HC Deb 27 July 1956 vol 557 cc878-86

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

3.50 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

I am grateful for having an opportunity to raise this question of the book ring. I think that the House is sufficiently familiar with rings in general, and this one in particular, to need no particular elucidation from me. Last autumn, the Press gave considerable attention to the book ring. In The Times there was as good a description of its activities as I have seen and I think that I might quote from it: A group of booksellers decide to apportion the lots at a given sale in advance so that no underbidder may bid against the party chiefly interested. The books therefore change hands at a price much below their market value. This value is established at a second sale outside the auction room and the difference between the two prices is divided between the booksellers concerned as a dividend offered in exchange for forbearance. That seems to me a very fair description, and I do not think that anyone would quarrel with it. I would add to it that in these rings there can be more than one knock-out sale. There are up to two or three after the sale with smaller booksellers being shed as the proceedings go along. I would add, also, that the dividends which are paid are, of course, being illegal, tax-free.

In the book ring there are not the vast prices which can occur in other rings and, in particular, in the sale of antique furniture. There is no question in the book ring of a vendor being defrauded of as much as £40,000 which. I know, did occur in one notorious antique furniture sale. However, I think that the abuses in the book ring do run to fairly high figures. In 1948 some catalogues which had been the property of members of the ring, fell into the hands of a responsible person. This was after an auction in the North of England and these marked catalogues showed not only who were the members of the ring, but details of the figures paid at the sale and those subsequently reached at the mock auction.

At Wentworth Castle, for example, 42 booksellers took part in the ring and in the first settlement after the sale £2,200 was the amount divided among them. That was £2,200 which went into the pockets of the members of the ring and out of the pocket of the vendor who should have had the money. We do not know what the second and third settlements released.

At Lowther Castle, 38 ring booksellers took part, and I understand that the total sale figure was in the region of £11,000. Afterwards, at the knock-out, a further £5,000 was realised and divided among the 38 booksellers. There again, £5,000 which should have been the vendor's went into the pockets of the members of the ring, which was very nice for them, especially as it was tax-free. Those were north country sales. It is only fair to say that there was no evidence at the time that any London antiquarian booksellers were taking part in the sales up there.

Afterwards, an undertaking was given by the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association to the person who acquired these catalogues that it would now take steps to break up the ring for ever. The promise was accepted, but I am sorry to say that it was broken within a few months of that declaration. I do not suppose for a moment that it was deliberately so, but evidently the Association found itself unable to take the necessary steps to deal with this question of the ring. It was inaction.

There was quiet for some time and many thought that all was well, but then, last autumn, the Press began to give attention to the subject once again and The Times produced two severe leading articles. I asked some Questions in the House about the ring and former members of it approached me and gave me some most interesting facts. One had originally gone into the ring very much against his will, purely because he felt that he could not make a good living without being in it.

I will not weary the House with tedious examples of what he told me, but I will recall one or two. He told me of a library in Hampshire where the sale figure under the hammer had realised £1,000, and after the sale, £40 was the amount paid to each of the 80 booksellers in the ring who was present. He also recalled an individual example. He remembered that at a small country sale, at which there were not many books, a famous book on birds had fetched £15. It was taken back to London by a leading antiquarian bookseller for £80, which is what it had reached in the knock-out.

The worst of this ring is that it affects not only the big collector; it also affects the small man. The big collector could, I suppose, if he were careful, take the necessary precautions to prevent this kind of thing happening, but what about the small man who has in his library one or two books about which he may not know very much? He may have just a few books and he may not find it financially feasible even to take the precaution of having them valued. And if he did he might find difficulty, because the valuers who know much of books are few and far between.

It might be said that the auctioneers could do something to help. There again, it is not every auctioneer who knows anything of books. The auctioneer who knows something of antique furniture is comparatively easy to find, but it is very difficult indeed to find the man with a knowledge of books.

How, then, is the problem to be tackled? As my hon. Friend knows, the legal position is governed by the Act of 1927, Lord Darling's Act, but the difficulties of evidence under that Act are enormous. There has been only one prosecution in all the years since the Act came into force. There is, however, another way, another method of tackling the problem, which may succeed, and that is the one which is being tried by a leading Oxford bookseller, Sir Basil Blackwell. He has always set his face against the ring, and last autumn he started to compile a list of those booksellers who were prepared to sign an undertaking that they would not take part in the ring, and had not taken part in it for the last five years.

His proposals were published in The Times, the Bookseller, the Publishers' Circular and The Times Literary Supplement, and Desiderata.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Mr. Chichester-Clark

They were published in a considerable range of periodicals and papers, but there was one notable exception. I am sorry to say that a periodical which is almost the organ of the antiquarian book trade paid no attention. It neither acknowledged nor published what Sir Basil had to say. I was surprised and distressed by that.

It was later proposed that those on the list should have their names asterisked in the Directory of the Antiquarian and Secondhand Booksellers of the United Kingdom. The Blackwell list was started many months ago. Sir Basil took 30th June as the final date for qualification. Now there are about 300 members in the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association. We cannot tell how many more antiquarian booksellers there may be outside. The number may be considerable. Surely it is regrettable that of the 300 only 66 have signed what would appear to be an entirely innocent declaration.

I am sure that many more who have not signed the declaration do, nevertheless, act within the spirit of Sir Basil's proposals and do not take any part in the ring. In due course, I am sure that these will sign the declaration. But I should be glad to send to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department a copy of the list as it is today, in the hope that it may be of some use to him in his efforts to prevent the future operation of that ring.

In the Directory of Antiquarian Booksellers we find the following: The Antiquarian Booksellers' Association exists to uphold and improve the standing of the trade and to maintain honourable conduct and good fellowship among its members. I hope that it will always do so. Elsewhere in the book we find Rule 16, which deals with the ring. Should there be a breach of this rule the penalty would be expulsion from the Association. Throughout the Association's existence there has never been, as far as I can trace, an expulsion from it.

Finally, while I entirely appreciate the difficulty of obtaining evidence in this matter, and of the police finding sufficient evidence for a prosecution, I hope that with the aid of this list, and a more rigorous enforcement of the law, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to do something towards bringing to an end this shabby business and towards providing for the bookselling public of this country an early release from the tyranny of the ring.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

It is only on the rarest occasions that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), but he certainly is on a valid point this afternoon. He made his case clearly, fairly and skilfully, and has given us highly scandalous details, all substantiated by dates, places and figures.

I agree with him that it is high time the public were protected against these sharks, who not only rob the people but very often rob the Inland Revenue. It is no defence to say, as some short-sighted people have said, that these men are merely profiting as the result of their knowledge, experience and acumen. We might just as well issue trading licences to card sharpers and confidence tricksters.

These people are also profiting from their knowledge, experience and skill, but none the less, they are criminals and are regarded as criminals and can be proceeded against. Of course, there are other rings besides that dealing in rare and antiquarian books. For example, they engage in the buying and selling of antiques. We all recall that a London author, Wolf Mankowitz, wrote a book exposing this ring. It was a most entertaining and revealing book. He ought to know something about it, because he had been in the game himself.

Being in full agreement with what the hon. Member has said, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will voice his strong disapproval of these brigands and tell us how good people can be protected against their maraudings.

4.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I think a great many people will have cause to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) for the use he has made of this Adjournment debate. I should like to congratulate him on his choice and the way in which he has presented the facts.

The practices which my hon. Friend has been describing have been called shabby. He called them shabby, and that is the least that might be said of them. They are also illegal. They can only flourish with the connivance of many who know perfectly well what they are doing and who ought to know better, but one enemy of any conspiracy is publicity. That is not the only weapon here, as I shall show, but it is a powerful one. I know my hon. Friend had this in mind in all he said, and I very much hope he and those working in this field achieve it.

Until the latter part of last year, much of this fraudulent activity for a considerable period had gone on in darkness, and so it had flourished. It was, I think, in the autumn of last year that The Times and also the Sunday Times printed a great many letters on this subject. That had the effect of switching a spotlight on to this dark problem.

The Times newspaper went so far as to get a reply from the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association on which I think I shall refrain from commenting. I also wish to mention with especial gratitude Sir Basil Blackwell, the well known Oxford bookseller, who has been to the fore in attacking the book ring and of whom I shall have something to say in a few moments.

This obnoxious practice has a curious history, but it is not a new problem, indeed it is a very old one and certainly existed in the last century. Attacks on it may be found in the Bookseller in 1872. Nor is it confined to books. There has been reference to the sale of antique furniture and even houses, but all I want to do now is to deal with the evidence before us. Thirty years ago the activities of the ring led Lord Darling to introduce a Bill which became the Auctions (Biddings Agreement) Act, and it is that Measure which makes these practices illegal. I have seen it referred to as a dead letter. I think that was the opinion expressed in the letter by Sir Basil Blackwell, but that is not quite true.

I accept what my hon. Friend said, which is incontrovertible. There has been only one prosecution, in 1952, when there was a conviction against three persons, two of whom confessed to accepting money as an inducement not to bid. Section I of that Act makes it an offence for any dealer to give or agree to give any gift or consideration to any other person as an inducement or reward for abstaining or having abstained from bidding at a sale by auction.

An offence is also committed by a person who accepts or agrees to accept such a gift or consideration. There is also an escape clause for a dealer who, previously to the auction, has made an agreement with one or more other persons to purchase books on a joint account and has deposited, before the auction, a copy of the agreement with the auctioneer. The maximum penalty is a fine of £100 or imprisonment for six months or both, and a prosecution in England and Wales cannot be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. I thought it as well that the terms of this perhaps too little known Act should be placed on record.

My hon. Friend said that it is difficult to enforce the Act due to the palpable difficulty of getting sufficient evidence, and that is true, but I am bound to add—and I think I can do so without trespassing on the rules of order—that it would be difficult to frame any legislation to make prosecution of this kind of offence easy. All I can say is that the Act exists and that it acts to an extent as a deterrent.

As an adjunct to it, there are steps which can be taken, and in response to my hon. Friend I should like to say something about them. First of all, it is obviously desirable that as many people as possible should know the facts of the existence of this racket and how it operates. If members of the public who sell books and other things at auctions know about it, then at least they can take advice from experts as to the best method of safeguarding their own interests. For example, if the seller of a valuable book has had it properly valued before the auction by an experienced valuer or even by a library, and then places a reserve upon it at the auction, that leads to the defeat of the ring.

I want next to mention the actions of Sir Basil Blackwell, who has already contributed a great deal to putting the public on their guard about this and is shortly to contribute even more. I think he deserves everybody's gratitude for compiling this list of antiquarian booksellers who have undertaken not to take part in the ring. I share my hon. Friend's regret that the number of names which he has so far obtained is not greater. Perhaps as a result of my hon. Friend's action today the number may increase.

I understand that the Home Office is to receive a copy. We shall be grateful for it, and I certainly undertake that any evidence—I stress "evidence"—which he sends to us will be followed up, but receipt of the list by the Home Office will not in itself ensure all the publicity which should accompany such a list, and I express the hope that Sir Basil Blackwell and those associated with him will take every opportunity to let the public know about the existence and the contents of the list.

Indeed, I go further: the Home Office hopes—and we can only express a hope—that those booksellers who are on the list and others who perhaps do not take part in this kind of trade—the illegal side of it—but who are sympathetic to the objects of the list will take their own steps to bring it to the notice of the public. One good way might be to have a notice in bookshops, both large and small shops, because a seller of books is also a buyer of books, and ordinary booksellers, although not directly concerned, can help their trade by giving what publicity they can.

Finally, it may be well to stress this: the existence of Lord Darling's Act makes this practice not only objectionable but also illegal. That means that those who indulge in the practice are not merely anti-social but crooks, and the more widely that becomes known the better for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Four o'clock.