under the token import scheme. I have never heard it seriously suggested that we should cut out imports under this scheme. Imports from the United States under this scheme account for an extremely small figure of dollars and it would not mean any serious contribution to the newsprint situation.
I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech, which in certain directions was restrained, did not follow some of the suggestions and more extravagant remarks 2224 in certain sections of the Press during the last few days. We have been told all this nonsense about the Government wanting to censor or muzzle the Press. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not come forward with these remarks.
In view of the amount of newsprint which has been given, especially in one paper last Sunday, to what were deliberate and scandalous untruths about the Government, perhaps it is necessary that I should repeat what I said on 22nd May, when I said that I wanted to assure the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers) and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), both of whom are here to-night, that there is no question of discrimination against the Press. It is a question of direction in relation to the supply of newsprint available. I went on to say—and I think the House will agree that this has been my attitude—that we shall steadfastly resist any suggestion from whatever quarter it comes that newsprint supplies should be used in any way for censorship purposes.
I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks about the cancellation of the Canadian contracts some time ago. That matter has been frequently debated in this House and I do not intend to go over those Debates tonight. But I want to deal with the situation as it has developed during this year, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman did for the greater part of his speech. Before giving an account of what has happened this year, since the increase to seven pages just before the election, I should like to make one or two general points in explanation of the very serious position which has developed.
I want to assure the House most sincerely that the Government regret this decline in the newsprint position just as much as do the newspapers themselves. The change in the newsprint position since the beginning of this year is chiefly due to the increase in the consumption of newsprint by the United States newspapers. It is due principally to their heavy rate of buying, not only in Canada, but also in Scandinavia. Of course, when the American Press come with their considerable demand for newsprint from the soft currency countries, those countries, which are themselves dollar-hungry, naturally give priority to the American demand.
2225 I think it is fair to say that it was not possible to foresee this development in the world newsprint situation. In the Estimates they made earlier this year, the newspapers were over-optimistic. In saying that, I imply no criticism of their over-optimism; indeed, as the House knows, the Government accepted the estimates that were made by the News-print Supply Company. Neither they—the Newsprint Supply Company—nor we—the Government—could be blamed for failing to foresee the very remarkable change in world supplies as a result of what is quite a small percentage change in consumption by the United States newspapers, and, in fact, as the House well knows, the total consumption of newsprint by the American Press is on such a huge scale that quite a small percentage change in it is bound to lead to quite serious effects in the supply of newsprint, particularly in the soft currency countries.
Again, may I say that there is no question of any desire on the part of the Government to hobble the Press in terms of newsprint supply through a refusal to allocate Canadian dollars when the allocation of Canadian dollars is possible against the background of our financial situation. Canadian dollars for newsprint had to be cut off last autumn at the time of the very serious economic position which the country was facing. At the same time there were very serious cuts in the allocation of dollars for Canadian timber, which all of us in all parts of the House regret. In the past few weeks we have been paying the price of the shortage resulting from that position. There were serious reductions in the volume of raw cotton for the Lancashire cotton industry, and I think anyone facing the position impartially would agree that it would have been difficult to have found dollars for the newsprint last year.
But as soon as the dollar position improved, and as soon as we were able to judge the situation in the light of the representations made by the Newsprint Supply Company, we allocated dollars for 25,000 tons of newsprint for the second half of this year. A few weeks later, when it became clear from our discussions with the Newsprint Supply Company that the 25,000 tons would not be forthcoming, or that it appeared likely that it would 2226 not be forthcoming at least within the second half of this year, we agreed that some of it might be carried forward. Then, when we were pressed to agree to an allocation of dollars for the first half of 1951, dollars were quickly allocated for that purchase as well, to a total extent of 37,500 tons.
Only two or three weeks after the widespread newspaper campaign, particularly in the provincial Press, for a decision to allocate dollars for newsprint in the first half of 1951, the newspapers now say—and this was put to me by the Newsprint Supply Company, I think, for the first time last week—that they need an assurance about the dollar supply for newsprint for the second half of the calendar year 1951. I do not think anyone would disagree that each time we have looked at the newsprint situation this year it has got worse and further assurances have been required in order to ease it. Again, I am certainly not complaining about the estimates of the Newsprint Supply Company, because I do not see how they or ourselves or any other mortal citizen could have forecast the development which we have been facing.

§ Mr. Bishop (Harrow, Central)
Let me point out that the contracts of the Newsprint Supply Company with the Canadian mills require that by 30th June of each year we should tell them the tonnage we intend to take for the whole of the forthcoming year. Therefore, by giving them only the figure for the first half of that year we are, in fact, in breach of our contract. That is the point.

§ Mr. Wilson
The hon. Gentleman will realise also that by the general arrangements for financial provision under the European Recovery Programme these things are programmed 12 months ahead in the year ending 30th June, and we all know of the difficulty because of the fact that these two years overlapped.
As I have said, the position was put to us quite fairly and clearly only last week with regard to the second half of 1951, and I can tell the House that I am considering that position with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present moment. May I say that the Government fully recognise the difficulty in conditions of world shortage that the Newsprint Supply Company were faced with in their buying and also the impossibility of meeting the 2227 huge needs of British newspapers—and taking it in total it is a tremendous purchasing programme—on the basis of purchasing job lots. We recognise, too, the necessity for long-term arrangements for the supply of newsprint, and I have made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering the question of making these arrangements go as far ahead as possible.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)
The House hopes that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a state-men as a result of these negotiations between him and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the exigencies of the time, I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that the Opposition attaches the greatest importance to this very serious position, and we shall expect either a statement or a discussion before the House rises next week.

§ Mr. Wilson
I have that point in mind, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government attach tremendous importance to this, too.
I should like to deal very briefly, because time is limited, with the events of this year, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. First, I want to make it clear that the reduction which occurred a few days ago merely means—and it is regrettable that it amounts to this—the withdrawal of the extra page originally given for the election period of three or four weeks. There are a number of points in the statement, which has been circulated by the Newsprint Supply Company, which I consider not to be fully accurate, but I will not take note of those at the moment.
The statement made the point about periodicals, as did the hon. and gallant Member in his speech. I express disagreement with the facts that they have given about the consumption for periodicals, which is some 23,000 tons less than the figure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given. Periodicals use relatively little newsprint, and there was no reason to keep the control on them when they used so little newsprint. I want to make plain that newsprint is still restricted to periodicals. They can use other paper as much as they want, but if any further cut becomes necessary on the newspapers, then I shall make it my 2228 business to see that there is a corresponding cut in the newsprint used by the magazines.

§ Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, Northfield)
Why?

§ Mr. Wilson
I cannot give way, because there is not much time left.

§ Mr. Blackburn
But the public are entitled to know why.

§ Mr. Wilson
I have not the time to deal with that now.
Very briefly the position since the beginning of this year has been as follows. At the beginning of the year the newspapers were limited to six pages. The stocks of newsprint in the hands of the papers were considered to be higher than was needed, and then there came the extra page for the election period towards the end of March. The Government gave discretion to the Newsprint Rationing Committee, at their request, to settle the size of newspapers within certain broad limits, provided an agreed minimum stock was maintained; and provided also that there should be no dollars allocated for newsprint.
On the estimate which they made, and which we accepted, it seemed probable it would be possible to run seven-page newspapers to the end of June, though on one or two occasions I expressed my doubt about it and stressed that we should not have enough newsprint to maintain six-page newspapers in the second half of the year. In the circumstances, the Rationing Committee took its decision to allow seven-page newspapers to 1st July, although in making that decision it took into account that if its ships did not come home there would be no chance of seven-page papers in the second half of the year.

§ Mr. Blackburn
Why does the right hon. Gentleman worry one way or the other? Why does he worry whether it is six or seven pages?

§ Mr. Wilson
During the last three months it became clear that these estimates of imports from Europe were not going to be realised, and that the actual imports of newsprint were going to be less than had been anticipated by some 28,000 tons. We tried to ease this situation with two successive alllocations of dollars for newsprint from Canada.
2229 The suggestion has also been made, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not make great play of it, that we ought to reduce our exports. We are considering, at present, what the volume of our exports should be for next year; but I hope that hon. Members will think twice before they press us to reduce the level of our exports. Those exports are going almost entirely, practically every ton of them, to Commonwealth countries.

§ Mr. Baxter
Their newspapers are bigger than ours.

§ Mr. Wilson
I agree that their newspapers are bigger than ours; but the hon. Member for Southgate who has always stressed the need for the maximum of trade with Commonwealth countries, must think twice before he allows himself to be persuaded from that argument by other considerations. I must remind a number of hon. Members opposite, who on a number of occasions have chided the Government for the breach of the Canadian newsprint contracts in 1947, that when they suggest a reduction of newsprint exports at present, they are asking us to over-ride contracts already existing between British supplying mills and Australian and New Zealand newsprint companies.

§ Air Commodore Harvey
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are to be taken to ensure that newspapers do not have to reduce their sizes further?

§ Mr. Wilson
I will come to that point in a moment. At the time the Newsprint Supply Company came to the decision it did at the beginning of this year, in January, it knew that the level of exports for this year would be at least 95,000 tons. In fact it looks like being 100,000 tons

§ Mr. Blackburn
The Government's estimate proved to be wrong.

§ Mr. Wilson
We are considering the export position for next year, and also the allocations as between particular Commonwealth countries. I have said that we are considering the dollar supply position with regard to the second half of next year. Those, I think, are the main points which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
May I, in conclusion, refer to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, and also the hon. Member 2230 for Southgate about the size of our newspapers? I myself, and I am sure the whole House, would like to see newspapers a good deal larger than they are. I am not going into the question of what we would like to see extra newsprint used for. We may have different ideas about that, and it is not a matter which comes into this question at all. The Government's policy is that they would like all the newsprint they can physically pay for to be made available, and how the newspapers use it is not for the Government or, indeed, for the Opposition to attempt to dictate.
It is the fact that the Australian newspapers are considerably larger than—something like three times as large as—our own; but I want to point out that that is not the only test of newsprint consumption. In terms of the number of copies per head, we lead the world. If one takes the estimated consumption of newsprint per head of population, out of 64 countries covered by a list published by the United Nations organisation, I think it will be found that the United Kingdom is eighth on that list, being exceeded only by the United States, Canada, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Switzerland.
As compared with pre-war days, there have been major changes in the dollar position due to the war. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us what items of dollar expenditure—which raw materials, which foodstuffs—can be cut in order to get more newsprint, we shall be glad of the advice which he can give us. I assure him we shall be very glad of it. Two of the important questions raised, as I have said, are being considered at the present time, although I can certainly give no assurance at all about the exports of newsprint from this country. So far as periodicals are concerned, I can say that if there is to be any further cut in newsprint allocated for newspapers, the periodicals will suffer also.