HC Deb 15 May 1953 vol 515 cc1653-64

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

4.1 p.m.

Mr. T. Driberg (Maldon)

It is a platitude to say that this is a free country, but it is a platitude which acquires a fresh significance in these times, when the same thing, unfortunately, can no longer be said of that former stronghold of freedom, the United States of America. Undeterred by the impertinent abuse of obscene demagogues from Wisconsin or anywhere else, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of this free Parliament can continue patiently to do all that can be done here to realise the hopes expressed in the remarkable speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the debate earlier this week.

If I may say so, I agree very strongly with the Prime Minister's pragmatical, piecemeal approach to the problem of creating better understanding. In advocating such an approach, as hon. Members will recall, the right hon. Gentleman said these words: We have been encouraged by a series of amicable gestures on the part of the new Soviet Government. These have so far taken the form of leaving off doing things which we have not been doing to them. It is, therefore, difficult to find specific cases with which to match their actions. If, however, any such cases can be cited they will certainly be examined by Her Majesty's Government with urgency and sympathy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 11lth May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 899.] It is precisely such a case that I am citing today, and I hope therefore, that the citing of it will be helpful in that it will enable Her Majesty's Government to demonstrate the sincerity of their intentions. This case indeed concerns action vis-à-vis the Chinese rather than vis-à-vis the Russians, but I take it that the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister applies equally.

I want to urge the Government to lift the ban on the export to China of certain drugs. This matter came up quite recently in another place, and it is evident from the conduct of the Government, both in another place and in this House, that they are somewhat uneasy about it. I hope that it is a case of uneasy conscience, and that the Minister today wilt be able to tell us that he is going to ease the conscience of the Government about it.

In another place Lord Mancroft, speaking on behalf of the Government, avoided dealing in detail with this question of the export of pharmaceutical supplies to China by saying that the President of the Board of Trade was to make a full statement on this detailed and particular subject in the course of a very few days."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th April, 1953; Vol. 182, c. 47.] —that is to say, in this House. No doubt noble Lords in another place were as interested to learn that some of us here, were interested to learn what the President would have to say in his "full statement" in this House. But what has been our disappointment to find that—no doubt not through any evasive intention, but simply by an accident of procedure —this statement was made in the form of a written reply, tucked away at the back of HANSARD, on 30th April. The only new point of interest in the reply is that a number of Western European Governments, such as those of Western Germany, France and Italy, who hitherto have been, as it were, cutting us out or capturing our trade by supplying to China the drugs we have refused to supply, have now agreed to impose similar restrictions to ours." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th April, 1953; Vol, 514. c. 118.] Although that particular aspect of the problem has now been cleared up, the-situation thus becomes even worse for the Chinese, because they will now not be getting the substitute supplies which the Western European countries have been sending.

This matter arose from an order placed in July, 1952, by the China National Import and Export Corporation with a London firm—the Propane Co., Ltd. The order was for £500,000 worth of antibiotics—Penicillin G, and Dihydro-streptomycin Sulphate—and Sulpha drugs. The China National Import and Export Corporation made it known at the time that this order was intended to be the first quarter of a total order of £2 million worth of these drugs to be purchased during the year. The Propane Company applied to the Board of Trade for the requisite export licence, but this was refused on the ground that these drugs came within the category of strategic exports.

I have here a list of the actual goods to which the embargo applies—the Board of Trade list—and it includes a number of chemicals, such as chemical warfare preparations, military pyrotechnics, de-icing preparations and so on, but none of the headings in this list appears to Embrace the drugs in question. It is, indeed, certain that sulpha drugs and antibiotics are not covered by any existing list: there was a comment some little time ago in a well-informed American newspaper, "U.S. News and World Report," which said: U.S. authorities probably will try to cut down the flow of Pharmaceuticals out of Britain and Hong Kong into China. Antibiotics are of direct aid to the Chinese armies, but these drugs are not listed as strategic under the Battle Act or the U.N.O. embargo. How to cut down such movements is a ticklish matter owing to humanitarian overtones"— a delicate use of language.

Since this original order was placed and the export licence was refused, the China National Import and Export Corporation have more recently placed another order in the United Kingdom— again for £500,000 worth of the same kinds of drug, including a million grammes of Penicillin G Potassium, half a million grammes of Penicillin G Procaine, and a million grammes of streptomycin. This new order should be considered and examined on its merits and in the light of a statement made on 16th December last by the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate. He then said: I wish to make it clear that we are not restricting the use of these drugs for civilians in China."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1191.] It is evident that the pharmaceutical requirements of a country of 500 million people are quite big, and it is possible to attempt to estimate roughly what such civilian requirements would be. In attempting to do so, the Board of Trade have taken as a basis the export of these drugs to China and Hong Kong in the first six months of 1950—so the hon. Gentleman said on 19th December. The first six months of 1950, I suggest to him, are not a very fair basis for assessing the full civilian requirements of China.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the estimate made by a doctor who recently visited China was that there were 40 million people in China suffering from tuberculosis?

Mr. Driberg

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for adding that terrible estimate to what I am going to say. This particular period, the first six months of 1950, as I say, is not really a fair basis for the estimate: it was a period during which the general situation in China was extremely unsettled: national health services had not been fully developed or even started there: and. moreover, there were shortages of these particular drugs here in Britain at that time, so that it may not have been possible to export much of them. No streptomycin at all was exported to Hong Kong or China during that given six months. Shipments to China of sulphonamides were of minimal quantities. No penicillin was shipped direct to China during the period; shipments to Hong Kong, also very small, included some drugs later re-exported to countries other than China. It will be seen that that period is not really a good one to indicate the average civilian requirements.

The most precise estimate of needs may probably be made in the case of streptomycin, the strategic use of which—I hope the Minister will agree—is not so important as the civilian use; it is, indeed, almost infinitesimal. One can estimate such needs by comparing the incidence of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom and in China and the consequent requirement of streptomycin. Take the population of China as 450 million, nine times that of the United Kingdom—a conservative estimate. The total consumption of streptomycin in the United Kingdom is given as 10 million grammes. Multiply this figure by nine, in view of the relative sizes of the populations: we get a figure of 90 million grammes. However, the tuberculosis ratio as between China and the United Kingdom is considered to be between approximately four to one and 10 to one. Here the point raised by my hon. Friend is very relevant. Multiplying by the smaller ratio—by four to one —in order to understate the case, we arrive at a figure of 360 million grammes annually.

On the higher ratio of 10 to one, 900 million grammes annually would be required. It may be assumed that the treatment possibilities and the general health services of China are not such as to make it possible yet to treat all active cases. So, to err on the conservative side again, the smaller ratio should be applied, which would provide a working figure of 350 million grammes as a minimum annual civilian need. The streptomycin included in the present order, which I have just quoted—one million grammes—therefore represents only one three-hundred-and-fiftieth part of this modest estimate of China's total civilian streptomycin needs.

It is possible to make other comparisons on different bases—for instance, by comparing China with other countries at a similar level of economic development, such as India and Pakistan. Here again the same result is obtained. We find that the supply going to China is very small indeed, comparatively.

There is one secondary point—I will not say "minor" but "secondary"— which must be of concern to all members of the Government. The fact that this embargo is continuing may well affect employment in the chemical industry here. I entirely accept what the Minister may argue, that if the basic policy of restriction is right we could not be obliged to modify it by the fear of some unemployment in the industry concerned. That obviously must be accepted. None the less it is worth remarking that during 1952 an average of 134 per cent. of the industrial labour force in the chemical industry was discharged as redundant. The numbers of unemployed in this industry registered with the Ministry of Labour in January were over 7,000— quite a substantial degree of unemployment. The present order for £500,000 of antibiotics and sulpha drugs represents employment for 22,950 man-weeks; and the order, I gather, still stands.

I have been arguing chiefly on the question of supplies for civilian use, be- cause that is what the hon. Gentleman himself said the Government were prepared to allow. I think that I have shown that really it is a very mean, minimal allowance that is going to China, a vast country with these terrible diseases widespread among women and children as well as men.

I should like also to develop briefly a second argument—that it is not only for civilian purposes that we should supply these drugs. I do not see why they should not be supplied also for what are called military purposes—that is to say, for the treatment of wounded soldiers. I always thought that our code of chivalry, which the Prime Minister at least used to hold in high regard, included the consideration that as soon as a soldier is wounded he becomes in effect a neutral for the period of his disability and is entitled to impartial care and treatment by medical people on either side.

That surely is the position, and quite frankly I do not think an awful lot of one of the replies to supplementary questions by the Secretary for Overseas Trade on 16th December, when he said that of all the N.A.T.O. countries we had the "highest standard" in this matter. I understood what he meant, of course—that, as compared with other nations, we had the highest standard of observance of the agreement not to export the stuff. But we have come to an odd situation in our society when a definition of the highest standard of civilised conduct includes the prohibition of the supply of life-saving drugs to babies and wounded soldiers.

It may seem strange to some hon. Members that in this matter the Chinese Communists are perhaps a little more faithful than we are to the traditional code of chivalry. I noticed in "The Times" the other day, in a report on some ex-prisoners of war home from Korea, that that splendid Bermondsey lad, Fusilier Hodkinson, had said: I am feeling fine and on the whole they treated me very well. I lost the sight of one eye and I received penicillin treatment for it. I should like hon. Members to take note of the fact that out of the small supplies which the Chinese must have, they could spare some for the treatment of captured soldiers. It seems to me to reflect rather well on the Chinese. But if Senator McCarthy had had his way—and the Board of Trade are helping him to have his way—Fusilier Hodkinson would not have had penicillin treatment for his eye and might have lost the sight of the other eye as well.

I hope very much that, either on the question of military supplies or, more particularly, on the question of adequate civilian supplies, the Secretary for Overseas Trade will tell us that the Board of Trade have caught up with the trend of policy represented in the debate on Monday and Tuesday last, and will try to implement the general spirit of that debate by making this small but useful gesture of practical humanitarianism.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson)

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) for having been good enough to let me know the main points on which he intended to speak, because on matters of this great delicacy it is almost impossible to answer if one has not had at least some notice, and as the hon. Member knows, even as it is I have not had much time.

I think it would be quite fair to say that, broadly speaking, the hon. Member's case has been based on two major premises—first, on the humanitarian, and, second, the commercial side of this problem. I know he spoke with considerable feeling and sincerity, but before I answer his points I must balance the debate, so to speak, by referring to the important fact that overrides all other considerations. At this moment in Korea there is a complete Commonwealth Division, and many of the hon. Member's constituents and mine are in the front line and liable to receive the most frightful wounds from shells and artillery fire—of which many of us have had experience, alas—which can do untold damage to them even if they are not killed.

With the other members of United Nations we have to face the fact that our boys are fighting a war with a very powerful and well-equipped enemy. We must not do anything which will be of assistance to our enemies in murdering or wounding our constituents' children, or prolong the war, or lead to a situation in which we may suffer more casualties. Both the present Government and their predecessors have had to face this situation, and it has involved a very difficult and unpleasant series of decisions.

I should like to remind the House of the history of the limitation on the export of these drugs. The Korean war broke out in June, 1950, and the first intervention of the Chinese took place in October. In December of that year it was decided by the former Government to limit the export of Pharmaceuticals to China by voluntary arrangement with the manufacturers. Subsequently, on 18th May, 1951, the United Nations passed a Resolution recommending that every Member State should apply an embargo on shipments of war materials to the areas under the control of the Central People's Government of the Republic of China and the North Korean authorities.

This Resolution required each country to determine which commodities fell within the embargo and to co-operate with the others on the application of that embargo. The House will note that the Resolution refers to the embargo on certain exports, but not to the limitation of supplies. Pharmaceuticals did not appear on the United Kingdom's list of goods on the export of which to China an embargo was imposed, since it was rightly felt that a complete ban would not be justifiable on humanitarian grounds. As from 29th June, 1951, Her Majesty's advisers at the time—of whom the hon. Member was a prominent supporter—decided to limit the supply of antibiotics to China to normal civilian requirements by the use of export licences. This was felt to be in accordance with the spirit of the United Nations Resolution, and that is the policy which we have been continuing.

In recent months many hon. Members have been raising this question and asking whether, if we were limiting supplies to China and other countries were not doing so, we were missing purely commercial orders, quite apart from the humanitarian aspect of the matter. It was a very embarrassing period, both for us and for the former Government, when we were imposing controls over these antibiotics while certain other countries were not doing so. In a debate in April last year the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs put the point pretty clearly.

I am glad to say that we have now at last got agreement on this subject. With regard to the statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the hon. Member referred to the fact that it was made in answer to a written Question. Lord Mancroft, speaking on 28th April, had referred to that statement. The Question was number 66 on the Order Paper and it was not reached. I can assure the hon. Member that we should have been perfectly happy If that Question had been reached, but it so happened that it was not, and the hon. Member has taken the opportunity to raise the matter.

The other main argument used by the hon. Member—and this is an allegation that would cause grave concern to any responsible person—was that, as a result of our control, this drug is denied to civilians who are suffering from diseases such as tuberculosis. Of course, I know— we all know—that these drugs are very effective in dealing with this ghastly, terrible disease, but it is also a fact that they are of very great assistance in maintaining the efficiency of field formations, and it is those field formations which our constituents are facing in battle. At this moment mortar shells may be falling on the hon. Member's constituents and on mine.

It was because of the humanitarian argument that the Government and their predecessors did not impose a complete ban on the export of Pharmaceuticals. We have endeavoured to meet this argument by allowing exports to China of quantities which we feel are sufficient for her normal civilian requirements. That is exactly what the Government of the hon. Member's party did, and we are following the same policy, which we regard as a perfectly reasonable one.

Mr. Driberg

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the nature of the diseases for which streptomycin is mainly used, its use is mainly civilian rather than military? Also, would he deal with my point that the period of six months chosen is not a fair basis?

Mr. Mackeson

I know quite well that the hon. Gentleman referred to tuberculosis, but I would remind him that some of the trench diseases, such as pneumonic fevers, which fall on soldiers because they are in the trenches, are also effectively dealt with by the same means. Who is to say that these drugs will not be used to put men back into the front line to kill our boys? That is the point.

With regard to the six months, we must recognise the fact that we must have a datum line of some sort. Or are we simply to say that the Chinese are to have unlimited supplies of these drugs, and that we will leave it to them to decide whether they use them for the civilian population or for military purposes to put field formations back to strength when they suffer casualties?

We would be prepared to permit within the quota any reasonable increase in the supply of any drugs primarily required for the civilian population. Indeed, that is our desire and intention, if those drugs can be used only by the civilian population, but that surely is a matter which only the Chinese can decide, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to make certain—and I assure the hon. Member that I speak with great sincerity on this subject—that they would not go to increase the efficiency of what is in fact an aggressor attacking United Nations' troops. This is not a national matter only.

The hon. Gentleman made two other points about which he was kind enough to tell me in advance. He suggested that the China National Import and Export Corporation had applied for a licence for exporting antibiotics. I think I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the position is on this matter. The inquiry came from a firm acting on behalf of the Corporation. I have no record of the Corporation applying direct, but I am aware that they were prepared to buy larger quantities of antibiotics than were, in our view, likely to be used exclusively—and "exclusively" is the important word—for civilian purposes.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, quite rightly, the important question, which is one which the Government and all of us must have an interest in, of unemployment. So far as I know, there is at present very little sign of unemployment in the pharmaceutical industry. I naturally did not have time, in the circumstances, to check the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave, but I have recently been visiting this particular industry. It is an industry that is expanding at an enormous rate, and it is one of which we in this country can all be very proud.

It is earning us a very large quantity of dollars. In fact, it is catching up with every other country in the world, and, with any luck, it may soon surpass and beat them. The figures that I have are that the national average of unemployment is now about 1.8 per cent. and that unemployment in the pharmaceutical industry is rather lower than the national average.

It would be very nice if we could solve this problem, but the real answer to this problem is that the Chinese and North Koreans had better stop their aggression. We can then review the situation, and then we can get down to the job that the Prime Minister and all of us want to do, of solving this awful problem that is be-devilling the whole of the human race.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Four o'clock.