Sitting of 11 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

INDIA AND BURMA (ANSWER TO ADDRESSES)
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. MICHAEL STEWART) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Second Amendment) Order, 1946, and, the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.
I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GERMANY

    Housing Accommodation
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many dwellings have been requisitioned during the month of November in the Hohenzollerndamm in Berlin; how many Germans have been displaced; what number of British personnel are going to occupy the vacated houses; and whether he will arrange for such houses to be shared with the German families rather than occupied solely by the British.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): One building comprising eight small apartments occupied by 21 Germans was requisitioned in November. Sixteen British are expected to occupy the vacated accommodation.
    1136
    The possibility of sharing large houses with Germans is already being examined in conjunction with the Army authorities.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend say when some decision will be taken on the policy of sharing as a principle?
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that a British officer with his wife and one child are now living at 38, Verdenerstrasse, Rotenburg, near Hanover, in accommodation comprising eight rooms, two kitchens and other offices; that the previous occupiers were a couple aged 65 and 60 years, both of them anti-Nazis, one of whom has spent eight weeks in prison under the Hitler regime, and others occupied the top fiat; that efforts are now being made to bring pressure to bear on the owner to dispose of his furniture against his will; and if he will take steps to see that the accommodation is shared between the previous occupiers of the house and the military, instead of being commandeered in this fashion.
    Mr. J. Hynd: My preliminary inquiries confirm the information indicated in the Question. I am looking into the case further, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have done so.
    Mr. Stokes: Meanwhile, will my hon. Friend give instructions that this sort of expulsion is not to take place?
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I could not give any general instruction on that basis, but I am inquiring into this particular case

    Reparations Plant
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received with regard to the proposal to close down Hoesch, of Dortmund, for reparations; and if any decision has been taken.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I am not aware that any representations have been received about this plant Under the present level of industry plan, it has been declared surplus to the German economy, and therefore available for reparations; but it has not yet been allocated to any claimant country and is still working.

    De-Nazification
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether all questionnaires already filled

    1137
    in by the Germans for purposes of de-Nazification are to be re-examined, with a view to placing all individuals concerned in one of five categories; what is the number of such questionnaires; and how long the process of re-examination is expected to take.
    Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir. Of the 1,368,000 questionnaires already completed only 234,000, relating to persons who have been removed or excluded from office, are to be re-examined. I cannot say how long this task will take, but the need for expedition is fully appreciated.
    Major Bramall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that very grave disquiet is caused to a whole population, whether Nazi or not Nazi, by continual examination and re-examination, and the fact that nobody knows whether they are to be kept in their jobs or not?
    Mr. Hynd: Of course, I am fully appreciative of that. However, I think my

    CEREALS IMPORTED INTO THE BRITISH ZONK OF GERMANY

    Month.

    Tons.

    Month.

    Tons

    January

    …

    …

    …

    99,973

    July

    …

    I76,273

    February

    …

    …

    …

    104,756

    August

    …

    44,723

    March

    …

    …

    …

    65,440

    September

    …

    111,143

    April

    …

    …

    …

    56,303

    October

    …

    47,046

    May

    …

    …

    …

    129,477

    November

    …

    102,624*

    June

    …

    …

    …

    156,060

    December (1st-6th inclusive

    …

    19,308

    January-June

    …

    …

    …

    612,009

    July-December

    …

    501,117

    TOTAL—1,113,126.

    *This figure includes 17,100,tons received under the trade agreement with The Russians and 47,000 tons supplied as an emergency measure from the American zone of Germany

    Control Commission Drivers
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the fact that a number of British drivers employed at Bünde by the Control Commission have no motor cars to drive, and are, in consequence, being paid for doing nothing, he will cancel their appointments and withdraw them from Germany to enable them to do some useful work in this country
    Mr. J. Hynd: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to a situation at the beginning of October, when a small number of civilian drivers at Bünde were temporarily redundant while taking over from an Army unit. By 20th October all these drivers were fully employed.
    hon. and gallant Friend has overlooked the significance of my answer to the Question. Out of the 1,368,000 questionnaires already completed, over 1,000,000 will not require further examination. Those which will be examined relate to people who have already been penalised, and we are anxious to give them justice.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: Does not the hon. Gentleman think the time has now come to stop the whole process, and to try to get these people back into normal industrial life?

    Cereal Imports
    Mr. John Hendersonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the tonnage of cereals imported into the British occupied zone in Germany each month of 1946 to date.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I will, with permission, circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. Molson: In the interests of economy, will the Chancellor of the Duchy consider replacing British drivers by German drivers?
    Mr. Hynd: There is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that. The fact is, that is our policy. Not more than 15 per cent. of the drivers are British drivers, as against 85 per cent. German; and we propose further to reduce the proportion.

    Zone Fusion
    Mr. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in view of the projected economic merger of the British and U.S. zones in Germany, he can say what the resultant military and political relationships are expected to be.
    Mr. J. Hynd: No change is contemplated.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will assure the House that, following the fulfilment of the projected economic unification of the British and U.S. zones in Germany, the level of the best British administrative treatment of the German people will be maintained.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that this is our intention.

    Volkswagen (Price)
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, seeing that officers and men of B.A.O.R. have to pay £160 for a Volkswagen, that the sum thus paid is approximately three times its production cost and that the motorcar cannot be exported to this country at the end of the soldier's service duty in Germany, he will say, in view of the transport difficulties which have to be overcome, why this large sum is charged.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I am glad to say that arrangements have now been made to permit British personnel in Germany to bring Volkswagen into this country on the termination of their appointment in Germany, provided they have had the cars for at least 12 months. As there is no rate of exchange for the German mark, it is not possible to fix the sterling price by reference to production costs. The price of £160 was related to prices for British cars of comparable performance.
    Sir R. Young: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether arrangements are being made for the disposal of their cars by those who have not been 12 months out there?
    Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir. They may dispose of the cars in Germany to other members of the British staffs.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say why British personnel have to pay approximately £40 more for these cars than German nationals or our Allies?
    Mr. Hynd: As I explained in the answer, there is no comparison between the German mark and the sterling price in these matters, because there is no foreign exchange rate

    Personal Cases
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why Miss Monika Dybowska and her child, at present in the Displaced Persons Camp, Neustadt Holstein, Germany, is not being given facilities to join her fianceé Mr. J. Hunter, 21 Alexandra Terrace, Charles-town, Weymouth, Dorset, despite the fact that a visa for Miss Dybowska and her child to enter this country was authorized by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 28th September last.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Facilities are being given, and the British Red Cross Society are now making the actual arrangements for Miss Dybowska and her child to come to this country.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it will take before she actually leaves?
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I cannot give the actual time, but the arrangements are well in hand.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the members of B I.O.S. trip No. 2053 were prevented from seeing Mr. August Claas, who could have provided useful information in regard to agricultural machinery; whether Dr. Brenner has been discharged from the firm of Gebr. Claas for Nazi sympathies; and, if so, how Dr. Brenner is now employed.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Mr. Claas was in an internment camp at the time of this visit. Dr. Brenner was temporarily discharged from Gebruder Claas under de-Nazification regulations but, having won his appeal, he was subsequently reinstated in his former position.

    Death Penalty
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many offences are punishable by death in Germany and Austria; whether British and German civilians are equally liable to be sentenced to death for these offences; and what is the maximum sentence which may be imposed on a British civilian found guilty of stealing goods, the property of the Allied Forces or any member of the Allied Forces,
    Mr. J. Hynd: A number of Military Government ordinances give Military Government courts power to pass such

    1141
    penalty, including death, as appears appropriate for offences against the laws of war, the security of the Allied Forces or public order. It is not possible to state how many separate offences are punishable in this way. British and German civilians are equally subject to Military Government ordinances, but British civilians are normally tried under the relevant provision of English law. The maximum sentences which may be imposed on a British civilian guilty of stealing property of the Allied Forces or of a member of the Allied Forces are prescribed by the Larceny Act, 1916.
    Mr. Scollan: What would be the penalty if he stole the property of a German?

    Co-operative Movement
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied that Co-operative societies in the British zone of Germany are being given a just quota of supplementary non-rationed goods.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir.
    Mrs. Ridealgh: Is the Minister aware that societies in our zone of Germany complain that they are not getting these goods, and that members have to go outside the zone if they want to get them?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not aware of that fact, but special attention is being given to the particular situation of the Co-operative movement in Germany, and I have no doubt that any representations of that kind will be met.
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the fact that supplies of paper are short for Co-operative propaganda and education in the British zone of Germany, he will grant permits to import supplies of paper that have been offered as gifts by other national Co-operative movements.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Gifts of this kind are already freely admitted into the British zone.
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what attempts are being made to cut through the legal tangles that hamper restitution of former Co-operative property sold by Nazis to private individuals.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The legal problems presented in connection with the restitution of these particular properties, many of which have changed hands since the original purchase, are very complex. Every effort is being made to settle them as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, some progress has been made on the basis of voluntary agreements with the purchasers. Four out of 12 purchasers in the British sector of Berlin have already voluntarily brought their businesses back into the local Co-operative society, and it is expected that there will shortly be additions to this number.
    Mrs. Ridealgh: Would the fact that some of the officials of the Trade and Economic Division are not paid by the Control Commission in Germany but by their previous firms, to whom they think they are still attached, have some bearing on the fact that they are not anxious to give help to Co-operative societies?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not sure that I have heard the hon. Lady correctly. It is not the case that officials of the Trade and Economic Division of the Control Commission are paid by private firms. In any case, the difficulties are real ones, and these particular cases represent a very small proportion of the total Co-operative property in the British zone.

    Exit Permits
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how far the German authorities have been authorised to institute a system of exit permits to prevent persons leaving Germany whose work is considered of importance in re-establishing the German economy; and whether he is satisfied that the powers exercised by the German authorities are not sufficient to prevent persons coming to this country whose presence here is a positive British interest.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Permits to leave Germany are issued by the appropriate element of the Control Commission.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In the event of His Majesty's Government deciding to make a voluntary appeal to German workers to come to this country in place of German prisoners of war who are repatriated, would this system of export permits be sufficiently drastic to prevent such a policy being carried out?
    Mr. Hynd: I do not know that the present exit permit scheme visualises such a mass movement as would be envisaged in the supplementary question, and I should think it would be reviewed.
    Mr. Stokes: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the "appropriate element" means the authority responsible for the zone in which the individual lives, or whether it means that all these permits have to be subject to the quadripartite agreement?
    Mr. Hynd: No, I think the exit permit arrangement, whilst it is based on quadripartite agreement, is in the hands of the zone authorities.

    Detainees
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many courts will be set up to try the 27,000 persons at present in detention in Germany for belonging to Nazi organisations declared criminal at Nuremberg.
    Mr. J. Hynd: This matter is still under consideration; I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the disgraceful experience we had in this country over Regulation 18B, and will he take steps to see that these cases are dealt with with the utmost expedition by enough courts?
    Mr. Hynd: I will certainly give that assurance.

    Newsprint
    Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what quantity of newsprint is made available to German newspapers in the British zone in Germany, including Berlin, by the Control Commission.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The deliveries amounted to 1,340 tons in October, and 1,320 tons in November.

    Economic Unification
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what obstacles still remain to the economic unification of the whole of Germany.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what formal communications have been sent to the French and Soviet Governments concerning the desirability of attaining the
    1144
    economic unification of the whole of Germany; and what the replies have been.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Hector McNeil): At the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris on 10th July, my right hon. Friend told his colleagues that it was the policy of His Majesty's Government to treat Germany as a whole. He subsequently circulated a detailed paper on this subject. Moreover, within the recently concluded British-American fusion agreement provision is again made for the extension of this agreement to either or both of the other zones of occupation. Neither the French nor the Soviet Government have so far replied to such invitations from His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of the rather conciliatory statements that have been made on this subject by Generalissimo Stalin and Mr. Molotoy in recent weeks, can my right hon. Friend say whether any new conversations have been undertaken on the basis of the proposals put forward?
    Mr. McNeil: It clearly would be competent at any time for either of the other occupation authorities to reply to the invitation that we have extended on this subject.

  AUSTRIA

    Rations
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the calorific value of the rations actually distributed to normal consumers in Austria during September, October and November, 1946, respectively.
    Mr. J. Hynd: During September, October and the first ten days of November, the ration scale of 1,200 calories per day was in general met in full. On 11th November an increased scale of 1,550 calories was introduced. This scale has been generally met in Vienna, but difficulties in food collection and distribution have led to local deficiencies in the provinces.
    Mr. Warbey: While I welcome the assurance that the rations have at last been raised above the starvation level of 1,200 calories in Austria, can the hon. Gentleman say why the increase took place after the similar increase in Germany?
    Mr. Hynd: The increase was decided upon by the Austrian Government, who are responsible for deciding what scale of rations should be provided.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the projected ration scale for normal consumers in Austria during December, 1946, and January and February, 1947, respectively.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The projected scale, which is the responsibility of the Austrian Government, is 1,550 calories per day.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my hon. Friend aware that unless emergency action is taken now the bread bins of Austria will be empty at the end of February, and can he say what steps are being taken to deal with that situation?
    Mr. Hynd: I can only say that we are well aware of the situation in regard to the feeding of Austria for the next several months, and that very energetic steps are being taken by the control authorities, particularly by ourselves and the Americans, to ensure that the necessary supplies are brought forward.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that, while the rations are so low in Austria, Austria is exporting food?
    Mr. Stokes: There are too many dead heads; that is the trouble.
    Mr. Bechervaiseasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what prospect there is of increasing the official ration in Austria above 1,200 calories.
    Mr. J. Hynd: This ration was increased to 1,550 calories last month.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Austrian people are being as well or worse fed than the Germans?
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I could not give an official answer to that. Officially they are getting 1,550 calories. It is probable that, as Austria is rather more an agrarian country than is the British zone of Germany, they are getting rather more.
    Mr. Bechervaise: Is there any truth in the statement that Austria is exporting food?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not aware of any food experts from the British zone.

    Parliamentary Delegation
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the invitation received by the chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union from the Austrian group of that union, asking whether a small delegation from the British group can visit Austria during the Christmas Recess; and whether he will provide facilities to enable this visit to take place.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir, and I am glad to assist in the development of these interparliamentary contacts by providing the necessary facilities in this case.

    Food Production
    Mr. Bechervaiseasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if there has been a survey of the agricultural possibilities of Austria with a view to increased food production.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir. Such a survey has been made, and the Austrian Government have prepared a cropping programme for 1946–47 which envisages an increase of some 20 per cent. in the area under cultivation.
    Mr. Piratin: If the Minister is concerned with this question, will he take steps to intervene with the American authorities to prevent exports of food from the American zone?
    Hon. Members: What about the Russian authorities?

    Oil Production
    Mr. Bechervaiseasked the Chan cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the oil produced at Zistersdorf is, used with a view to assisting the economic rehabilitation of Austria.
    Mr. J. Hynd: In the last three months of this year some 120,000 metric tons of various kinds of oil produced at Zistersdorf and neighbouring oil fields were due to be released for Austrian consumption. Total production figures are, however, not available, so that I am unable to say what proportion the 120,000 metric tons represents.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS
  Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the

  1147
  present state of the negotiations for a treaty between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. McNeil: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject at present. Full information will be given to the House at the earliest appro priate moment.
  Brigadier MacLean: Can the Minister say whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to withdraw the British Forces from Egypt before an agreement is finally reached?
  Mr. McNeil: I think it would be much better to wait and see the agreement at the appropriate moment.

  FOREIGN SERVICE (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES)
  Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all grades of the Foreign Service are eligible for the travelling allowances, amounting to one half of the journey expenses each way while proceeding from a post overseas to the United Kingdom on leave, provided they have completed the qualifying period of residence abroad.
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir.

  KOREA (TRUSTEESHIP)
  Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain is a trustee for Korea and of the unsatisfactory position there, he will take an early opportunity of raising the matter at the Conference of Foreign Ministers.
  Mr. McNeil: The proposed trusteeship for Korea has not yet been established. I have therefore nothing to add to my answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on 4th December.
  Brigadier Maclean: Is it not a fact that trusteeship was established under the Moscow decision of December, 1945?
  Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. A joint commission was set up to implement the trusteeship agreement, but it has not been implemented.
  Brigadier Maclean: Is it not apparent that the trusteeship agreement exists, and is therefore in force?
  Mr. McNeil: I hardly think so; it must be implemented.
  Brigadier Maclean: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

  MONGOLIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  Brigadier Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government recognise Mongolia as an independent State.
  Mr. Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements are under consideration to establish diplomatic relations with Outer Mongolia.
  Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have not formally recognised the Mongol People's Republic, and the question of the establishment of diplomatic relations with it has therefore not yet arisen.
  Brigadier Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Mongol People's Republic includes Inner Mongolia as well as Outer Mongolia?
  Mr. McNeil: No, Sir

  TANNU TUVA (U.S.S.R.)
  Mr. Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communication he has received from the Government of the U.S.S.R. about the incorporation into the Soviet Union of the formerly independent State of Tannu Tuva; and whether His Majesty's Government have recognised this incorporation or intend to do so.
  Mr. McNeil: No communication has been received from the Government of the U.S.S.R. about the incorporation of Tannu-Tuva into the U.S.S.R. The question of His Majesty's Government recognising this incorporation has consequently not arisen.

  DR. SCHUMACHER (VISIT TO U.K.)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the French Government concerning the visit of Dr. Schumacher to this country.
  Mr. McNeil: The French Ambassador called at the Foreign Office to express concern on behalf of his Government that His Majesty's Government should have given an official reception for Dr. Schumacher.
  Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Dr. Schumacher's reception was intended as a tribute to German social democracy, and that in no sense was it evidence of a desire to favour German interests to the detriment of those of our Allies?
  Mr. McNeil: I did make it plain to the French Ambassador that various tributes had been handed to social democrats of many countries, including Germany.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember, if it is intended to fete German leaders, that the Christian democrats actually won 1,000 more seats than the party represented by these particular gentlemen?
  Mr. McNeil: We have made no discrimination in these matters. The facts of this case are that these gentlemen were invited by the Labour Party. It would have been inappropriate if His Majesty's Government had not officially noticed their arrival.
  Mr. Eden: While I am not complaining of private invitations, I hope the Government will bear in mind that it is quite essential that these invitations should be known to be private, and not appear to have an official complexion because for the moment there happens to be a Labour Government on those benches.
  Mr. McNeil: I repeat that no discrimination has existed. Social democrats from many of the European countries, liberated and ex-enemy, have been here, and I suggest that it would be inappropriate if we did not recognise them here.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that many of us were proud to welcome to this country people, especially people from Germany, who had spent 10 years fighting Hitler, when many hon. Members of this House were supporting him?

  POLAND (SOCIALIST LEADERS' ARREST)
  Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his
  1150
  attention has been called to the arrest of M. Galaj, M. Szturm de Sztrem and other leaders of the Polish Socialist Party; and whether, in view of the terms of the Potsdam Agreement, he will make suitable representations as to the unfortunate effect of such actions by the Polish Provisional Government on the eve of the elections.
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir;, my right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to these and other arrests. In a Note presented to the Polish Provisional Government in Warsaw on 22nd November by His Majesty's Ambassador, His Majesty's Government made it clear that they would not be able to regard the undertaking given by the Polish Provisional Government to His Majesty's Government at the time of recognition to hold free and unfettered elections as having been fulfilled if, among other things, all democratic parties did not enjoy equal facilities to conduct electoral campaigns freely, without arrest or threat of arrest and without discriminatory restriction of election activities.
  My right hon. Friend is concerned at the indications that the weapon of arrest is being used to prejudice the free conduct of the Polish elections, but he does not think that it would be appropriate for His Majesty's Government to intervene in individual cases.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the action of the Government will be if these elections take place in Poland under the new electoral law which does not provide for free and unfettered elections?
  Mr. McNeil: It would be much better to wait for the elections. Our views on this subject are well known.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Is it not a fact that not only the weapon of arrest but also the weapon of murder is being freely used, and is the Provisional Polish Government one of those which the Foreign Secretary detests?

  RUMANIA (ELECTIONS)
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Rumanian Government to his representations, regarding the falsification of the recent elections, contrary to the Moscow Agreement.
  Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has received no reply.
  Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Rumanian Government that they would never have been recognised had they not given a most solemn assurance that the elections would be free and unfettered?
  Mr. McNeil: Our views on this subject have been made perfectly clear. I do not think that there is any point in restating them.
  Mr. Mack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the results of these recent elections very fairly represent the political will of the Rumanian people, and that our Government, by interfering unwarrantably in Rumanian internal affairs, would retard the friendship between Britain and Rumania which we so ardently desire?

  YUGOSLAVIA (CHROME MINES)
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before handing over to the present Yugoslav Government Yugoslav funds held here, he will arrange for payments to be made from these funds in compensation to British companies owning chrome mines in that country which have now been seized by the Yugoslav Government.
  Mr. McNeil: The chrome mines to which the hon. Member refers were seized by the German authorities and, on the liberation of Yugoslavia, automatically came under the control of the Yugoslav Government, who have undertaken to restore all British property to its owners under conditions which are shortly to be discussed by a mixed commission in Belgrade.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what steps those who have substantial interests in these chrome mines ought to take in order to bring their particular claims before the attention of the mixed commission.
  Mr. McNeil: I would rather have notice.
  Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister allow the Yugoslav Government to make their own decision about compensation on the basis of confiscation, and will he express the hope that they will give them nothing?

  MILITARY PACTS (PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not enter into any military pact with the U.S. Government or any other Government without the prior approval of Parliament.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The broad principles of His Majesty's Government's foreign policy are subject to constant review by Parliament; but it would be entirely contrary to constitutional practice to require the Government to obtain the prior consent of Parliament before taking any detailed steps to give effect to that policy.
  Mr. Osborne: Would the Prime Minister make it clear that we should welcome, in peace, a continuance of the Anglo-American Alliance which we welcomed in war?
  The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear to the House that His Majesty's Government welcome an alliance for the preservation of peace with all countries.

  ARMED FORCES

    Overseas Tours
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister without Portfolio why the tour of duty in the R.A.F. in India is two and a half years, whereas in the Army it is three years; the tour of duty for the R.A.F. in Gibraltar 18 months, whereas in the Army it is three years three months; the tour of duty for British air forces of occupation, Germany, two years, whereas for British troops Austria and B.A.O.R. it is three years nine months; and whether he proposes to bring the tours of overseas duty for the R.A.F. and Army more into line.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Overseas tours in the Services must differ with their varying circumstances, in particular with the different proportions of men in the United Kingdom and abroad which are not, and cannot be, the same. But because of the longer tours in the Army, the War Office have introduced leave to this country during the overseas tour from areas further afield than North-West Europe.

    Court-Martial Sentences
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Minister without Portfolio what percentage of the men now serving sentences after conviction by courts-martial were sentenced for crimes other than desertion or absenteeism.
    Mr. Alexander: For the Navy, the percentage is approximately 24, which includes men serving sentences both at home and overseas. For the Army and the R.A.F., figures are available only for men serving sentences in this country. The percentages are 24 and 49, respectively.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In cases of absenteeism and desertion, will the Minister facilitate the return of these men to industry and the Forces by suspending their sentences, as was done in 1915?
    Mr. Alexander: The circumstances are different from 1915. My right hon. Friend has already stated in the House that a constant review of sentences takes place in the Service Ministries to see that justice is done, and that any compassion which needs to be shown is shown.
    Mr. Hughes—
    Mr. Speaker: I would point out that this Question only asks for the percentages of sentences, and is not about remission of sentences.

    Service Improvements
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister without Portfolio what progress has been made in implementing the changes in Service conditions announced by Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery and Air-Marshal Lord Tedder.
    Mr. Alexander: Both the War Office and the Air Ministry have issued instructions for the reduction of parades, guards and fatigues, the institution of request hours, the increase of freedom off duty at weekends and overnight, and on other similar points which restore and extend prewar privileges. These instructions are intended, without relaxing the discipline and efficiency of the Services, to give liberties and privileges to all ranks comparable to those enjoyed in civilian life. Good progress has been made in implementing them. Plans have also been made for improved living accommodation both for the Army and the R.A.F., but progress in this direction must necessarily be slower
    1154
    in present circumstances. As much as possible is, however, being done within the limits of available resources.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether commanding officers are completely cooperative in this matter?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly—if anyone proves not to be so, I am sure that it would be taken notice of.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether the conditions of the s.s. "Empress of Scotland" at Liverpool?—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hughes.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether, in the statement he has made about request hours, it also covers representations on collective grievances and suggestions?
    Mr. Alexander: I think so, but I should like to have notice of that.
    Captain Crookshank: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he meant just now when he said that progress in improving accommodation must be slower—slower than what?
    Mr. Alexander: The rate of progress will be slower than in the other welfare matters I have mentioned, because we are short of labour, materials and so on.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Oil and Meal Processing (Herrings)
    Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that the herring meal and oil factory at Hull will be capable of absorbing any surplus herring caught on the Yorkshire coast.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I hope that it will be possible to arrange for surplus herrings, landed on the North-East coast of England in 1947, to be processed into oil and meal at Hull and elsewhere. Herring catches are extremely variable, so I cannot promise that every surplus landed can be used in this way

    Eggs (Packers' Price)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that egg packers are paying above his Department's established price for eggs; and what steps he proposes to take to enforce his regulations.
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member knows of any case in which the price is now being exceeded, and will let me have particulars, inquiries will be made, and if the allegation proves well founded, the appropriate steps will, of course, be taken.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that the Co-operative Society, in Kent, are not only paying the normal 5 per cent. dividend, but an additional 3d. per dozen, and is he aware that I have a letter from his Department accepting that?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I thought that the hon. Member might have that in mind. I should like to tell him at once that it it perfectly legal for any Co-operative Society to pay a dividend on purchases to its members, just as it is legal for a capitalist organisation to pay dividends to shareholders.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that in addition to the dividend of 5 per cent. as I have said in my supplementary question, there is an additional 3d. per dozen given to the shareholders?
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member wants a further answer, he must remember that the Co-operative dividend is never specific on a particular purchase, but is a general dividend for all purchases made from the society.
    Mr. Bossom: On account of the total inaccuracies of the Minister in his replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again on the Adjournment.

    Canned Fruit
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Food what proportion of the estimated 2 lb. allocation per head of canned fruit will reach consumers over the counter; and how much will be diverted to catering and manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. Strachey: There is naturally no allocation of canned fruit at the rate of 2 lb. a head, or at any other rate. The fruit is being issued under the points scheme, and I repeat that the total quantity would give everybody just below 2 lb. a head if every consumer bought an exactly equal quantity, which of course they will not. Caterers may buy, in exchange for points, in the same way as ordinary consumers. My guess is that they will take up some 10 per cent.
    Major Lloyd; Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on this sub-
    1156
    ject some time ago was interpreted by the country as a whole that there would be 2 lb. per head available of canned fruit, and that, in fact, the public have been grossly misled, because there is nothing of the kind, and a very large amount is going for catering and manufacturing purposes?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The public will not have been misled. The amount available is not 2 lb. per head, but as I originally stated, just under 2 lb., and catering establishments will take up just under 10 per cent., and why should they not?

    Danish Produce (Prices)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the continued dissatisfaction of the Danish people with the prices paid by this country for Danish agricultural produce; and whether, in view of the adverse effect which this is having on their ability and willingness to buy British goods, he proposes to review the position in the near future with a view to some modification of the existing arrangements.
    Mr. Strachey: I know the Danes would like to be paid more under the agreement of July, 1946. That agreement, however, gave Denmark solid assurances of a large share in the British market for her products for the next three years, and provided for a review of the prices at reason able intervals. I do not see why the arrangements laid down in the agreement should be modified. We cannot ignore the repercussions which would follow if we paid Denmark prices for her agricultural produce entirely out of relation to those paid to other suppliers, such as the Dominions
    Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how this policy of buying agricultural products below cost of production in the country of origin, squares with the Hot Springs Resolution, which this Government supported?
    Mr. Strachey; We buy agricultural products at the lowest price we can get them in the world, and if we deviated from that policy I am sure the House would censure us very severely indeed.
    Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether solid guarantees have been received from the Danish Government that a large share of their produce will be-available to British exporters?
    Mr. Strachey: The trouble is that the Danes are, at the moment, taking rather too much than too little of British exports. They are running up a very large bill indeed, and we are rather anxious about payment of that bill.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is this an example of how bulk buying is to the advantage of the British public?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Strachey: I think Members opposite are cheering a little too early. My hon. Friend had in mind that it is producing much cheaper goods.

    Java and Sumatra (Supplies)
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the Minister of Food (1) what stocks of foodstuffs are at present held in the interior of Java and Sumatra; and what steps are being taken to bring them into use;
    (2) if he proposes to offer assistance to the Indones an Republican Government-to bring out surplus stocks of food held in the interior of Java and Sumatra.
    Mr. Strachey: I am very interested in the possibility of obtaining supplies of food from Java and Sumatra. We are in touch with interests which previously carried on business in these areas. We do not yet know what is actually available.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the chief complaint seems to be the lack of shipping with which to bring the food away? Can he help in that direction?
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Can the Minister give us a liquid assurance that we shall get a fair proportion of the tea in Java, which is so badly needed in this country?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think shipping is the difficulty. The difficulty is that until the Dutch Government can come to a decision on the matter of settlement, any large-scale trade will hardly begin. As regards tea, we are most anxious to get the largest possible share from Java. We are not waiting on political events, but are in touch with the interests on the spot.

    Lettuces (Containers)
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Food how many non-returnable containers suitable for the
    1158
    distribution of lettuces will be available to British growers in time for next season's crop.
    Mr. Strachey: Timber is so scarce that there is no early prospect of getting non-returnable containers for lettuces.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: is the Minister aware that last year a very great quantity of home grown lettuces remained unsold owing to there being returnable containers, when imported lettuces, in non-returnable containers, were able to be sold? Is he in favour of handicapping the home produced market in this fashion?
    Mr. Strachey: I am not in favour of a world timber shortage, and we are doing everything we can to overcome it.
    Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Is it harder for us to get timber than for the people from whom we export?
    Mr. Strachey: In many cases the containers come from people who have their own timber resources, but in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade we shall do all we can to get more timber.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the interests of home food production, will the Minister look into the rumours that are floating around that we are actually exporting materials for these containers to some of our competitors?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Tinned Food Store
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that all the tinned food stored in the Cheddar Gorge is still in a fit condition for human consumption; and what steps he is taking to ensure the use, as food for pigs, of any proportion of this food which may from time to time cease to be suitable for human food, but still be fit for. pig-food.
    Mr. Strachey: My Department is not storing any tinned foodstuffs in the Cheddar Gorge.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that there is a very large quantity of food being stored by the Government in Cheddar Gorge, and that a lot of it is being wasted? It is going bad for lack of attention.
    Mr. Strachey: I made inquiries of my colleagues on this matter, and the nearest I could get to it was that the War Department and the N.A.A.F.I. have supply depots some five miles from Cheddar Gorge.
    Mr. Bossom: But a tremendous quantity of food is being wasted there. It is not being looked after by anybody.

    Dried Fruit
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Food whether, in reviewing the distribution of points-rationed foodstuffs, he will consider increasing the allocation of dried fruit to small retailers, since the present allocation of dried fruit to small grocers in country districts in Dorset is 1 oz. per ration book, whereas large multiple. stores with no registered customers are allowing their customers to buy up to 11b. per head.
    Mr. Strachey: Allocations to all grocers are based on sugar registration; and to fruiterers and dried fruit specialists without registered customers on their prewar trade. Our allocations have never been less than 4 oz. per registration for four weeks, and if any retailer has not been offered the right amount, I shall be glad to have particulars.
    Mr. Walkden: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the Greek crop of currants? We expected them, but we have not seen any yet.
    Mr. Strachey: We are making considerable purchases of currants in Greece, although not as many as we would like.

    Cheese Ration
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food whether he will give an assurance that there will be no cut in the cheese ration this winter.
    Mr. Strachey: If there were to be any change in the cheese ration I should immediately inform the House.
    Mr. Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what exactly are our stocks at the moment, and for how long our cheese ration is ensured?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I would not disclose the stocks of cheese for reasons which I have often given to the House, nor do I think that we should be drawn into speculations on the possibilities of a change in the ration.
    Mr. Jennings: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has been making speculations almost every day? A short time ago he said that there would be a cut in the bread ration if we were not careful.
    Mr. Strachey: I said nothing of the sort. I made a statement warning the House of certain difficulties in the United States putting certain of our rations into jeopardy, but I did not include cheese in that list.
    Mr. Jennings: Why not?
    Mr. Strachey: Because it was not in jeopardy.

    German Zone Fusion (Effect)
    Mr. Harrisonasked the Minister of Food to what extent the consolidation plans envisaged in the agreement concerning the British and American zones of occupation in Germany will, by the utilisation of our dollar resources, adversely affect our ability to procure supplementary foodstuffs for the people of this country.
    Mr. Stracbey: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on this matter given to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) and Mile End (Mr. Piratin), on Monday last.

    Persons Living Alone
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Food if some concession by way of an additional ration can be made to persons who live alone and who are suffering hardship now that practically everything has been up-pointed.
    Mr. Strachey: I fully appreciate the difficulties of people living alone, but I am afraid that it would not be possible to vary the amount of the rations according to the size or circumstances of the household.
    Mr. Lipson: Cannot some arrangement be made through local food offices to help people who are living alone to secure additional supplies?
    Mr. Strachey: I realise that this is a very real problem. The difficulty is one of definition because an individual is living alone at one time and not at another. [Laughter.] We ought not to

    1161
    joke on this subject because it is serious. It is very difficult, from an administrative point of view, to pick out an individual and say that he is living alone. Circumstances vary from time to time and in degree, but I should be very grateful if the hon. Member can make any workable suggestions on the matter.

    Per Head Consumption
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food if he will indicate the percentage decline per head of the population of Great Britain in the annual consumption now and in 1938 of fresh meat, canned meat, bacon and ham combined, of margarine, and butter combined and of milk.
    Mr. Strachey: Compared with prewar averages, consumption per head in the United Kingdom during 1946 has been 16 per cent. less in the case of fresh and canned meat, bacon and ham combined; 22 per cent. less for butter and margarine; but 43 per cent. more for liquid milk.

    Slaughter House, Gravesend
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the conditions prevailing at the slaughterhouse at Brewhouse Yard, Gravesend, which is controlled and operated by his Department; that the sanitary inspector is unable to make proper inspection; and, in view of the fact that these conditions were brought to his notice as long ago as 29th June, 1945, if he will make a statement respecting the future use of this slaughterhouse, which provides the fresh meat requirements for a very large area.
    Mr. Strachey: I know there has been congestion recently because of heavy seasonal killings. These have already been reduced. The large Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society slaughterhouse at Plumstead is about to be reopened, which will greatly relieve the congestion.

    Farm Workers
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that farmworkers nave no opportunity of making use of British Restaurants; and whether, in view of the fact that these restaurants provide additional rations to many people, he will now reconsider his decision not to allow additional rations to farmworkers, especially stockmen, who work seven days a week.
    Mr. Strachey: Farm workers and stockmen get six times the normal cheese ration and 6 oz. of extra bread a day: this is in order to compensate for the absence of British Restaurants. I do not think we could add to it.

  SOAP (INFANTS)
  Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food if he will make the additional soap ration, at present allowed to babies up to the age of 12 months, available for infants up to two years of age.
  Mr. Strachey: It would take about 4,000 extra tons of soap a year to make the concession, for which my hon. Friend asks. In the present shortage of fats I am sorry I cannot do it.
  Mr. Austin: Will not my right hon. Friend make a slight concession? In view of his well-known concern with domestic affairs, perhaps he would attempt to do some washing without soap, and see how difficult it is?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can we assume that in accordance with the democratic principles of the Government the people concerned will be consulted before any change is made?
  Mr. Strachey: We try to do that.

  WEST INDIES

    Trinidad (Railway Staff Pensions)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the memorial, dated 19th October, 1945, submitted to his predecessor by members of the clerical establishment of the Trinidad Government Railway, with regard to their pension disabilities under the provident fund scheme; and how soon he expects to be able to reply to this memorial.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. As the matters raised in the memorial may be affected by the recommendations of a committee now considering the part to be played by the railway in the future transport system of the Colony, I am unable to reach a final conclusion upon them until I have the report of that committee. I have asked the Governor to inform the petitioners in that sense.

    Barbados (Racial Discrimination)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the address recently proposed in the Barbados House of Representatives urging that officials in the colonial service be forbidden to belong to clubs, or other associations which impose a colour bar; and if he will recommend to all colonial governments the introduction of regulations in this sense.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed that although notice was given in the Barbados House of Assembly of the intention to move an address asking the Governor to introduce legislation to prohibit Government officials from membership of, or participation in the activities of hotels, clubs, etc., which maintain racial discrimination of any sort, no address had been moved by the end of the recent Session. I have sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend has in mind, and have already taken steps with a view to having the question of racial and colour discrimination studied by Colonial Governments.
    Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Will the Minister not agree that a club is a perfectly free association of people who wish to associate, and, therefore, it need not take anybody, whether of one colour or another? It applies both ways.
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is not a question for me. The point raised was the practice of colour discrimination, and a motion which it was suggested should be moved in the Assembly.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Lunatics
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision exists in British territories in Africa for the treatment of criminal and non-criminal lunatics; and whether he will appoint a committee to investigate, report, and to make recommendations regarding the present incidence and treatment of mental deficiency within the African territories
    Mr. Creech Jones: The general policy in the African Colonial territories is to treat criminal and non-criminal lunatics as mental patients without differentiation. Dr. Cunyngham Brown, formerly a Com-
    1164
    missioner of the Board of Control, visited the West African territories before the war to advise on the care and treatment of lunatics. Action upon his recommendations was delayed by the war, but they are now receiving consideration In their development plans, the African Governments generally are making considerably increased provision for mental care In the case of Nigeria, an alienist has recently been appointed to advise on the development of mental health services, for which a sum of £520,000 has been earmarked. A psychiatrist is also in West Africa at present conducting an investigation at the instance of the Colonial Social Science Research Council into the forms taken by mental illness amongst West Africans. I should prefer to wait before considering the question of sending a mission to carry out further investigations in the African territories, until I see more clearly how the plans of the Governments are developing.
    Mr. Erroll: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what progress is being made towards the elimination of the practice at present prevalent in certain African territories of putting lunatics in the common gaol?
    Mr. Creech Jones: A good deal of attention has been called to practices of that kind, and I think that all the Governments in Africa are giving some attention to the matter in the arrangement? which they are now making.

    Lagos (Town Planning Scheme)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from the people of Lagos opposing the Lagos town planning scheme; and what action he proposes to take on this matter.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have received a telegram from certain chiefs and other inhabitants of Lagos protesting against the scheme and advising me that they are submitting a memorial on the subject. I am now awaiting this memorial and the observations on it of the acting Governor.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that there is local feeling in Nigeria that before we build public halls we should remove the slums?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware of the local feeling.
    Mr. Churchill: Would it not be an advantage to send the Minister of Town and Country Planning out there? He might introduce a Compensation and Betterment Bill.

    Industrial Enterprise
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps the Government are taking to encourage Africans to embark upon industrial enterprises in Nigeria.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is the policy of the Government of Nigeria to do what is possible to encourage and foster African enterprises. A Department of Commerce and Industry has already been established which will

    (a) give industrial and commercial advice to individual Cooperative societies and native administrations;

    (b) initiate industrial schemes with a view to transferring them to African enterprises when economically established;

    (c) encourage and advise all African industries, particularly home and village industries;

    (d) provide trade and commercial intelligence.

    A Local Development Board has also been set up to finance industrial and other development schemes by native authorities, Cooperative societies, planning authorities and other approved bodies.
    In addition, a ten-year plan of technical education, which will cost over £1,500,000, is being put into operation to ensure an adequate supply of artisans commercial workers and technicians for the industrial and trade development of Nigeria.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister relying on the United Africa Company, rather than on African enterprise for economic development?
    Mr. Creech Jones: We are doing everything possible to encourage African enterprise.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister make any protest against the action of the Board of Trade in prohibiting the importation of any West African furniture which is not cheap and nasty?
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister give an assurance that there is no threat of nationalisation to these industries in West Africa?

  PALESTINE

    Jewish Communist Memorandum
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the contents of the Memorandum forwarded to U.N.O. in New York by the Jewish Communists in Palestine, suggesting that an inquiry commission be appointed to investigate the British Army's operations in Palestine, since 29th June, have yet been forwarded by U.N.O. to His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. McNeil: I have no knowledge of such a memorandum.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the U.N.O. Secretariat whether one has been sent, and would he also bear in mind that there are a great many people in this country who think it is high time that H.M. Government should say something in support of their troops and not allow them to be subjected to these calumnious accusations by others?
    Mr. McNeil: I naturally made immediate inquiry of the U.N.O. Secretariat, but they have been unable to trace such a memorandum. The second part of the question therefore does not seem to arise.

    Jewish Population
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total Jewish population in Palestine.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The most recent figure available is for December, 1945, when the Jewish population was estimated as 579,227.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that the number of ration cards issued at various times during the past year would seem to indicate that, in fact, the Jewish population is very considerably in excess of that number?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no evidence of that.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the figure he has given is not more than nine times the population of Jews that existed in Palestine at the end of the last war?

    Jews (Exits)
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews in Palestine have applied for exit visas to return to the country of their origin or emigrate elsewhere; and what steps are being taken to enable such persons to leave Palestine.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Exit permits are no longer required for persons wishing to leave Palestine. There is no reliable estimate of the number of Jews wishing to return to their country of origin or emigrate elsewhere. No obstacle is put in the way of their leaving by the Palestine authorities.

    Naturalisation (Jews)
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews in Palestine have applied for Palestinian citizenship; and how many applications have been granted.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Since the date of the Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1st August, 1925, to the end of June, 1946, 103,604 applications for naturalisation certificates as Palestinian citizens have been made and 95,151 certificates delivered. In many cases these certificates also cover the family of the applicant, and the total number of persons acquiring Palestinian citizenship under them is 135,124, of whom 99 per cent. are estimated to be Jews.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the Minister give any indication of the average length of time these applicants have been in Palestine?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Not without notice.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say, first, how many Jews in Palestine have become Palestinian citizens by reason of being born there; and, second, what period of residence is required to found an application for naturalisation?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should want notice of that.

  CYPRUS (BEANS, EXPORT)
  Brigadier Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity of beans available for export from Cyprus during the past year; the average crop of beans grown in Cyprus;
  1168
  and what percentage of this year's crop has been or will be exported to this country.
  Mr. Creech Jones: About 45,000 tons of carobs. [Laughter.]
  Brigadier Mackeson: Is the Minister aware that the Question is about beans and not carrots?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Then I must have further notice of the Question. [Interruption.] It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that I said "carrots." I am referring to carob beans. I am sorry. Perhaps I can now give the information about carob beans.
  About 45,000 tons of carobs will be exported in 1946. The average crop grown is about 50,000 tons United Kingdom purchases this year will be approximately 25 per cent. of the crop.

  SEYCHELLES (FISHERIES SURVEY)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to improve the prospects of the fishing industry in the islands of Seychelles.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Funds have been provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for a fisheries survey of the banks in the Mauritius-Seychelles area. A vessel is now being refitted for the survey and will be ready to proceed to the area early next year. This survey is necessary if a fishing industry of permanent economic value is to be established.

  ALBANIA (BRITISH NOTE)
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give concerning the questions raised in the Note delivered to the Albanian Government.
  Mr. McNeil: As Members will be aware, His Majesty's Government delivered a Note concerning the incidents in the Corfu Channel to the Albanian Government on 9th December. In this Note, the text of which was published today, His Majesty's Government pointed out that they hold

  1169
  the Albanian Government responsible for the mining of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel on 22nd October, as a result of which 44 officers and men of the Royal Navy lost their lives. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government are demanding an apology and assurances that there shall be no similar incidents in the future. His Majesty's Government are also demanding full compensation for the relatives of the officers and men of the Royal Navy who lost their lives, and reparation for the damage suffered by His Majesty's ships.
  His Majesty's Government also informed the Albanian Government that, as this matter is of such importance from the point of view both of safety of life at sea and of the issues involved, failing satisfaction, they will have no alternative but to bring the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations as a serious threat to, and a breach of, international peace and security, showing criminal disregard of the safety of innocent seamen of all nationalities lawfully using this international highway.
  His Majesty's Government hope that the Albanian Government will recognise the most serious view which His Majesty's Government take of these deplorable happenings, and that they will, therefore, return an early and a favourable reply.
  To meet the convenience of Members I propose to circulate the text of the Note in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Eden: While I endorse, on behalf of my hon. Friends, the Note and the action which the Government have taken, will the Minister be good enough to keep the House informed of future developments? May I also ask him why it was not possible to tell us of this yesterday, since it is in accordance with normal practice to let the House know about these things?
  Mr. McNeil: We shall be happy to keep the House informed, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, better than most Members, if we were to keep the House aware of every diplomatic note which we issue— I am not suggesting this is of an ordinary character—and if we made that a principle, it would be a fair burden on the House.
  Mr. Eden: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the records, he will find that when notes of this importance
  1170
  are communicated, it is the normal practice to inform the House. Certainly, that has been done for many years. I only express the hope that this will be done, because these are matters of national interest.
  Mr. Rankin: Was any attempt made to inquire into or seek to find out any reasons on the part of the Albanian Government for these actions?
  Mr. Churchill: For murdering our sailors?
  Mr. McNeil: Our position was made laboriously clear throughout these negotiations—it was not one incident, but three incidents—to the Albanian Government, and the incidents took place in an international waterway. Therefore, it did not seem to be solely the prerogative of the Albanian Government.
  Colonel Sir Charles Mae Andrew: Would it be possible for the House to be informed of important' matters such as this Note, which was in the Press this morning, but was not available to the House until later?
  Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government are most careful with regard to the wishes of the House, and most properly so; and I will undertake that any further happenings in relation to this Note will be brought quickly to the notice of the House.
  Mr. Piratin: Will the statement circulated by the Minister include detailed evidence which gives the basis upon which this Note has been sent to the. Albanian Government?
  Mr. McNeil: Most certainly. His Majesty's Government would not have delivered such a Note without evidence.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend say what channels are being used for these negotiations, in view of the fact that diplomatic representation is not normal between this country and Albania?
  Mr. McNeil: We used the Albanian Legation in Belgrade.
  Mr. Piratin: The House, however, would like to have access to this evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I observe that hon. Members opposite do not want the evidence. They are prepared to trust our Minister. Could the Minister provide us with this evidence?
  Mr. McNeil: The evidence, of course, is part of a mine, and I hardly think the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) wants that. It must be sometimes possible even for the hon. Gentleman to believe a British man speaking in this House.
  Following is the text of the Note.
  His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been reviewing the recent incidents in the Corfu Channel ending with the serious incident of 22nd October, in which two of His Majesty's vessels were heavily damaged by mines with a grievous loss of life.
  2. The Albanian Government will be aware that during the war of 1939–45 some hundreds of thousands of mines were laid in the waters of the Mediterranean and North-West Europe. They will recall that in 1944 and 1945 the following areas of Albanian territorial waters were swept or searched by British minesweepers:

  Valona Bay—December, 1944.

  Durazzo Approaches—December. 1944: March, 1945.

  North Corfu Channel—October, 1944

  No objection to this action was raised by Albania or any other Power.
  3. Only about 20,000 of the mines laid in the waters of the Mediterranean and North-West Europe had been swept by the end of hostilities. In order to carry out the formidable task of removing the remainder in a co-ordinated manner, an international organisation was set up in November, 1945, by agreement between the Government of the U.S.S.R., United States, United Kingdom and France. The objects of the organisation were:

  (1) To use the available minesweeping forces to the best advantage for—

  (a) the clearance of fishing grounds'.

  (b) the widening of all channels;

  (c) the establishment of clear water for vessels, repairing important telegraph cable routes;

  (d) the clearance of areas containing mines dangerous to surface shipping;

  (e) the clearance of deep anti-submarine mines.

  (2) To promulgate information about mines and mine clearance to the shipping of the world.

  4. The International Central Mine Clearance Board was composed of representatives of the four powers mentioned above. On the recommendation of the Central Board, other Powers were invited to become members of Zone Boards. Thus, the Mediterranean Zone Board consists of representatives of France, Greece, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United States and Yugoslavia. Certain other Governments were invited to send observers, but Albania was not so invited because she possessed no mine-sweeping forces.
  5. As the Albanian Government are aware, the second of the two objects mentioned in paragraph 2 above was fulfilled by the issue of MEDRI charts and pamphlets by the International Routeing and Reporting Authority.
  1172
  The areas of Albanian territorial waters swept by the British minesweepers were included in these publications. Albania, together with all other Mediterranean countries, whether represented on the Mediterranean Zone Board or not, received thirty copies of these documents and a like number of all subsequent monthly issues.
  6. It was thus publicly notified that the international waterway of the North Corfu Channel was once again open to navigation and it an other swept channels, wholly or partly in Albanian territorial waters, were used by British and other ships in possession of these documents. In fact, until May of the present year, shipping of all kinds regularly used the Channel without hindrance from either Greece or Albania, the territorial powers concerned, in accordance with the normal rule of international law, which recognises that in peace and war there is both for warships and merchant vessels a right of innocent passage through straits forming highways of international maritime traffic.
  7. On 15th May, however, His Majesty's cruisers Orion and Superb while passing Southward through the swept channel in pursuance of their normal occupations were fired on by Albanian batteries fortunately without damage.
  8. His Majesty's Government at once protested strongly to the Albanian Government against this deliberate and outrageous breach of international law and maritime custom. They requested an immediate and public apology and an assurance that the persons responsible would be punished. The Albanian reply dated 21st May, was completely unsatisfactory. It alleged that the Commander of the coastal batteries had signalled the ships to move further off shore, that they were not flying their flags and that they hoisted their flags when fire was opened.' All of these allegations proved on investigation to be without foundation. The Albanian reply assumed that foreign warships have no right to pass through an international strait part of which is included in territorial waters, and added that the ships would not have been fired upon if they had been recognised as British ships.
  9. His Majesty's Government renewed their protest on 31st May, pointing out that the Albanian reply ignored the right of innocent passage, recognised by International Law, to which attention has been drawn in paragraph 6 above. Even if the Albanian Government mistakenly supposed that they had the right to prevent such passage, the procedure adopted for asserting it was contrary to the practice accepted by all civilised nations in cases where there are reasons for requiring vessels belonging to another power to halt. In this instance no warning was given and fire was opened with twelve live rounds not fired across the bows of His Majesty's ships but aimed at the ships themselves and falling astern of them. His Majesty's Government repeated their request for the punishment of the officer concerned, for an apology from the Albanian Government, and for an assurance that there would be no further interference in the right of passage through the Corfu Channel.
  10. In their reply, dated 21st June, the Albanian Government said that they had no intention of interfering with navigation on the

  1173
  open sea or in the Corfu Straits, provided shipping did not enter Albanian waters without permission or show aggressive intent. They reasserted the allegations made in the previous Albanian note and stated that it was not the intention to attack or damage British ships.
  11. On 2nd August, His Majesty's Government informed the Albanian Government that they had taken note of this reply, that they could recognise no right on the part of a territorial power to demand the fulfilment of conditions before entry was permitted into a recognised international channel, that they could not agree to give prior notification of passage through the Channel and that if in future British ships were fired on in the Channel, fire would be returned.
  12. On 22nd October, while a detachment of His Majesty's ships was proceeding through the North Corfu Channel, which as stated in paragraph 2 above had been swept, in October, 1944, two destroyer's, H.M.S. Saumarez and H.M.S. Volage, struck mines which had been laid in the fairway. The explosions caused serious damage to the two ships and a heavy loss of life. On this occasion the Albanian batteries did not open fire but a vessel of the Albanian Navy appeared Hying the Albanian ensign and also a white flag.
  13. On 27th October, His Majesty's Government informed the Albanian Government that in view of the serious accidents to His Majesty's Ships the channel would shortly be swept. On 30th October the Albanian Government protested to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organisation against what they termed "the violation of territorial waters" and "provocative incursions" by British warships. It was also alleged without any justification in fact that British aircraft had flown over Albanian territory. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government in reply to their intimation that minesweeping would shortly take place, received a note from the Albanian Government on the 1st November, protesting against the entry of British warships into Albanian territorial waters on 22nd October and stating that there was no objection to minesweeping provided territorial waters were not entered either inside or outside the Strait. Since the part of the Channel concerned lies wholly in territorial waters this statement could only be construed as meaning that the Albanian Government refused to agree that the Channel should be rendered safe for navigation. The note also stated that the Albanian Government could take no responsibility for the consequences if the minesweeping took place and would regard it as a violation of their sovereignty.
  14. The Albanian Government were thus attempting to obstruct the clearance of this serious menace to international navigation. His Majesty's Government therefore replied on 10th November, that the sweeping of the Corfu Channel would take place on the 12th. They informed the Albanian Government that the sweeping of the Channel had been unanimously recommended by the Central Mine Clearance Board on 1st November; they defined the exact area to be swept; they declared that none of His Majesty's Ships would be stationed in Albanian territorial waters; and they stated (hat the operation would be carried out in the
  1174
  same way as the original sweeping in 1944 and 1945 to which the Albanian Government had raised no objection.
  15. On receipt of this reply and on the eve of the sweeping operation, the Albanian Government addressed a further note to His Majesty's Government stating that while the Albanian Government did not in principle object to the Royal Navy undertaking the sweeping of the Channel they proposed that a mixed commission should be set up to determine the area involved. The swept Channel had in fact existed for two years and all the information published about it was in possession of the Albanian Government. Thus it can only be inferred that their motive in putting forward this last-minute proposal was to delay the operation of sweeping the mines which, as subsequent investigations leave no doubt, the Albanian Government well knew to have been laid in the fairway.
  16. The Albanian Government simultaneously addressed a second complaint to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting in strong terms against the action of His Majesty's Government in presenting them with a fait accompli. They denied knowledge of the existence of the Central Mine Clearance Board in spite of the fact that a request that Albania should be represented on it had already been put forward by the Yugoslav Government, doubtless with the knowledge of the Albanian Government. Finally they again declared that the extent of the Channel could only be determined by a mixed commission set up by the United Nations and including Albania.
  17. On 12th and 13th November the sweeping operation was carried out. Twenty-two mines were cut, two of which were taken to Malta for expert examination. This has shown that the mines were of German manufacture, that they were free from marine growth and that they still had grease on their mooring cables. These facts leave no doubt whatever that the mines were laid only a very short time before the date on which His Majesty's Ships "Saumarez" and "Volage" suffered damage and casualties. The condition of the mines has been verified by an independent observer who was present during the sweeping operation. Fragments recovered from H.M.S. "Volage" also confirm the origin of the mines which exploded on 22nd October and bear out the conclusions reached above.
  18. Ever since the attack on H.M.S. "Orion" and "Superb," the Albanian authorities have maintained a close watch on all ships making use of the North Corfu Channel. Thus in June of this year merchant ships passing through the Channel were fired on, and during the passage of His Majesty's Ships on 22nd October, the coastal batteries were seen to be manned. It is certain that no mine-field could have been laid in the Channel within a few hundred yards of the Albanian batteries without the connivance or at least the knowledge of the Albanian authorities.
  19. His Majesty's Government must accordingly conclude that the Albanian Government either laid the mine-field in question or knew that it had been laid. The Albanian Government has thus committeed a flagrant breach of International Law. Under Articles 3 and 4 of the 8th Hague Convention of 1907 any

  1175
  Government laying mines in war-time, and a fortiori in peace, is bound to notify the danger zones to the Governments of all countries. (This obligation in fact applies even if the zones in question are not normally used by shipping). Not only have the Albanian Government never made any public notification of this minefield but they have also made no comment on the continued issue of the relevant Medri charts and pamphlets. They thus endorsed a clear statement by the recognised international authority concerned to the shipping of the world that the Channel was safe for navigation. As a result two of His Majesty's ships have been seriously damaged and forty-four innocent lives have been lost. Moreover, this conduct on the part of the Albanian Government menaced with destruction shipping of any kind using a Channel which is a normal and recognised route for international navigation.
  20. His Majesty's Government demand that an apology be made to them in respect of the unprovoked attacks upon the Royal Navy, which took place on 15th May and 22nd October, and that they receive assurance that there shall be no repetition of this unlawful action. They further demand that reparation be paid for the damage suffered by His Majesty's ships on 22nd October and that lull compensation be paid to the relatives of the forty-four officers and seamen of the Royal Navy who lost their lives in consequence of action on the part of the Albanian Government which was an undoubted breach of International Law, constituted a menace to international shipping, to the safety of which the most callous indifference was shown, and must, in view of their knowledge that His Majesty's ships habitually used the Channel and claimed the right to do so under International Law be regarded as a deliberately hostile act against His Majesty's Government.
  21. As this matter is of such importance from the point of view of safety of life at sea and of the issues involved, His Majesty's Government must ask for an immediate reply. If no satisfactory reply is received within fourteen days of the delivery of this note His Majesty's Government will have no alternative but to bring the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations as a serious threat to, and a breach of, international peace and security, showing criminal disregard of the safety of innocent seamen of any nationality lawfully using an international highway.

INDIAN CONSTITUTION (CONVERSATIONS)
The Prime Minister: I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement on India. The House will have seen that the conversations with Indian leaders which took place during last week have unfortunately ended without agreement being achieved. As the House knows, the Government issued a statement at the conclusion of the conversations, but hon. Members will no doubt
1176
wish to have some account of the present situation.
It will be remembered that on 16th May last the Cabinet Mission made proposals which it was hoped would bridge the gap between the Hindu and Muslim points of view and enable Indians to frame their own Constitution by the accepted democratic method of a Constituent Assembly. In order to provide the most hopeful basis for cooperation in Constitution making, the Cabinet Mission found it necessary to recommend both the outline of a future Constitution for India and a particular procedure whereby the details might be elaborated. The essence of their proposals was that, while there would be a Union of India limited to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications, there would be opportunity, by the adoption of a particular procedure in the Constituent Assembly, for Provinces to form groups for the administration of such subjects as it was decided should be dealt with in common. To provide this opportunity the Mission proposed that the Constituent Assembly, after a preliminary meeting to decide the order of business, should divide up into sections, two of which cover the Provinces which the Muslim League chimed should constitute Pakistan. These sections would settle Provincial Constitutions and decide whether a group Constitution should be framed for the Provinces within the section, and. if so, for what subjects Individual Provinces would be free to opt out of a group after the first election under the new Constitution. The intention of the Mission was that the decisions of sections should be taken by majority vote.
Subsequently a difference of opinion developed between the Congress Party and the Muslim League as to the meaning of the Cabinet Mission's Statement on the question of the procedure within the sections of the Constituent Assembly, and it was largely because of misgivings in regard to this that the Muslim League withdrew its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission's plan at the end of July last.
The Congress view is that Provinces have a right to decide both as to grouping and as to their own Constitutions and that, therefore, the decisions in the sections cannot be by simple majority vote. The Congress, however, have stated that they are prepared to accept the ruling of the Federal Court as to the proper interpretation of the Cabinet Mission's Statement.

1177
It was mainly in the hope of resolving the difference of view on this matter that His Majesty's Government invited the Indian representatives to come to London. We had very full and friendly discussions with the Indian representatives, but I regret to say that up to the present we have not succeeded in resolving this difficulty. Consequently the Constituent Assembly, which was summoned to meet in India last Monday, is holding its preliminary session without representation of the Muslim League.
In the statement which the Government issued at the conclusion of the conversations we have said that we have had legal advice which confirms that the statement of 16th May means what the Cabinet Mission have always said was their intention, namely, that the voting in the sections should be by majority vote. This is the view which is accepted by the Muslim League and on the basis of which they originally accepted the Cabinet Mission's proposals. From their point of view this is an essential element in the plan because, if the agreement of all the Provinces within the section is required to the framing of a group Constitution, it is probable that the opposition of some of the smaller Provinces will prevent group Constitutions being framed. The intention of the Cabinet Mission was that, while an individual Province might be outvoted in the section, its freedom would be safeguarded by the right to opt out of the group after the Constitution had been framed
His Majesty's Government feel that all parties in the Constituent Assembly should agree to work the scheme in the way intended by the Cabinet Mission, but if the Constituent Assembly desires that this fundamental point should be referred for the decision of the Federal Court, such reference should be made at a very early date so that the decision can be, known before the meetings of the sections of the Constituent Assembly take place.
It may seem to hon. Members that these differences as to matters of procedure are of small importance in relation to the paramount need for securing a Constitution for India which has the widest possible measure of consent. The peaceful transfer of power to an Indian Government freely set up by agreement among Indians is a matter of supreme importance, not only for India but for Asia and the world as a
1178
whole. But it must be remembered that the representatives who came to London were not in a position to commit their parties and that the issues stir deep and passionate feelings. Time must be given for the parties, after full debate, to decide their attitude. It may also be that the subject will come under consideration by the Federal Court. In these circumstances the Government feel that a general Debate on Indian affairs at the present time would be in opportune and might destroy the prospect of a settlement.
I am sure I am speaking for all parties in this House in making appeal to all communities in India to co-operate in framing a Constitution which, because it is based on consent, will be welcomed by all and worked in a co-operative spirit.
Mr. Churchill: His Majesty's Opposition have shown over all these long months great forbearance and restraint in not raising a Debate upon India, but I must give the Leader of the House notice that we feel that a Debate must now take place. Matters are assuming so grave an aspect that it is necessary that the nation at large shall have its attention concentrated upon them in order that the issues which have to be decided shall receive their due need of public attention. Therefore, I would ask that the undertaking given to us for a full two-day Debate should be made good before we separate for the Christmas holidays.
Mr. Clement Davies: While it is right and proper that an authoritative statement should be made and has been made by the Prime Minister so that we might be informed as to what the situation is, might I point out that not only this House but throughout the country, and, I am sure, in all India and in the British Commonwealth of Nations, people are awaiting with the deepest anxiety the result—and I hope the successful result—of these negotiations? If they fail, the consequences might be so serious that I fear even to look beyond them. In these circumstances, white negotiations are still going on might I suggest that it would be gravely inopportune to say one word now which might jeopardise the success of those negotiations? Might I also point this out? I understand that the negotiating parties who came over to this country have gone back or are going back to consult with their people Until they have had in opportunity of doing that, might I suggest

1179
that any reference to a Debate might be postponed?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Prime Minister has, of course, said that which confirms what the Leader of the Liberal Party has said. The Prime Minister said:
"In these circumstances the Government feel that a general debate on Indian affairs at the present time would be inopportune and might destroy the prospect of a settlement."
We were hoping in the light of that that the Leader of the Opposition would not think it necessary to press for a Debate. I do not know whether, in the light of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), the Leader of the Opposition still wishes to press for an immediate Debate.
Mr. Churchill: It was not without grave reflection and consultation with my friends that I felt it my duty to ask for a Debate before we separate for Christmas. I still feel that that is so, and I should be quite prepared to be in my place when the time comes and give the full reasons which have actuated me in making this request.
Mr. Morrison: In those circumstances, that being the responsible request after consideration by the Opposition, I do not feel and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not feel that we ought to refuse facilities for a Debate. The House is in possession, and has been for some time, of all the information in regard to the Government's proposals for Indian constitutional reform. An undertaking was given some time ago that an opportunity would be given for a Debate on India at an appropriate time. We hoped that the Debate could have been delayed, but if it is the view of the Opposition— I nearly said the House, but I gather it is the view of the Opposition—that a Debate should take place, the Government are prepared to table a Motion for consideration tomorrow and on Friday.
Mr. Churchill: I certainly cannot complain of the manner in which the Leader of the House has made good, on behalf of the Government, the undertaking which he gave to us.
Mr. Gallacher: Could the Prime Minister say whether it was injudicious on the part
1180
of the Government to say that they would not recognise the Assembly unless all parties were represented, and does this not provide the Muslim League with the opportunity of holding up affairs? Would the Prime Minister not consider recognising the Assembly as it is constituted at the moment?

B.B.C. (BOARD OF GOVERNORS)
The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement about the appointments to the B.B.C. Board of Governors.
Sir Allan Powell, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and Mr. C. H. G. Millis, the Vice-Chairman, have asked to be relieved of their offices when the present Charter expires on 31st December. I should perhaps explain that when they were re-appointed for a second term, it was on the understanding that the position would be reviewed at the end of the war, and they both made it known to the Government that they were ready to retire at any time. The Government are grateful to them for continuing to serve for a few months after the Board was reconstituted earlier in the year in order that the new Governors might have the advantage of their wide knowledge and experience. I should like, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to express appreciation of the public spirit which they have shown in this connection, as well as of the great services which they have rendered during their long periods of office, and, in particular, of their contribution to the splendid war record of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Lord Inman as Chairman for a period of five years from 1st January next, and of Lady Reading as Vice-Chairman for four years from the same date. His Majesty has also approved the reappointment of the other existing Governors for further periods of from three to four years, and the appointment of Mr. John Adamson, the chartered accountant, to the vacancy caused by Lady Reading's appointment as Vice-Chairman. The purpose of spreading the retiring dates over a period is to avoid a situation in which the terms of office of all or most of the Governors would expire

1181
at about the same time, and the Government thought that the least invidious method would be that the Governors should retire in the same order as they were appointed. I need hardly say that this decision implies no reflection whatsoever upon the Governors who are being reappointed for less than five years. I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the party affiliations of Lord Inman and of Lady Reading?
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Churchill: Cannot the Prime Minister be allowed to answer for himself?
The Prime Minister: Lord Inman is a member of the Labour Party in the House of Lords. I am not aware of the party affiliation of Lady Reading, and Mr. Adamson, I understand, takes no active

—

Date of original appointment

Period or appointment for renewal of appointment as from 1st January 1947.

Lord Inman (Chairman)

…

…

…

1st January, 1947

5 years

Lady Reading (Vice-Chairman)

…

…

…

25th April, 1946

4 years

Miss Barbara Ward

…

…

…

4th April, 1946

3 years

Air Marshal Sir R H. Peck

…

…

…

4th April, 1946

3 years

The Rt. Hon Geoffrey W Lloyd

…

…

…

5th April, 1946

3 years

Mr. Ernest Whitfield

…

…

…

22nd July, 1946

4 years

Mr. John Adamson

…

…

…

1st January 1947

5 years

NEW MEMBER SWORN

William Ross, esquire, M.A., for the county of Ayr and Bute (Kilmarnock Division).

part in politics, although I believe he is a member of the Conservative Club.
Mr. Churchill: I should like to make it quite clear that I am not, intending to reflect upon the impartial discharge of their duties in the future by the distinguished people mentioned, but it was right, I think, that it should be known that they have party affiliations.
Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this Labour appointment means a change in Government policy?
Mr. Clement Davies: Instead of inquiring about political views of the people concerned, may I suggest taking a broader line? May I ask the Prime Minister to consider that in future Scotland and Wales might have a representative, as well as people who live in London?
The Prime Minister: I understand that Mr. Adamson is a Scot, and I suppose that Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd is Welsh.
Following are the details.

BILL PRESENTED
  MALTA (RECONSTRUCTION) BILL
  "to assist the Government of Malta to meet their liabilities for war damage and other expenses, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Creech Jones; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Ivor Thomas; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

BROADCASTING
3.55 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): I beg to move,
"That the Licence and Agreement, dated 29th November, 1946, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was presented on 3rd December, be approved."
Hon. Members will be aware that when the copy of the Licence and Agreement was laid on the Table, copies of the new Charier were also made available at the Vote Office. The two run together, and the Corporation must obtain the Licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts in order to operate wireless stations and generally discharge their duties under the Royal Charter While the Charter outlines the organisation of the B.B.C. and sets forth its objects and powers, the Licence merely lays down the terms and conditions under which my noble Friend the Postmaster-General authorises the Corporation to operate.
The Charter is the more interesting document, but this afternoon I must confine myself to the dry bones of the Licence. The new document follows the, same lines as the one which will expire at the end of this year, with a few alterations, and I propose to indicate such changes as appear to be worthy of note. The changes are few, because it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the B.B.C. in substantially its present form, and with substantially its present powers. There are good reasons for this decision, which has the support of the majority of the House. One reason lies in the fact that the major portion of the current licence period of ten years fell under the strain and stress of wartime conditions. It is, therefore, considered reasonable and fair to the Corporation that it should have a further term under stable conditions to carry out
1184
schemes of development which were laid aside in 1939, and to test the effectiveness of the wartime technical improvements as applied to broadcasting. As a matter of fact, the ten years since the Ullswater Report have been quite abnormal.
Hon. Members will recall that in the Debate on 16th July a good deal was said about the possibilities of frequency modulation, and there were those who suggested that it could solve at once our difficulties regarding the shortage of wave lengths for broadcasting. I should say at once that the B.B.C. were fully alive to the possibilities of frequency modulation, and that towards the end of the war—before the war finished, in fact, in March, 1945—they began experimental transmissions on very short waves. As far as the Post Office are concerned, they were using frequency modulation in 1942 on a radio link between Douglas and Holyhead. Special techniques applied to these very short wavelengths would in some respects be a means of broadcasting superior to the long and medium waves. One disadvantage, however, lies in the fact that new receiving sets, or adaptors for the present sets, would be required, but this has been foreseen, and discussions have been going on between the Post Office, the B.B.C, the Ministry of Supply, the radio industry and the manufacturers. I mention all these complications to bring out the point that it is obviously wise to give the Corporation an opportunity, without any undue disturbance, to get on with these developments, and plans have already been drawn up by the B.B.C. which may go a long way towards easing the wavelength shortage problem Our engineers are fully aware of the problems, and are energetic in their attempt to find a solution of them, though I must warn the House that it may take some time. I must also pay a tribute to the B.B.C. engineers, not in my own words, but by reminding hon. Members of the words of General David Sarnoff who, as President of the Radio Corporation of America, is not without knowledge of these things. He said that the performance of B.B.C. engineers in the war was remarkable, and he added:
"They are as good as any in the world"
Similarly with regard to television. Experiments which were closed down when the war began, were taken up immediately hostilities ceased, and today there is, in London, and nowhere else in

1185
the world, a regular, daily television service, available to the public seven days in the week.
The Government therefore desire not to do anything which might have the effect of holding up or retarding these developments. So it appears proper to regard this Licence as an interim extension of the existing Licence, and to restrict alterations as much as possible, except such as are necessary to give effect to the changes in the Government White Paper on broadcasting policy. On the other hand, balancing the need for a period of stability with the need for change which might arise out of any possible inquiry—to which the Government are not opposed in principle—it was considered that the previous term of 10 years was too long. Therefore, this Licence will run for five years only. That is the first change.
The next change to which I would direct the' attention of the House reveals the necessity for securing an affirmative Resolution for this Licence. The House will know that there are a number of general conditions to which the Corporation signifies its agreement in return for the Licence. Negatively, there is the condition prohibiting commercial and sponsored broadcasts, and, again, the condition requiring the Corporation to refrain from broadcasting any matter on a written notice from the Postmaster-General—a right which, by the way, has never been exercised. In the early days the B.B.C. were prohibited by the Postmaster-General from expressing their own opinions on matters of public policy, and that restriction still applies. There was also a restriction that they should not broadcast on matters of religious, political and industrial controversy. In 1928, that restriction was withdrawn, and the B.B.C. have continued to broadcast on controversial matters in those three categories with, I think, general approval. They have treated the matters impartially and most people, I think, would prefer to have more controversy rather than less.
Apart from those negative conditions there are positive conditions, one of which requires the Corporation to broadcast announcements from Government Departments, that is to say, such announcements as police notices and notices about foot-and-mouth disease and so on Then there is the general obligation to broadcast, dur-
1186
ing such hours of every day as the Postmaster-General, in consultation with the B.B.C, may prescribe, to home audiences and to listeners overseas. It is the final part of this last obligation to send programmes overseas that attract Standing Orders of this House Nos. 71 and 72, and that is the reason why this Licence must have an affirmative Resolution. In those Standing Orders it is laid down that all contracts for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond the seas extending over a period of years and creating a public charge must be approved by Resolution of the House. The Government have decided that overseas broadcasts shall be a public charge, that is, a charge to the taxpayer and not to the holders of receiving licences. Clause 19 of the Licence and Agreement sets out the arrangement for overseas services, both Empire and foreign. Hon. Members will see that those services are to be met by a yearly grant-in-aid, authorised by the Treasury out of such aids and supplies as may be approved and appropriated by this House.
In respect of overseas services, the B.B.C. will accept the views of the Government Departments concerned about the times and languages, etc. According to the White Paper, it is the intention of the Government that the Corporation should remain independent in the preparation of programmes. No Government Department wishes to do the work of the broadcasters. Each Department will give information on Imperial and foreign affairs, and it is accepted that the B.B.C. will give due consideration to the information received. During the war, our overseas broadcasts won for us an international reputation for honest presentation of the facts. The House will, I think, agree that it is essential to continue those services as an objective presentation of the British way of life, and British thought and culture. In Europe alone, the B.B.C. are broadcasting 37 programme hours in the day in 22 languages. The Government are satisfied that overseas broadcasts are widely appreciated. Very large numbers of B.B.C. programmes are re-broadcast by stations all over Latin America. A recent Gallup poll in France, showed that 17 per cent., or six million people, listen to the B.B C. broadcasts. From such indications, we are convinced that money provided for these services will be well spent. The fruits of this expenditure will be, we hope,

1187
the promotion of better understanding between the peoples of the world—
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the payment for services to Europe come out of the fund raised by the cost of licences?
Mr. Burke: I am coming to that. As regards the finances of the home services, both sound and television, my noble Friend has decided to revert to the prewar practice of payment by allocation of a fixed percentage of the net licence revenue. After consultation with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury it has been decided that 85 per cent. of the proceeds from the sale of receiving licences to the public—that is, after deduction of the costs of collection and administration expenses—shall be paid to the Corporation during the first three and a quarter years of the next licence period. Six per cent. will be deducted in the first year as against 9 per cent in the prewar period, and 85 per cent. will go to the Corporation as against 75 per cent. of the net licence revenue before the war. This figure has been reached after a study of the expenditure which the Corporation propose to incur during the period in question in the operation and development of home services and from the consideration of the estimated revenue from the sale of receiving licences. The number of licences at the present time is in the neighbourhood of 10,700,000, and the number of television licences is in the neighbourhood of 4,450, a figure which does not include many people who have television licences under the old 10s. licence, and will therefore be getting the advantage of that figure until their licences expire. It is further provided that if the income proves insufficient for the conduct of the home services, the Corporation may apply for a sum equal to an additional percentage of the net licence revenue.
Article 22 of the Licence and Agreement sets out another variation of the Licence, bringing the B.B.C. into line with standard practice in regard to Government contracts by requiring the Corporation to see that the terms of the Fair Wages Clause, as passed in this House on 14th October, are observed Another new condition is one to which the House will attach considerable importance. That is the new obligation laid upon the Corporation to broadcast a daily report of the
1188
proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. This is an impartial broadcast by professional reporters. Under the title of "Today in Parliament" it has, I think, found general approval, but its timing— 10.45 to 11 p.m.—has been criticised. That is hardly the fault of the B.B.C. but is due to the bad hours that we keep here, and it would be very difficult to compile a full and balanced report earlier. If we could get a "closed shop" here at a more respectable time, I have no doubt that the B.B C. would consider re-timing that item. The remainder of the conditions are, in the main, of a technical character—conditions which must be observed for the maintenance and working of broadcasting stations such as the height of the aerials for each B.B.C station, frequencies and powers, right of inspection, etc., and I do not think the House need be detained with those. Any alterations made in the conditions of those technical terms are merely intended to bring the regulation into line with modern requirements.
I, therefore, assure the House that none of the conditions in this Licence impinge on the constitutional independence of the B.B.C. in its day to day management and its programme preparations. It is the earnest desire and intention of His Majesty's Government that the Corporation shall maintain its flexibility, that it shall be free, not only to give the public what it wants but to lead in matters of public taste, and that it shall maintain its reputation for integrity abroad and preserve its independence at home. I, therefore, ask the House to affirm the Motion.
4.16 p.m.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: The Prime Minister's announcement of the retirement of Sir Allan Powell will be received with regret by all who have had the opportunity of working with him. The public owes a deep debt of gratitude to Sir Allan Powell. In the darkest days of the war he radiated confidence and cheerfulness, and was the sort of robust chairman that the B.B.C. then required. It was my good fortune, as Minister of Information, to see him almost every day. The Ministry of Information was not, perhaps, the most popular of all Ministries created by Parliament and we had many difficulties. Sir Allan Powell's arrival always meant that we had the most cheerful of visitors and one could always rely upon him to do everything in his power

1189
to give the Government the cooperation of the B.B.C. in the important war work that fell both to the Ministry of Information and the Political Warfare Executive. One of his greatest attributes was a lovely gift of courtesy, and a sweetness of nature that made him greatly beloved by all his staff. I am quite certain that if one has to run an institution of the size of the B.B.C. a reputation for kindness is aft advantage. Sir Allan Powell at no time tried—to use a metaphor of the Lord President's—to push anybody about. On the contrary, he was the embodiment of leadership through persuasion, and I am quite certain that he will be greatly missed by the B.B.C.
The Assistant Postmaster-General made a most agreeable and persuasive speech, and I hope to be almost equally uncontroversial. There are few more appetising subjects for Parliamentary debate than the B.B.C. It is a universal subject. I believe that most hon. Members on both sides of the House desire that the B.B.C. should be above the asperities and rancour of party politics. I know that some hon. Members opposite believe that the B.B.C. has a Tory bias, just as a few of my hon. Friends believe that the B.B.C. is run by Reds, or at any rate by the Left. Surely this is some evidence that the B.B.C. tries to be impartial? It is certainly condemned by all extremists, which is a testimony that moderation has always been the limit of the Governors of the B.B.C. If I find much to criticise in the Licence and Agreement which we are asked to approve, I am more than willing to admit that apart from a few and harmful changes made by this Government, the Licence and Agreement differ little from B.B.C. licences and agreements presented to this House by Conservative Governments. My criticisms, therefore, do not arise from any party bias, but from my conviction that Whitehall does not realise that the B.B.C. has grown up. When I say that Whitehall does not realise the B.B.C. has grown up, I mean that Conservative Governments before the war, and the present Government, have no awareness of the adult nature of the B. B.C., and that the Government are now very wrong to keep the B.B.C. in leading strings.
Let me begin by wading through some of the verb age of the Licence and Agreement. On page 5 there is a curious
1190
direction from the Postmaster-General to the B.B.C., which was referred to by the Assistant Postmaster-General. It runs:
"The Corporation shall broadcast an impartial account day by day by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament."
What an unnecessary instruction. Surely, the Postmaster-General and his able staff occasionally listen to the B.B.C.? If they had done so, they would have discovered that the B.B.C. have been doing this for a very long time. One of the first acts of Sir William Haley, on assuming the Director-Generalship, was to lay down that in the B.B.C.'s postwar programmes, there should be a day-to-day report of our proceedings. This was instituted with the opening of the new Parliament in August, 1945, and to Sir William Haley is entirely due the credit for this long deferred improvement I think, with the Assistant Postmaster-General, that this Parliamentary report is very well done, but I do not agree with the suggestion that the report is given at a wrong hour. I entirely agree with the Assistant Postmaster-General, and I am sorry that I cannot agree with the opinions of a former Governor of the B.B.C. and one of the most distinguished editors of our time, Mr. Arthur Mann, who, in a long letter to "The Times" this morning, made out a very able argument for beginning the Parliamentary report at an earlier hour. But we all realise in this House, that most early speeches in Debates are set pieces; the real cut and thrust of Debate often comes when we get nearer winding-up speeches. If the House of Commons, as the Assistant Postmaster-General rightly says, insists on sitting until 10 o'clock, B.B.C. reporters cannot be expected to give a balanced account of Debates until 10.45. Indeed, I wonder they are able to do such excellent work in the short space of time allotted to them.
I feel there is a question that we who favour the B.B.C. reports being given at 10.45 should answer. Is there a good audience for the B.B.C.'s Parliamentary report at 10.45? I am assured that over two million people listen to this report, and that the audience is steadily growing. Well, that is very healthy, an excellent development. If we are self-sacrificing enough to stay here debating until 10 o'clock, surely the electors whom we serve so well, may also be willing to put up with a little inconvenience? I think it is

1191
not often realised how hard working a class politicians are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and if the electors want to listen to our Debates, let them share some of our self-sacrifice.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: They have no Whips.
Mr. Bracken: When the B.B.C. was a baby—a small, squalling but useful instrument of publicity—the Government of the day, which I regret to say was a Tory Government—ordained:
"The Corporation shall whenever so requested by any Department of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Corporation's own expense send from all or any of the Sound Broadcasting Stations any announcement or other matter which such Department may require to be broadcast provided that the Corporation when sending such matter may at its discretion announce that it is sent at the request of a named Department."
Now I ask the Lord President of the Council to recognise that this direction is completely out of date. The B.B.C. is now the greatest publicity instrument on earth. No one agrees more than I do with the fine tribute paid to it by the Assistant Postmaster-General. He told us that a Gallup poll in France shows that 17 per cent. of the population listen to the B.B.C He has given us several indications to show that the B.B.C. is now a tremendous world force. So I say to the Lord President, that no Government Department should have the right to request and require the B.B.C. to broadcast its announcements. During the war, such announcements had to be made through the Ministry of Information, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they were made much too often and were generally turned down. The B.B.C. must not be looked upon as an appendage of Government Departments. It can be trusted to give publicity to departmental matters if they are really important, but Departments should not have the right to require the broadcasting of their announcements. I admit this right is not abused, even though the protecting hand of that loved and lamented Ministry of Information has been removed, but it might be abused and, in any event, it is completely out of date.
Of course, the B.B.C.'s only protection against departmental public relations officers is their right to add the signifi-
1192
cant sentence to any Government Department's announcement, that it is sent at the request of a named Department. Now a spate of named departmental announcements would certainly lead to a storm of public protest and I feel, therefore, that the Government are unlikely to allow Departments to have an opportunity of crowding the B.B.C. with instructions to broadcast their announcements. However, I suggest to the Lord President that this anachronism should be removed from the Licence. I believe the Lord President, who has very wide knowledge of administration, will accept my view that these instructions can be described as an anachronism, and I suggest to him, as a great reformer, that the sooner he gets rid of them, the better.
Now I want to deal with another instruction and, in some ways, a more objectionable one. On page 6 in paragraph (4) the Postmaster-General is given far too large powers to interfere in the management of the B.B.C. Let me read! the awful English of the Licence:
"The Postmaster-General may from time to time by Notice in writing to the Corporation require the Corporation to refrain from sending any broadcast matter (either particular or general) specified in such Notice and the definition of broadcast matter hereinbefore contained shall from time to time be read construed and take effect subject to the provisions of any such Notice or Notices which may have been given by the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General may at any time or times revoke or vary any such Notice as aforesaid. Any such Notice may specify whether or not the Corporation may at its discretion announce that the Notice has been given."
I assert that the Postmaster-General should not be entitled to give such sweeping directions to the B.B.C. We have listened to a high tribute to the Governors from the Assistant Postmaster-General. He has told us that the Government have no intention of interfering in their affairs, and that they recognise the independence of the Governors. I must say that the maintenance of a restriction of the kind I have read out to the House, is a direct contradiction of what the Assistant Postmaster-General said to us today about the Government's firm belief in the liberty which should be given to the Governors. A Governorship of the B.B.C. is a very great public trust, and should only be given to men and women of great ability and of character who certainly ought not to be ordered around by the Postmaster-General. Here is one of the

1193
most remarkable cases I have come across after spending many years in this House. The Government set up the Governors of the B.B.C. as people of high distinction. They told us this afternoon that these Governors are persons in whom they put entire trust, and they say they have no intention of interfering with the liberty of the Governors of the B.B.C. Far from it, they wish to sustain their independence. But what do they do? A rather unimportant Minister, the Postmaster-General—let me repeat the words, the Postmaster-General—is entitled to give orders to this august body. I feel that the Government should take out these sentences to which I have objected.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There is an ex-Post-master-General sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bracken: Yes. Sir, I am going to refer to that later on. The Lord President of the Council will agree with me that the independence of the B.B.C. is vital to the wellbeing of the nation, and must not be subjected to political, or other, pressures. The Postmaster-General is a politician upon whom senior Ministers may seek to thrust what I might charitably call advice. It may happen, for instance, that the present Postmaster-General gets a lot of unsought advice from the Lord President of the Council. I do not know anything about that. I have no criticism to make of Lord Listowel. I believe he is an able Minister, a worthy successor of the two ex-Postmaster-Generals who sit beside me. But I hold that no Minister in peacetime should have power to censor the B.B.C. programmes. Such powers of censorship usurp the responsibilities of the Governors. How can we hope to get first-rate Governors of the B.B.C, unless we trust their judgment? The argument may be put forward that some Minister should control B.B.C. Governors lest they take some rash action. The answer, of course, is that a Prime Minister does not appoint rash Governors of the B.B.C. He is the judge of their judgment. Alas, there has never been anything rash about the Governors of the B.B.C. Their board room has an atmosphere as encouraging to rashness as Frogmore. If the Lord President does not know what Frogmore is, I may tell him it is a royal mausoleum, and that it is no better than most
1194
mausoleums. By comparison with most of the Governors of the B.B.C, personages like the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Governor of the Bunk of England, the Director of the British Museum, and even the Coroner for Westminster, are prancing playboys.
There is a nasty little sentence at the end of the censorship powers given to the Postmaster-General. As I am expecting the Lord President to do a real job of work in pruning the Licence, I hope he will listen to the few observations I am about to make. This nasty little sentence enables the Postmaster-General to prevent the Corporation from telling the public that he has censored their programmes. This is a repetition, I think, of a condition laid down by previous Governments, but apparently eagerly swallowed by the apostles of progress who now rule over us. Apart from the fact that the B.B.C. is no longer a small experiment sponsored by the Postmaster-General, and that it ought not, therefore, to be censored, the Governors should surely have the right to tell the public that they have been pre-vented by the Government from exercising their own judgment on the contents of their programmes. The Assistant Postmaster-General will not disagree with that. He has told us today that His Majesty's Government have every desire to maintain the independence of the B.B.C. To strengthen the statement made by the Assistant Postmaster-General, I suggest to the Lord President that he should delete all the censorship powers given by the Postmaster-General. Instead of approving censorship by the Postmaster-General, or anybody else, this House should heartily encourage the B.B.C. to give many more opportunities for controversy. The B.B.C. should be a lively forum, where protagonists of all sorts of ideas can fairly, and fiercely, argue.
Mr. Montague: The right hon. Gentleman argued against that two years ago.
Mr. Bracken: That indeed shows that the hon. Gentleman's memory is not as good as it should be. No Minister has ever done more than I have to push the B.B.C. Governors into controversy.
Mr. Montague: On what?
Mr. Bracken: I will tell the hon. Member if he wants to know.
Mr. Cobb: The right hon. Gentleman was not very successful.
Mr. Bracken: True, too true. But let me go back to my point. As Minister, I was responsible for the doings of the B.B.C. and Questions were allowed in those days in this House about almost every programme that annoyed one side of the House or the other. I always gave the same answer, that I would not interfere with the Governors of the B.B.C. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) to think that I have suddenly been converted to the merits of free and fair controversy in the B.B.C. programmes. I have always believed in it, and, in my small way, I have done everything I could to encourage the Governors to give ample opportunity for fair controversy on the radio.
Mr. Montague: Within certain limits.
Mr. Bracken: The Governors, in their anxiety not to wound anyone's feelings, and in their inexplicable terror of Questions in this House—a terror referred to this morning by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Benn Levy) in an article with which I do not agree, but which certainly made one solid point, that timidity has been the ruling vice of Governors of the B.B.C.—the Governors, I say, in their anxiety not to wound anyone's feelings, are sometimes as prudish as the late Dr. Bowdler. They need constant reminding of Bishop Creighton's remark:
"No people do so much harm as those who go about doing good."
I wish to say something about the financial provisions of the Licence and Agreement. If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should be very grateful indeed to the Assistant Postmaster-General. For many years the hon. Gentleman and I were Private Members, and we sat together on Committees upstairs. I have always recognised his great tact, and his capacity for getting controversial Measures through without much debate, but the Treasury should be deeply grateful to him, both for the brevity and the content of his statement here today. I am quite certain that the Government were right in agreeing to the increase in the B.B.C.'s licence fee. It was an unpopular decision to take and I believe that arguments were used at by-elections against
1196
the Government for doing so. I wish to say that if the Conservative Government had not been so unwisely dismissed, I, as one of its minor Members, would have strongly supported an increase. The remarkable growth of the B.B.C.'s services to the public, the necessity for developing television—and television will soon call for further expenditure on the ground that the cover is inadequate—the general increase in costs caused by the war, made it necessary to increase the licence fee.
Furthermore, I hold that the B.B.C. should be enabled to offer more generous pay to all who work for it. And surely the public, or listeners, get their money's worth from the present B.B.C. charge of £1 per year. After all, it is only three farthings a day. But the B.B.C. does not get all the money provided by listeners, and here I want to remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of the beautiful piece of glossing done by the Assistant Postmaster-General. When he came to finance he talked in statistics, but I shall go into the squalid details of the Treasury's arrangement with the B.B.C. What does the B.B.C. get from its £1 licence fee? In fact, it gets a fraction less than 16s. What becomes of the rest? The Treasury takes a rake-off on each pound "for services rendered." Services rendered? It renders no service of any kind—
Mr. Piratin: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a Treasury rake-off of one pound. Does he mean a pound of flesh, or of money?
Mr. Bracken: They certainly get their pound of flesh. They also get three shillings out of every £1.
Mr. H. Morrison: There is a shilling missing.
Mr. Bracken: There is a shilling missing, as the Lord President says. I shall come to it in a moment. I think that the Assistant Postmaster-General has a guilty conscience about that shilling.
The Treasury, I say, rakes off three shillings from every £1. For what services? None. The Treasury renders no services of any kind to the B.B.C. This is by no means the whole of the story of Treasury rapacity. When I was at the Ministry of Information, we gave most careful consideration to the B.B.C. post-

1197
war estimates. It was made quite clear to us that, given a licence tee of £1 a year, the B.B.C. could build up reserves to cover the cost of television and other heavy development costs There is no justification for charging another £1 for a television licence. The money will merely go into the greedy maw of the Treasury. It may be argued that the Treasury should be entitled to tax the B.B.C. The answer is that the Treasury, now that grants-in-aid are ended, will collect, as it did before the war, full taxes on all money which the B.B.C. puts to reserve, or spends on capital development. Having forced the Postmaster-General to become the biggest profiteer this country has ever known by enormously increasing postal charges, the Treasury, with a song in its heart, is now making him fleece B.B.C. listeners, many of whom are poor people.
The only justification for increasing the licence fee was to make the B.B.C. self-supporting, to enable the Corporation to maintain a first-rate research department, a very important matter, to modernise old stations and build new ones. Some hon. Members who actually served in the B.B.C. in wartime will, I thank, agree with me when I say that there is a great deal of replacement to be done. B.B.C. machinery was used in the wildest fashion during the war; nobody bothered about maintenance; the machinery was given out to the service of our war cause. Therefore, it is necessary to instal new plant and equipment. It is also necessary, as the Assistant Postmaster-General has told us today, to give Britain plenty of frequency modulation stations I am glad he touched on that subject. I am quite certain that we need many frequency modulation stations in this country. And, of course, we want to push ahead fast with television.
Their Lordships of the Treasury, having grabbed 15 per cent. of the B.B.C.'s revenue, condescend to say, on page 8 of the Licence and Agreement, that they may be prepared to make some restitution if the B.B.C. has not enough money to finance its services. That assurance was given to us by the Assistant Postmaster-General. Just before, he told us that the Government regarded it as highly important to maintain the independence of the Governors. But can the Postmaster-General think of a better way of sapping the independence of the Corporation than
1198
for their Lordships of the Treasury to expect the Governors of the B.B.C. to come cap in hand to them, to ask for a little more of the revenues provided by the B.B.C.'s listeners? First Lords of the Treasury less scrupulous than, say, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) might ask too great a return for such cheap benevolence. The Treasury ought not to be allowed to get away with this impudent impost. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House will do their best to support me in making an appeal to the Lord President, to make quite certain that this Treasury rake off shall not be permitted. I do not think that any person with a sense of fairness believes that the Treasury is entitled to take three shillings out of every £1 provided by the licence holders of the B.B.C. Furthermore, to reinforce the point made by the Assistant Postmaster-General about the importance of the independence of the Governors of the B.B.C, I aver that it is a very bad thing that the Governors of the B.B.C. should become mendicants at Ministerial doors.
I turn for a moment to the financial arrangements made by the Post Office with the B.B.C. They were not touched upon by the Assistant Postmaster-General. Under the Licence and Agreement, which we are now asked to approve, the Postmaster-General, humbly following in the wake of their Lordships of the Treasury, helps himself to more than £600,000 a year to cover his Department's expenses in collecting licence fees. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General: Is this the actual cost of collection? Perhaps he or the Lord President will tell the House later, whether it is the actual cost of collection. If so, it seems to me to be a very heavy charge—six per cent.—for collection. Or does the Post Office also batten on the B.B.C. Can the virtuous Assistant Postmaster-General be concealing from the House the secret that his Department has joined with the Treasury, in helping themselves to the money of the unfortunate licence holders of the B.B.C.
Mr. Cobb: The right hon. Gentleman would agree that the virtuousness of our Tory predecessors was shown before the war, in that they charged much more than we are now seeking to charge?
Mr. Bracken: That, first of all, is an inaccurate remark. The Government, having agreed to the doubling of the B.B.C. licence charge, having imposed an extra £1 for television, are, as I have said before, great profiteers.
Mr. Cobb: But the percentage before the war was greater.
Mr. Bracken: It certainly was not—but let me go on. I wish I could have the Lord President's attention, because he may be called upon to answer my next point.
Mr. H. Morrison: I am trying to find out something else.
Mr. Bracken: One may be forgiven for thinking that the Post Office has something to hide because of the arrogant ruling given in paragraph 5, page 9, of the Licence and Agreement, which declares that any account certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Post Office, or his deputy, shall be final and conclusive for all purposes. Why?
Mr. H. Morrison: To save a lot of argument.
Mr. Bracken: There is nothing in this Licence to prevent the Post Office from piling up excessive overhead charges which the B.B.C. must pay. Does the House approve of that? The Lord President appears to approve of it. I maintain that the B.B.C.'s accountants should have the right to check these charges. It is utterly unfair that they should take a certificate from the Postmaster-General that the Post Office have spent large sums of money in collection, and not be given an opportunity of looking into the details of the account. I am sorry to have taken up so much time in talking about the finances of the B.B.C. I had to do so in view of the instructions given to the Assistant Postmaster-General, by the Treasury, not to speak too long on financial matters, because they certainly do not bear examination. It is essential that the B.B.C. should have adequate revenues for developing the services which the public expect of it. I hold that it is absolutely important that the B.B.C. should be self-supporting. The independence of the B.B.C, the quality of its administration and its continuity are prejudiced, if it must rely on grants-in-aid to meet its needs.
1200
I will now say a word about the question of continuity. I can see no reason for halving the normal period of the Charter. A lame excuse was given by the Assistant Postmaster-General. He went into no details upon this important decision. I maintain that by halving the period of the Charter, this House discourages the staff of the B.B.C. The decision also discourages the Corporation from making long-term arrangements. In fact, it is a premium on short-sightedness.
Let me now make a short digression on Governors' pay. The Prime Minister today paid a copious tribute to the Governors of the B.B.C, particularly to Sir Allan Powell. He spoke about the B.B.C.'s great services in the war. When the Treasury is rolling out the pork barrel to the directors of every newly nationalised industry, why should they cut the pay of men and women bearing great responsibilities as Governors of the B.B.C, thus rating their services far below those of members of the Steel Board? The Lord President can contradict me if he thinks I am inaccurate. I think members of the Steel Board, who have very little to do at present, are paid £1,000 a year. If we could only discover what is paid to the chairmen and members of the regional coal boards, we would discover that it was a good deal more than £1,000 a year. I say, therefore, that it is very unfair of the Government to cut the pay of the Governors of the B.B.C. How odd it is that the Prime Minister should come to the Box today to read out a tribute to these Governors, and that at the same time the Treasury, probably aided by the Lord President of the Council, should cut their pay. Here perhaps I may address a few words to the Lord President. He is, I think, the field marshal of public relations officers in this new Government. He rules over them, and he makes quite certain that their numbers are always being increased. In fact, if the Lord President has his way, before this Government go out of office, there will be more public relations officers in Whitehall than there were members of the National Fire Service. [Interruption.] The Lord President says that they receive a quarter of the pay.
Mr. H. Morrison: I never said a word. Someone said that they do a quarter of the work.
Mr. Bracken: During the war, the Governors of the B.B.C. gave up a great deal of their time to the affairs of the Corporation, and I think they should still do so. I think it is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that the Governors should only attend a monthly or weekly board meeting. I think the Governors should take a great interest in the affairs of the B.B.C., provided always they do not interfere in the details of management. I feel that the Lord President and his colleague have done an injury to the Governors by cutting their pay to a much lower level than that received by the Lord President's public relations officers who, after all, are only paper chasing in Fleet Street or in the B.B.C. office.
This Licence and Agreement is a niggling affair. Its authors look on the B.B.C. as if it were a mere distributor of electricity, rather than one of the great creative forces of our time. It is now 20 years since the B.B.C. was incorporated by Royal Charter. In that short time it has become the most powerful of broadcasting organisations in the world. What is more important, it is the most honoured of them all. How it is trusted everywhere: how large a part of the world is in its debt for manifold services to the cause of freedom during the worst of wars. The B.B.C. makes no claim to perfection. It is occasionally foolish and often boring, but, taking it all in all, we should be very proud of it. The B.B.C. has become one of the Estates of the Realm—an ever-growing spiritual and cultural influence and one of the most trusted news-givers of our time. Alas, it is still true to say that a joke in its mouth is often no laughing matter. But despite its defects, the B.B.C. is the best instrument we have to present our way of life to the world. It comes of age next year. How astonishing are its achievements. No other great British institution has risen to greatness with such swiftness. Let us give credit where credit is due—to the abilities, the resourcefulness and the abiding sense of fairness of the many men and women who have served the B.B.C. with rare devotion. They well deserve all the support this House can give them.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. Mallalieu: I think hon. Members on this side of the House will find a surprising amount with which to agree in what the right hon. Gentleman
1202
the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has just said, and, perhaps, particularly in the earlier part of his speech. I agree that the B.B.C. should be above the asperities of party politics, and, too, beyond the restrictions of political pressure. I look upon it as being, among other things, a great medium for the dissemination of ideas, and, like the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I would certainly like to see it used for that purpose as freely as possible. I am quite certain that all hon. Members on this side of the House will welcome the effort which the right hon. Gentleman did make, and which he proposes to go on making in the future, to secure more and more discussion of ideas and more and more controversial discussions from the B.B.C.
But the right hon. Gentleman himself agreed that his efforts towards that end in the past had not been very successful, and I am afraid that is true. The reason why his efforts were not successful, in my opinion, and the reason why, even today, we still do not get a great deal of controversy from the B.B.C. is not solely the reason—that of timidity—which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I think there is another reason—the way in which the B.B.C. uses the Licence and Charter granted to it in the past and which we are discussing at the present time. So far as controversy is concerned, the B.B.C. works on this principle. They set up a body of men who look reasonably at public affairs, and try to decide what is the fair way of representing the opinions of various groups on those affairs. They try to make a reasoned judgment. The difficulty of that procedure, as it is carried out at the present time, seems to me to be that any one group of men trying to form a judgment may be wrong, or may be subjected to pressure of one kind or another, and the only way in which we could get better judgments, or to avoid mistakes of judgment, is to have not one body of men trying to select the speakers who will take part in controversy, but to have several bodies of men, and that, in turn, comes down to the question of how this Licence, when it is given to the B.B.C, shall be operated.
In the White Paper, in paragraph (d) on page 4, it is stated that the B.B.C. shall—
"exercise such Licence or Licences as aforesaid in such manner, for such purposes and

1203
by such means and methods as may from time to time be agreed with Our Postmaster-General."
I would like to see the Postmaster-General, with the B.B.C., coming to an agreement to use these Licences for operating stations in some such way as this. Instead of having one Corporation doing all the broadcasting, they should try to set up three or four sub-corporations, all acting independently of each other, providing entirely separate services, and in every way behaving as independent sub-corporations. I believe that, in that way, it would be possible to achieve the end which everyone desires—far greater freedom of ideas and far greater freedom of discussion of controversial issues—if we had, not one B.B.C., but four. It could be done without legislation, simply by a change in the way in which these Licences have been worked in the past. I think that the present broadcasting organisation is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and it is for that reason that, in contrast to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I welcome the fact that the life of the Charter is to be reduced from ten to five years. The existing organisation is rotten, and the longer it lasts the worse it will be. Thus, cutting its life is, to that extent, an improvement. I hope that, by the time the five years have passed, we shall have reached a way of conducting our broadcasting which, in many respects, will be different from the one we have at the present time.
Mr. H. Morrison: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I interrupt? He means, I presume, that these three or four independent sub-corporations would be independent of each other and free to settle their own broadcasting programmes?
Mr. Mallalieu: Yes. The only way in which they would be in any way dependent would be in the direction of finance, and I believe that the best method of finance, if I am in Order in discussing this, would be to make the fullest possible use of the Listener Research Organisation at the present time.
Mr. Baxter: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about breaking up the corporation into four sections, but does he visualise what I think would be a very difficult point? Would each broadcasting sub-corporation start to compete against the others, in the
1204
matter of wages and fees? How would that be arranged?
Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think it would be necessary to have that sort of competition, or that it would be desirable to have it; they would be competing more in the field of ideas. They would have entirely separate staffs, free to develop their own ideas separately in each corporation, subject only to the financial condition I was about to touch on. If one set of men proved particularly successful, they would begin to attract more and more listeners to that programme, and that brings me to the point which I was about to develop. If we made use of the Listener Research Organisation, we could find out how many listeners were listening to one programme and how few to another. We should then make the amount of money given to each corporation each year from licence fees dependent upon the number of listeners which each received, as disclosed through the Listener Research Bureau.
I want to cover another point about the restrictions to which the B.B.C. seems to me to be subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth mentioned one or two, as they appeared to him, and I must say that I agree with him about one of them, but there are other restrictions which have never been published, so far as I can find out, though they are restrictions that become pretty obvious from time to time. It seems to me that the entertainments industry and my own industry, that of newspapers, regard the British Broadcasting Corporation with the utmost hostility. It has very often happened that the entertainments industry has refused permission to the B.B.C. to broadcast, say, a Command Performance, and I suspect, though I do not know whether this is true, that the Football Association, or those who control football, discourage the B.B.C. from broadcasting football because it might interfere with the attendance at the games. I am certain, from my own knowledge, that the B.B.C. is prevented from giving certain items of news as soon as they are received. The football results on Saturday afternoons are known to the B.B.C. at 5 o'clock, but they are not put out until after the six o'clock news, which means an unnecessary strain on countless thousands like myself who are waiting for the results. I believe that the reason why the B.B.C. is put under that

1205
restriction, is in order to benefit the evening papers—to let them get out on to the streets. In my professional experience, and, I am sure, in that of the right hon. Gentleman as well, there have been countless occasions where releases by the B.B.C. have been deliberately delayed in order to help either the evening or the morning papers.
Mr. Baxter: Why did they do that?
Mr. Mallalieu: Because, if the news is given out over the air, it hits the sale of the papers concerned. The point I want to make in that connection is that I think it is time that the Government and the Postmaster-General stopped looking on the B.B.C., the newspapers and the entertainments industry as being separate, competing and always conflicting organs for the entertainment and information of the public. Let us stop catering for particular interests in watertight compartments and concentrate on the public interest. Let us treat them for what they are—organs for the service of the public. I believe that, if we could do that, we should get a far more effective B.B.C. in the future than we have had in the past.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: I once read an article written by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) in which he referred to me as a caveman. I believe that another hon. Member on this side was associated with me in that compliment. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will not be embarrassed by my saying how much I agree with all that he has said. We have obviously shared the same cave of thought, in many respects.
First, I want to say one or two things to the credit of the B.B.C. Recently I was in Hamburg and I was discussing with people there how something could be put over to the German people, so that they would accept it absolutely and without doubt. One of the Germans who was talking with me at the time said that the only way to do it was to broadcast it from the B B.C., London, and that the Germans had come to believe absolutely in the B.B.C. announcements from London. That is a great credit. In any criticism that we may have to offer about the B.B.C, I do not think that any one of us would give up his licence even if he had to pay two, three, four or five times
1206
as much for it as is paid at present. For music alone it is the most wonderful value. One can have first-class music, second-class music and lots of third-class music, almost at choice. These are great pleasures and delights. Nevertheless, I support the hon. Member for Huddersfield in his view that one of the worst features of the programme is its unadaptability, its averageness, and its bringing of everything down to a mediocre level.
We have already heard from the Assistant Postmaster-General and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), that we want more controversies, that we want items, as it were, with more bite in them. I see that the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) is here. Is there any reason why there should not be a debate on the air about the Oxford Group, with my hon. Friend as one of the protagonists and, probably, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), and, on the other side, Dr. Buchman, or an Oxford grouper from this House? But let us have that issue brought to the point. We are told about describing events in Parliament. I think that the news is very well done, but look at the lack of enterprise which we now see on the part of the B.B.C. Why could we not have had, the day that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) took his seat, a broadcast by him saying what it is like to make a Tory lose his deposit at a by-election? Then, perhaps, we could, in turn, have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who won the Scottish Universities by-election (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) to tell us what it is like to make four of your opponents lose their deposits. Why does the B.B.C. miss all topicality, and all vitality? Why does not Professor Laski go to the microphone and give us his views on the jury system of this country? I am handing out one idea after another, which, I can assure the House, if they were adopted by a rival corporation, would take away 80 per cent. of the listening public from the B.B.C. Something was said about the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) giving a discussion on the unimportance of being earnest, although I do not think that that was really a good idea. I see that half the Communist Party is present this afternoon. May I suggest to him that as next year will see the hundredth anniversary of Communism, as it will be

1207
exactly a century ago next year since Karl Marx—
Mr. Piratin: The hon. Member is out, by one year; it is 1948.
Mr. Baxter: I am inclined to be ahead of things. But why should not the hon. Member go to the B.B.C. and give us a review of the great benefits of 100 years of Communism in the world? At any rate, it would wake things up, and give us some interest and the opportunity of listening to something vital. The point which the hon. Member for Huddersfield did not develop, but which, I think, is very important, is that in prolonging the life of this Corporation for five years—and I completely disagree with my right hon. Friend that it should be for 10 years—we are once more confirming that, in the matter of broadcasting, there shall be only one employer. That is really a very serious aspect. The whole story of success, wherever one hears it is that of overcoming discouragements, and seeking an alternative gate where one is closed. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Benn Levy) is a playwright of distinction, although I did not like his last play very much.
Mr. Mallalieu: And he did not like the last criticism of the hon. Member
Mr. Baxter: I am perfectly certain that, in the beginning, he had enough plays returned to him with which to fill a trunk, until he found some management ready to give him a chance. As a writer, I may say that I have received enough rejection slips with which to paper a bedroom. But there are always alternatives. If I may be excused for making a very personal reference, I would like to say that, three years ago, I was invited by the B.B.C. to take part in the Brains Trust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not know. The whole thing was so dull and boring that, towards the end of it, I made a little innocent fun, as best I could, of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Fuel [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It may have been irreverent, but I did not anticipate his coming greatness. I have never since been asked to take part in the Brains Trust. No matter what brains may rush to my head, or what trust I may have in society, that Brains Trust has been closed to me for three years. However, I must
1208
say, in fairness to the B.B.C., that I was asked to take part in a debate with Sidney Carroll on whether or not there should be a national theatre for London. But that was broadcast in the Indian programme. I should have thought that India had enough problems on her hands without listening to that.
Here we have this "closed shop," which I think, is one of the most serious aspects of this matter. In preparing part of this speech, I intended to propose that the Corporation should be subdivided so that there would be some sort of internal competition whereby, if the responsible people at the B.B.C. did not like a play written by. a certain playwright—let us say, Mr. Val Gielgud—he could go to another broadcasting corporation. I do not want to labour the point because I know the difficulties of the Corporation, but most of us in this House are accustomed to speaking more or less constantly to the country; in the Conservative Central Office and, no doubt in the organisation of hon. Members opposite, Members are enticed by offers of audiences. I do not think the estimates are always accurate; sometimes I think they are optimistic, but one is told, "There will be an audience of 500 or 800 people," and occasionally we get an offer of an audience of 1,200. Think of the B.B.C.'s audience. Think not of a full Albert Hall or Queen's Hall, but of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. Think how often the programmes are simple, mediocre, undistinguished and tired. There was a feature on the B.B.C. programme in which they looked for talent. Do they look for a coming Gigli, Menuhin, or Laurence Olivier? Not at all. They bring to this audience of millions somebody who can nearly sing, or somebody who" ran play the violin a little, and they do it with such charm to the "stooge" audience that we feel kindly towards people who have no right to perform except at a Socialist Party rally.
I now come to a point at which I become curious to know how this speech is going to end. I see on my notes the words, "Competition; one director against another, one programme against another." I do not think that is bad. It is as good an ending as any, and it is short. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Huddersfield in asking that there should be competition. Let the

1209
B.B.C. realise what an audience it as addressing. Let us, at least, not associate it with that pale fog of mediocrity, which is the menace of the times in which we live.
5.23 p.m.
Mr. Piratin: It is almost a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I say that because, on the one hand, he has made a number of observations with which I and, no doubt, many others will agree; and, on the other hand, he has suggested —and let us hope the Governors of the B.B.C. will hear it if they listen to the broadcast at 10.45 tonight—that in two years' time the hundredth anniversary of the introduction of Communism in 1848 should be marked by a series of programmes dealing with the benefits, or otherwise, of Communism. That suggestion may be worth listening to. I personally would have been too modest to put it forward on this occasion, and, therefore, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
It is already becoming clear from the speeches which we have heard since this Debate was opened that there are some criticisms regarding the B.B.C. which are widely felt, with regard to both the present and the future. I believe it is felt that the B.B.C, in spite of its other merits, of which it has a number, has not satisfied the public who feel, as did the hon. Member for Wood Green, that the programmes require something new and lively. That is one reason why I had hoped there would have been a commission of inquiry into the functioning of the B.B.C. before an extension of the Charter was granted. We now find that there has been no inquiry, that there is just this Debate for a few hours, that the Charter is to be extended for another five years; and, no doubt, those on the Government Front Bench expect this Motion for the extension of the Charter will go through formally and without contention.
I do not think this occasions presents enough scope in which to discuss the merits and demerits of the B.B.C. I wish to address myself to a number of aspects of the question. In the first place—not the most important point, perhaps, and one usually left to the last—is the question of the accounts of the B.B.C. I do not wish to deal in detail with this aspect
1210
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) dealt with that matter, and I do not think I am qualified to answer his points. In any case, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has already been furnished with some bright answers. However, I would like to reter to what was said in the concluding part of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, concerning the accounts of the B.B.C. Let me quote from the Report:
"Moreover, the accounts presented to Parliament by the Corporation … are not as informative as they might be. In the result, Parliament is deprived of the opportunity of obtaining sufficient details to satisfy itself that the Corporation are so conducting their affairs as to secure that due economy is observed and that the public gets value for money.''
Mr. Bracken: What date was that?
Mr. Piratin: June. That was an observation of an impartial Committee of this House, furnished with reports far more extensive than we have of the B.B.C. I believe that a scrutiny of the accounts on the back of the White Paper is insufficient to enable us to discover how the money is being spent and whether it is being spent wisely.
With regard to the Governors, I listened with interest when the Prime Minister said that two of the leading members of the Corporation, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, had resigned in favour of two others. I am speaking now without any regard to their personal qualities, because I am not competent to discuss them, but I would doubt whether these gentlemen really represent the British people or a reasonable section of the British people. Sir Allan Powell, the Chairman, is also the chairman of Briggs Motor Bodies, Limited, one of the biggest engineering concerns in the country and part of the Ford combine. He may be a good chairman of Briggs Motor Bodies, but that does not qualify him to speak for the British people or for any reasonable section of them. Likewise, Captain Millis is the managing director of Baring Brothers, but that does not necessarily qualify him to speak for the British people.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member cannot discuss the Charter, but just what is in the White Paper.
Mr. Piratin: I thought I could make these observations, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister referred to this matter this afternoon.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not for discussion now.
Mr. Piratin: Does that mean that any observations on the Board of Governors would be out of Order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, definitely.
Mr. Piratin: Well, I have plenty more to say. The third point, which now becomes my second, concerns the question of responsibility for policy. There was an exchange of glances between you and me just now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I was waiting to see whether or not I was in Order in referring to this matter. Let me give two examples. There is, first of all, the case of music. There are those who like so-called "highbrow" music, and those who like "lowbrow" music, but music is music all the world over and, in fact, we are told that it makes the world go round. Therefore, no one can suggest that this is a political or party issue. Yet friends of mine who are musicians, composers and so on, tell me that they cannot discover who is responsible for policy in deciding which music shall be played, how it shall be played, and so on. I am told there is a reading panel, but I also understand there is a musical director. The musical director will say that the reading panel is responsible; but, likewise, the reading panel will confer the responsibility on him. Those people who are attempting— as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green said and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) wrote in his article this morning in the "Daily Herald"—to get some publicity for their efforts, in the musical world in this case, do not really know what happens, or the way in which their efforts are judged.
Early this year, a bright suggestion was made by a member of the staff of the B.B.C., who has now resigned, that there ought to be a debate on a subject which was topical at that time—it had been made topical by Debates in this House— Eastern versus Western democracy. An hon. Member sitting not far from me will remember to what I am referring, and I think he can confirm it. The suggestion
1212
was that a Communist and a Labour Member should be asked to debate the question, die Communist evidently supporting Eastern democracy—which he could not do without qualifying—and the Labour Member supporting Western democracy—which, as you know, Sir, is not always the case. As soon as he made this proposal, up jumped someone who evidently supported the Conservative Party and said, "Ah, but the Conservative Party also supports Western democracy." Hence, he wanted a Conservative speaker. Then up jumped someone with Liberal traditions and said, "What about a Liberal?" It then became, in essence, a debate with three people supporting Western democracy, and one person supporting Eastern democracy; this being unfair and impracticable, the debate was changed to, "What is Democracy?" That confirms what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green. What could have been at that time a debate on a topical subject, Eastern democracy versus Western democracy, with some very useful points emerging, became a rather tame debate on a very wide subject indeed, which could not adequately be covered.
I mention those two incidents because I think whoever is responsible for policy ought to resolve it in such a way that the public get something which is really stimulating. I agree entirely with the observation which has already been made by previous speakers this afternoon, namely, the need for more controversy. It is really a question of having more politics, put over along the lines, perhaps, of the pre-election speeches which we had in 1945. That of course, was the first such experiment in our time, the previous elections having been 10 years earlier At that time, every contesting party was given an opportunity of having its spokesmen broadcast. In my opinion some parties got more than their fair share, but that is only the way in which I look at it, of course. On that occasion it was said subsequently, by one or two commentators, that far more people were influenced, one way or the other, by those wireless speeches than were influenced by the newspapers. People had begun to doubt the merits and veracity of the newpapers. Getting the information straight from the horses' mouths, so to speak, they were influenced by it—though perhaps not always in the way the particular horse wanted them to be influenced.

1213
I think that in this respect we could perhaps copy what goes on in other countries. I could quote a number, but I want to pass on quickly. I had one particularly in mind, where once a month a spokesman for one of the political parties goes on the air and gives his observations on political affairs during the current period. We do have something of that kind, but it is very often done by people who are not really official spokesmen. I think it would do a lot of good if we could have something similar to that. I would certainly support any ideas for having controversial discussions. I appreciated the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green, when he said that a debate on the question of a national theatre in London was broadcast to India. I likewise had a similar experience recently, when I had to debate, in a brief 18 minutes, with Dr. Joad—who, as hon. Members know, can even out-talk most hon. Members of this House—the question of Marxism, he saying it was wrong, and I saying it was right He ended up by saying that it was half right.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Did the hon. Member end up by saying it was half wrong?
Mr. Piratin: Imagine my surprise when, after I had undertaken to do the broadcast, I discovered—though it would not have stopped me anyway—that it was to be broadcast to what was known as the Eastern Division, which really means Asia. Of course, Marxism is very important in India, in China and so on, but really we were discussing things at home, and in many cases it would not have had any immediate significance abroad. I then asked, in an informal conversation which we had with some of the staff there, why we could not have such a contentious kind of discussion—because neither of us ended by agreeing with the other—for the Home Service. I was then told by one of the staff, whose name need not be given, "The matter was raised on one occasion, but it was felt that such a democratic procedure was better understood abroad than at home."
I now wish to deal with some aspects of the proposal which we have before us this afternoon, to approve the Licence and Agreement of the B.B.C. There are a number of alterations, some of which are improvements, on the current arrangements, and there are several things on
1214
which I would like to speak. Firstly, the Regional Advisory Councils. In paragraph 10 (2) of the Charter it is suggested that the British Broadcasting Corporation should make their own nominations. I believe we require some improvement in that respect. The Regional Councils have already been recognised, but if we look at the "Radio Times" we find that the individuality of the different regions is very largely lost. In region after region there is often a duplication of the main Home Service. I believe that the personnel should not be nominated by the British Broadcasting Corporation, unless there is some guidance in the matter. There ought to be some influencing of the nominations for the Regional Councils, so that they do represent the people in whose area they function.
The second problem I wish to put forward is this. I do not think this House can be content with the arrangement in the past few months, since the Ministry of Information was disbanded, in regard to the responsibility to Parliament for the British Broadcasting Corporation. In another place there is the Postmaster-General, and here we have the Assistant Postmaster-General. We also have the Lord President of the Council, who has to answer in the House on matters of policy. In actual fact we cannot raise matters of policy; we can only ask certain limited and restricted questions, and very often the answers are likewise of a restricted character. We know that the Corporation is an autonomous body, but the fact is that it must be held responsible to the public in some degree for what it does. Yet we are told time and again that it is not. I wonder whether there could not be a Minister—the Assistant Postmaster-General in this House would satisfy me—responsible for all aspects so far as the B.B.C. is concerned?
I now wish to make a few observations on the question of salaries, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth referred. The salaries have been decreased to £600 a year for the Governors, other than the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. There was some consternation about this in the ranks opposite. But the question is not whether it has been increased or decreased, but what do the Governors do for the money? As I understand it they are to meet once a fortnight to discuss major aspects of

1215
policy. They could not do more than that, anyway, by meeting once a fortnight. They get £600 a year. Recently, there were one or two slight differences of opinion about an increase in the salary of Members of Parliament from £600 to £1,000 a year. Whatever the merits of the output of our production, the fact remains that we do work very hard; and whatever the merits of the Opposition may be—for instance, in Committees, and in their weekly introduction of Prayers—the fact is that they do work very hard. From that point of view they deserve the money they get. I am not discussing the quality of the work; I am only discussing the quantity. I want to apply this principle to the B.B.C. Governors. I agree with the proposition which was made opposite, that they ought to be asked to do more than they do; and if they do it, by all means let them receive more. I do not think they can adequately carry out their job by meeting once a fortnight. We know what that means in actual fact. It means that the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman really carry out the duties, and that the Governors merely approve what is proposed by the Chairman. We should like a number of people really "doing their job, and really giving their attention to their responsibilities.
Now I come to the fourth improvement in the new Agreement, and that is in connection with the staff negotiations. In paragraph 22 there is reference to this, and it is to be commended. But I have some criticism to make, because this is a point on which I feel very strongly. I hope that the Minister, in asking us to approve all these arrangements, will at the same time give a guarantee that he will look into this matter again. We are told in paragraph 22 that the management will choose the organisations to be recognised I want hon. Members on this side to understand what is involved here, especially the trade unionists Not an organisation of the workers, not the workers, not the staff, but the management will decide which organisations they will recognise. They do not recognise the National Union of Journalists or the Electrical Trades Union. They are recognising the staff association with which they are closely bound I do believe that the Assistant Postmaster-General should scrutinise this very carefully If he gives us some guarantee that it will
1216
be reviewed there will be no necessity to press the matter further. Otherwise, I feel that Members on this side must insist that the workers there shall have the full right of organisation as they like.
My fifth observation is in connection with overseas services. The B.B.C. is given responsibility for overseas broadcasts. I want to draw the attention of the House to this: During the war, when the B.B.C. was under closer control of the Government—the Ministry of Information being responsible—people in all parts of the world listened to the B.B.C. as being the voice of the British Government, the British Government being the voice of the British people. Today, the fact is that people overseas still think along the same lines. People abroad think, when the B.B.C. announces a certain item of news, or a point of view on certain issues of the day, that it speaks on behalf of the Government. The niceties of the Corporation and the Charter are missed by millions of overseas listeners. Because of that, I think the Government must take some responsibility with regard to the nature of the overseas broadcasting. I believe that the principle of the Charter is mistaken. If we have made that mistake, the British people must suffer for the mistake their representatives, in their wisdom, have made; but why should overseas listeners suffer? I suggest the British Government have the right to concern themselves with the kind of broadcasting which is operated for listeners abroad.
I am unhappy about the five years' extension, not because I should like it to be 10 years, but because I believe that the Charter might have been withdrawn altogether. I believe that in this country we have to find our own way to a right kind of broadcasting system. We do not want a broadcasting system like that which operates in the United States of America. That broadcasting system operates to the advantage of the big corporations and capitalists, who can afford to buy the air and monopolise the ether We do not want to see that. But, on the other hand, we have to recognise that we, the Government, consisting of representatives duly elected by the British people, must have the responsibility for ensuring that the British people, in addition to entertainment—music, and so on—are well informed on the social, economic and political issues of the day I fully agree

1217
with hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like all points of view given ample scope on the air, but I say that this is the responsibility of the Government.
I believe it was a weakness in the Government not to take this responsibility, now that the 10-year Charter has lapsed, and to withdraw that Charter. I am sorry the Government did not take the opportunity of really taking the whole of the broadcasting system into their own hands, providing quality broadcasting along the lines suggested in the way of improvements in entertainment, improvements in the discussion of controversial matters, improvements in the dissemination of political news, and so on.
Mr. Bracken: Like the Moscow radio.
Mr. Piratin: Today we are discussing this matter, if I am under no illusion, in the British House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth and I were members of the Soviet organisation, we would discuss the matter in relation to Moscow. Here we are discussing the matter in the British Parliament. On another occasion I will give him the privilege of debating with me the merits of the Moscow radio.
Mr. Mack: On the B.B.C., I suppose.
Mr. Piratin: On the B.B.C. It is rather too late to open that matter now. The Licence is before the House for approval, and I give it my approval, which I am sure the Assistant Postmaster-General will appreciate. But I do ask him to look into that particular point that I emphasised before, namely, the question of staff negotiations and the rights of the workers.
5.49 p.m.
Sir Jocelyn Lucas: The B.B.C. have a deservedly high reputation for the fairness and accuracy of their broadcasts, but I wish they would show more sense of fairness in other ways. I refer to the requisitioning of private houses for their own use. In 1940, I think it was, they requisitioned Aldenham House for foreign broadcasts. This had been used as a residential country club for several years before the war at a rent of approximately £800 a year—a low rent, because the tenant had to modernise
1218
and place and put in bathrooms, and had to keep up extensive grounds and gardens, and an elaborate collection of trees and rare shrubs, which were the subject of a special memorandum by the B.B.C. The tenant, Colonel Watkins, just before the Coronation, added a new wing of about a dozen bedrooms, and got his lease extended, at the same rental, for approximately an additional seven years; the idea being to give him a chance to get back his capital outlay during this tenancy by having this low rent. In early 1940 Colonel Watkins, who had joined up, closed the club, which was fully occupied as a residential club, and let it to the Every-Ready Company for £3,500 a year —furnished—for the duration. A few months after this the Ministry of Works, acting on behalf of the B.B.C, requisitioned the house, and the grounds of some 200 acres, for approximately £800 a year.
Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. There is a very great and obviously growing tendency in this House for hon. Gentlemen to read their speeches; the hon. Gentleman opposite is reading every word of his speech. I do hope the debating quality that we used to enjoy in the past is not to be destroyed by this kind of thing. The hon. Gentleman is not debating, he is reading out a statement.
Mr. Speaker: It is not permissible for hon. Members to read their speeches, but I thought the hon. Member was refreshing his memory.
Sir J. Lucas: Not being a member of the legal profession, I have not perhaps the skill of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I was trying to keep my figures accurate, and I thought that reading figures was allowed.
The house having been requisitioned, the tenant's wife, who was living in a cottage on the estate, was given a fortnight to clear out, take all her belongings away, and get another place in which to live. It was just before Christmas, and I went straight away to see the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who at that time was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, and, with his help, it was stopped. The lady was allowed to stay there until the end of the war, and she is still there. He also got the rent stepped up to £1,500 a year, but the land—
Mr. Burke: May I point out, perhaps to save the hon. Gentleman from going any further, that the B.B.C. does not requisition any premises? That is the business of the Ministry of Works.
Sir J. Lucas: I am sorry if I am out of Order here, but, at any rate, the B.B.C. got the benefit and, having taken the land, chopped down all the grapevines and the peach trees, and planted tomatoes instead for their own staff, although they had not bought the place but were merely tenants. About a year ago they handed back the woodlands and the kitchen garden to Colonel Watkins, and the tools, which I understand they had requisitioned at 1939 prices, they sold back at the higher price ruling at the time. The grounds have been completely let down and the tenant is liable for damages, and that matter, of course, is in dispute at the moment, so I will not go into it or other charges I could make. The main point is that until I put a Question down in the House the other day the tenant was entirely unable to find out when he would get his property back, if at all. He could not take another place as a country club, because if he did he might find Aldenham thrown back on to his hands, so that he would have two places with only furniture for one, and if that happened he would be sunk financially. If, on the other hand, he does not know if he will get it back, he is sunk again, because he cannot go on with his business. Now that the B.B.C. have announced that they will not give the place up for the present—more than that we cannot say—and as the lease does not go on for more than a few years, I wish to make this definite charge against the B.B.C. Out of their enormous income they are prepared to save a few thousand pounds in avoiding paying what they should pay in compensation, because if the property is not handed back they will be able to deal direct with the landlord to buy it. Will the Assistant Postmaster-General give this matter his personal attention and see that this private individual gets fair play? He is a private individual who told me that he was prepared to lose money during the war, because his country was in need; but now the war is over the case has altered. It seems to me that the Assistant Postmaster-General should see that he gets fair play, which is all he wants I think he really deserves not only fair, but generous treatment, and if he
1220
gets it we shall then know that this land is still the abode of freedom and justice.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Bowles: In the first place I should like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas) and to explain to him my purpose in drawing the attention of the Chair to the fact that these Debates are really deteriorating into a collection of hon. Members coming here and making well-prepared speeches with hardly any relevance at all to what has gone before. I think this is a tendency that the House of Commons ought to look into. It may be perfectly true that there is a tendency on the part of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, on either side, to do a good deal more reading than they should do, and that therefore hon. Members who are less experienced feel themselves entitled to take advantage of what I think is a bad and growing habit which should be definitely discouraged.
Sir J. Lucas: This was the only opportunity I had to raise this very important question—whether it is relevant or not to what somebody has been talking about before—and it concerns this man's livelihood.
Mr. Bowles: I am not talking about the merits of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and that is why I am apologising to him personally, for having interrupted him to draw attention to what I regard as a growing malpractice in this House. From there I may perhaps go on to say, that one of the things I shall advocate in my few remarks does concern to some extent that same kind of thing. I shall advocate —it is not a new proposal at all—a Parliamentary wavelength. I want more and more Parliament to be put on the air. I want the dull speeches that have been made and read out, to be heard by such constituents of hon. Members as happen to be listening. I also want people to hear some of the flashes of wit, which we hear from time to time across the Floor of the House; I want these to be enjoyed by our constituents and others who are interested in Parliamentary government and its workings.
I dare say it will be said that there are objections. It may be suggested that if the proceedings in this House were put on the air all the whole time it is sitting, there might be difficulties because hon. Members would have a tendency to speak to

1221
their constituents. I really do not think there is much in that. Possibly new Members are slightly overawed to start with, by the fact that anything they say may be reported in the Press, but I doubt very much whether they really address the reporting or newspaper staffs. I do not think they are very much overawed by the fact that certain respectable members of the public are in the Gallery listening to our Debates. I think there is a genuine tendency on the part of hon. Members, new or old, to try to debate various subjects within the confines of this debating Chamber. Therefore I rather discount, to start with, any belief that it would interfere with our Debates if they were on the air the whole time. Quite obviously there would have to be some commentator who would give the name of the hon. Member speaking, as listeners might not have heard it. Big Debates in which Government and Opposition spokesmen are to take part would be likely to get a larger audience if it were known that, at half-past three tomorrow, say, a Debate was to start on India. There would be a bigger audience listening to that, than would be listening at a quarter to nine to some of the back benchers. I do not mind that.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Would the hon. Member also take the risk of having the Debates televised, or would that be going too far?
Mr. Bowles: I, personally, think that it would be beneficial, but whether the hon. and learned Member would think it beneficial, I do not know—perhaps he might speak a little less if there was television. I dare say there might be a difficulty in getting a proper distribution of microphones throughout the Chamber. There might be difficulty, for example, in the case of interjections, in the same way that listeners cannot always hear everything that is said on the stage when a play is being broadcast. It is not a new idea; it has already been done in New Zealand for many years. I think that the value of broadcasting Parliament would be—and this is why I have paid a great deal of attention to this—that it would stimulate the Press to report our proceedings better. We know perfectly well that there have been a great many excuses during the war, that with shortage of newsprint Parliament could not be better reported On the other hand, it is quite clear that some very
1222
much more important matters could be reported, even in the penny Press, if there was less tendency to sensationalism.
It may be asked how this would work out. Suppose that a large number of people, who were listening-in, heard a speech which they thought worth while, and they wanted to see a report of it in the next day's paper. Suppose they found that the newspaper had not referred to the speaker at all. There would then be a tendency for people to look around and find a newspaper which was reporting Parliament more fully. I think it would have a salutary effect upon Parliamentary reporting in the daily Press. I do not suppose that the Lord President of the Council will be able to give me an answer tonight, but I put over this view in all seriousness. It would be sensible from the point of view of getting people interested in Parliament, and from the point of view of better Parliamentary reporting. Like many hon. Members, I think that the Parliamentary institution in this country is more important than anything in the world, and that same love for our Parliamentary institution could be engendered in others in this way. I agree that a very excellent Parliamentary report comes from the B.B.C. at 10.45 p.m., and then we have the report in "The Week in Westminster" by various hon. Members on Saturday evenings. The more Parliament can be publicised, with the voices of Members heard, and, perhaps, later on their faces seen and known to the public, the better. The people ought to see their Government, and not only read what is said. I do not see any objection to having Parliament on the air from 2.35 p.m. until we rise. We should require a separate and additional wavelength to the other three wavelengths for Parliamentary broadcasting. I think that everyone would benefit if this were done.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: If I do not follow the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), it is because I am not sure that I should be in Order in doing so, because I gather that the proceedings in the House of Commons are not broadcast by a decision of the House, and by a decision of the Government.
Mr. Bowles: I would point out that the White Paper says that it will be the duty of the B.B.C. to broadcast fully the proceedings in this House and another place,

1223
and have it done by responsible journalists.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: That is a different thing from broadcasting the proceedings of the House, which the House has decided against, and, therefore, I do not think we can pursue the matter any further. I should like to reinforce what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), and make a further appeal, concerning the finances of the B.B.C., to the Assistant Postmaster - General. The Treasury are not now handing back 75 per cent., but 85 per cent., and they are keeping 15 per cent. instead of 25 per cent., but there is nothing to indicate in the White Paper upon what principle the Treasury are taking 15 per cent., or any other percentage of the net revenue sum. There is no justification for it whatsoever, because if the B.B.C. can be run on a basis of 16s., then the difference between that and 19s. should be handed back to the listener. Regarding the 3s., assuming that the B.B.C. outrun the 16s., then the Treasury, acting upon some principle unknown, determine what portion, if any, of the 3s. shall be allotted to the B.B.C. It may be that the cost of collection has come down from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent., but how can the Postmaster-General justify a 6 per cent. cost of collection, or any cost at all? I do not see on what principle the Postmaster-General can defend that. This is not a revenue measure, and I do not see why it should be treated as such. It is a matter which I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Lord President of the Council will take into consideration.
I agree with the comments which were made upon paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Agreement, but I would go further in regard to overseas broadcasts to foreign countries. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the B.B.C. have grown up within the last 20 years. It has now become one of the most responsible bodies of this country, and it is certainly one of the most important. One of the great services that Lord Reith and those associated with him rendered to this country was in building up the organisation of the B.B.C. to what it is today. I agree with the tributes which have been paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the present Director-General, Sir William Haley, and his colleagues.
1224
There is no doubt that during the war period, and before the war, the B.B.C. deserved well of the nation for the great task they had done. What is to happen in the future? I think that the Government have been right in the procedure they have adopted. It may be that, for future development, there should be an inquiry, but we could not have undertaken that inquiry within the last year, because it is too large a subject. Development may be as quick in the future as it has been in the past, and the lines of development which may be a possible subject of inquiry are not known. It will take some time to do it.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) made the interesting suggestion that we should have four licences instead of one. That suggestion has appealed to hon. Members from Scotland, and I have no doubt that it will appeal to Members who sit for Welsh constituencies, and to all Members who represent national divisions. I agree that it has much support in Wales, and I daresay it will have much support in Northern Ireland.
That may be a proper subject for inquiry, but it is not one which is easily settled. If you are to direct that the broadcasting system shall be open for 11 or 12 hours a day you have to provide material for that time—not an easy thing to do. You must be able to command wide resources to do it, and if you establish different systems, each must be in competition with the other. Welsh broadcasting is not really competition with English broadcasting. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is much better."] That may be, but the point I want to make is that it is not competitive. It is said that music, of which I know nothing, is a universal language, but I scarcely believe that to be true. Some years ago, there was an interesting conference of musicians in Dublin, and one of the problems raised there was why the Greeks, who were so proficient in all the arts, had never seemed to master the art of music.
Mr. Baxter: One of the reasons could be the limited development of the musical instrument at that time.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: An additional reason might also be that no one should be proficient in the art of music, that it should be abolished, that only slaves should be musicians. When I was in

1225
India at the beginning of this year, I went to Broadcasting House there and found that the Director of Music did not listen to Western music at all, that he did not appreciate it. I wonder if musicians in this country appreciate, or listen to, Indian music. I do not believe that the universality of the language of music is true, any more than it is true of any other art. That establishes a case for an inquiry, but it is not clear to my mind whether you could sustain a 12 hours' a day broadcasting system, if you merely separated it into component parts.
As I listened to the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), I thought it a pity that he does not resign his seat and become a programme director of the B.B.C. But as I listened to the second part of his speech, I hoped that he would remain where he is, because it reminded me of a saying of A. E. Houseman's, that a literary critic appears in this country once every 200 years. The B.B.C. is not yet 25 years old, so we had better not attach too great importance to the critic. One of the demands made here today is that there should be more and more controversy. Let there be controversy, but when it is said that censorship of controversy comes from the B.B.C, let it be remembered that it comes from the Homers. It is one of the things they cannot understand—
Mr. Bracken Mr. Bracken indicated dissent.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have some knowledge of this matter. I have seen the volume of correspondence when an unpopular talk or debate has taken place. The protests do not come from this House, but from listeners, and they are in goodly volume. One of the marks of an advancing or progressive civilisation is the degree of tolerance to be found in it. I have noticed it in this House, and we are not over-tolerant with one another. Both sides can shout, if unpopular views are expressed here, and the public outside do the same thing. One of the troubles of broadcasting is that an audience for which the programme was never intended listens to it. If you feel like going to the theatre, you first choose your play and go to it, instead of going to a music-hall. But if you press the button of your radio set, and listen to something you are not in the mood to
1226
listen to, you write to the B.B.C. or the newspapers, about it.
Mr. John R. Thomas: Or turn the switch back.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: The hon. Member for Huddersfield talked about using the Listener Research organisation for the purpose of determining the area of a programme and its popularity. That is one of the fallacies of this century. The importance attached to Gallup polls and Listener Research is a great fallacy. In a newspaper the other day there was a Gallup poll inquiry as to who was the most popular man in the country. The answers were that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Churchill) was the most popular, and that the fourth most popular was Mr. Bernard Shaw. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford is the most popular dramatist in the country, and Mr. Bernard Shaw the most popular statesman?
Mr. Baxter: I should think so.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: It shows what nonsense that kind of inquiry is, unless you first determine the purpose for which your inquiry is held. Suppose you approach two men, one of whom has listened to classical music every night for the last month—
Mr. Jack Jones: Serve him right.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: Suppose you ask them what they thought of Sir Adrian Boult and his orchestra playing Brahms last night. Suppose one of the men has not heard classical music for six months. How are you to assess on the answers you get? It is difficult for the public and the B.B.C. to assess criticism. It was made a matter of criticism that members of the B.B.C. staff in Wales knew nothing whatever of what the public wanted or how they would react; that they were completely out of touch with people's views. I went to a newspaper editor and said, "I will go on a week's tour of North Wales. You can choose the places. Say nothing about who I am. You do the talking, and I will listen." The result was quite interesting. We went into a small country place into a shop and asked, "What do you think of the B.B.C. programmes?" We were told that they were enjoyed and listened to with great care. There was a middle-aged mother and her

1227
young daughter of about 20 in the shop. The mother was asked, "If you could change the programmes of the B.B.C. what would you do?" and she replied, "I would have more religious services and more hymn singing." The girl of 20 said, "I would abolish the whole of them, and have more jazz." That is the difference between the generations. How are we to assess it?
As I view the B.B.C. programme, it has two functions to perform and I would bring this to the attention of the hon. Member for Wood Green. He has mentioned the star programme. Clearly, broadcasting has the duty of bringing to the listener the star programme, but it has another duty. One of the dangers of the provision of universal amusement or enjoyment is that people sit back and enjoy it, without making themselves proficient in the art. Broadcasting then has a dual function. It has to give of the best and enable the public to hear the best; but it also has to encourage the people to appreciate the best. If we are to have regional broadcasting, national broadcasting, Scottish, Welsh and North Irish broadcasting, we must broadcast not necessarily the best programme, but the second best in order to encourage the other person to take a step up the ladder. The public must be told that, and know that it can be done. An hon. Member said that that was a ridiculous idea. I should like to take him out into his own Division, which I know quite well, and show him that when a broadcast is made in an industrial centre, the whole place is astir with it. There will be enough people wanting to attend to crowd the biggest hall in the county twice over. Is there any other amusement which could do that except broadcasting? That is part of its power and part of the encouragement it should give. We are not giving that encouragement merely by star programmes.
The Corporation no longer refers to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland as regional; it refers to them as national. What we have to do is to increase that national consciousness and culture in such a way that they can find expression more freely and with greater self-control. The Governors, after all, are concerned first and foremost with policy, and with a policy which covers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The best
1228
way to ensure that any policy fits them is to have some one conversant with each of those countries. The first step is to have some knowledge of them. There must be some one conversant with the actual conditions in Wales and similarly with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Government will give further consideration to these very important matters and that broadcasting will be given full play without censorship, without control from the Postmaster-General, and without political control from this House. It is no good asking for more controversy upon the air, and then seeking to keep political control in this House or to add to the control that can be exercised by the Assistant Postmaster-General. The corollary of more controversy, is greater freedom, and without that greater freedom, there can be no national expression and no national development.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Benn Levy: I am experiencing a strange and slightly uneasy sensation because I find that I am in complete agreement with no less than three things which the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) has said or written during the course of seven days. During his speech this afternoon he made two important points. The first was that he did not like my last play. I can only reply to that in the words of another and older playwright to another and less acute critic, "I agree with you, sir, but what are we two against so many?" His other point was contained in the paragraph in which he referred to the Motion under discussion and revealed that he had grasped the essential necessity of some form of decentralisation. I cannot say the same thing about the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken). At the outset of his speech he forswore any intention of being controversial and it is certainly true that he confined himself as a result to the shallows of debate. For example, he found time to cavil at the Lord President of the Council because the Charter included an instruction that the B.B.C. should include a report of Parliamentary proceedings and he objected to this because the B.B.C. had already started this system. But if it had started it, it could also stop it. If we agree that it is a desirable practice, it surely cannot be undesirable to safeguard its retention and inclusion. The right

1229
hon. Gentleman also objected mildly to the Government reserving to themselves the right to make important pronouncements over the B.B.C. and he feared that the time might come when a Government might abuse this right by flooding the B.B.C. with a plethora of such announcements and that they would not in fact be important. But if they are not important, who is to judge, the Government or the Governors of the B.B.C? Someone has to judge and I cannot for the life of me see why anyone should suppose that the Director-General should be either a better judge or a worse judge than the Government.
Mr. Bracken: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misconstrued my point. My point at the present moment is that no Department of the State has a right under the Licence to ask the B.B.C. to publish their announcements over the radio. I say that is quite intolerable and not at all a recognition of the B.B.C. status in the life of the community.
Mr. Levy: I understood the right hon. Gentleman perfectly well, and I think that if he looks at HANSARD in the morning, he will find I was not misrepresenting him, It was certainly not my intention to do so. But the corollary of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is either one of two things, either that no Government announcements are sufficiently important to be broadcast and to have the right to be broadcast by the B.B.C, or, alternatively, that their importance should be judged by the Governors. It must be one or the other, and the right hon. Gentleman has come down in favour of the Governors. I have to ask him on what conceivable ground the Governors are better judges than the Government. They have this quite obvious disadvantage as against the Government, that we do—perhaps this is optimistic— but theoretically we do have some control over the Government, but we have none over the Governors. That seems to me a very important point.
It is a point also which is relevant to another criticism made by the right hon. Gentleman, with which I find myself in much closer sympathy, and that was the criticism of the paragraph in the Charter which appears to provide the Government with censorship powers. My first instinct, like his, was to ask for the deletion of that paragraph; but let the right hon. Gentle-
1230
man make no mistake—we do not get rid of censorship by withdrawing that paragraph; all that we do, so long as the B.B.C. remains a monopoly, is to pass on the censorship from the Government to the Governors and the Director-General, and no one would be the least bit better off. Indeed we would be a degree worse off, because, as I said in the other connection, we have no control over the Governors.
That raises the whole question of the desirability or otherwise of the monopoly of the B.B.C. I have been among those who advocated that some inquiry should be made into the danger of an infringement of freedom inherent in the monopolistic tendencies of the Press. I have also taken a similar line, and helped to evolve a scheme designed to check a similar tendency, with regard to the cinema. And I am prepared to do a similar unwelcome service for the theatre when the opportunity arises. It would, therefore, be quite disingenuous and inconsistent of me to acquiesce in a monopoly of broadcasting. Let me make it quite clear, however, that I distinguish very sharply in general between a private monopoly and a public monopoly. If there must be a monopoly, I would much rather it were in public control than in private control, but I hold that in these fields, where self-expression is concerned, monopoly, whether it be private or public, is, both in morals and in practice, utterly indefensible.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: What about nationalisation?
Mr. Levy: Other measures of nationalisation do not affect fields of expression. I made that proviso very carefully. I gather that one or two hon. Members on the Conservative benches assent to that proposition, and I am very glad that they do. I do not recall, prior to the General Election, any Tory clamour against a B.B.C. monopoly.
Mr. H. Strauss: Oh, yes, there was.
Mr. Levy: I am delighted to hear it. It may be so. It may be, on the other hand, that certain Conservatives at least, at the time of Munich and the general strike, regarded the B.B.C. as a valuable party adjunct. It may be—I do not know —but whether it is or not, I certainly welcome them as recruits in the

1231
libertarian straggle. There may be others among them who are motivated—
Mr. H. Strauss: "Moved," not "motivated," please.
Mr. Levy: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentlemen—who are moved by the hope that this may be an opportunity for introducing, perhaps, commercial radio, and furthering the cause of those interests of which they have been the traditional spokesmen; but I want the House to realise that commercial radio is by no means the only alternative to public monopoly. It is an alternative which does not endear itself at all to us on these benches; the more so when we remember—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now talking about commercial radio, but we are discussing the Agreement between the Government and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and he must confine himself to that.
Mr. Levy: I am sorry, Sir. I agree that those remarks are not essential to my argument. Very briefly, my argument essentially is, that the essence of democracy is that we should pick our own words, and that nobody should pick our words for us, and yet that is precisely the function that we are asking the Director-General to fulfil. By being ultimately responsible for selecting or rejecting every word that is spoken on the B.B.C., he is, in effect, censoring everything that 47 million British people are or are not to hear. Whether he does it well, or whether he does it ill, is beside the point. Whether the Lord Chamberlain exercises his comparable functions well or ill is not really the point. The sole point is that in the Press, in radio, in the theatre, and in the cinema, are four infringements of and threats to democracy which we cannot possibly let go by.
The only safeguard for free expression is the multiplication of channels of expression. We can publish what we like simply because there are over 200 publishing houses, and we could not publish what we like if there were only one. Similarly, the only solution to this broadcasting problem is that there should be a multiplication of broadcasting corporations. I know there are certain difficulties —difficulties about finance and about
1232
wavelengths—but there are, after all, eight home wavelengths in operation at present, and it should be perfectly possible to carve out four independent stations. And as to finance, there are two points which it is worth bearing in mind. One is that four stations do not cost four times as much as one station, because there are many services, including technical research and some programmes or parts of programmes, which they can have in common; and the other point is one that was well emphasised by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, who pointed out that the B.B.C. does not have under the present Charter, or has not hitherto had, full advantage out of its own income, but has been mulcted by the Treasury. If the sums mulcted in the past by the Treasury were restored to the B.B.C, it would be a very rich body indeed. These, I agree, are matters for the Commission of Inquiry which I am very glad the Government have decided to set up. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] In the last Debate on the White Paper I welcome that decision.
I am, however, sorry that this interim Charter does not go a little further in the direction of regional devolution. The White Paper describing it talks of "welcoming" devolution, "fostering" it and "encouraging" it, but regional devolution is not something that one can bring into being simply by beckoning to it. It needs certain concrete constitutional provisions. The point is, are regions to be given independence in the use of their income, in the planning of their programmes, and in the appointment of their staff, or are they not to be? It is no use "welcoming" these things and withholding the necessary powers. I think that it would have been useful if the next few years could have been utilised as I kind of rehearsal period for the thoroughgoing separatism which I myself have no doubt is bound to take place.
I want to say one brief word on the relationship of the B.B.C. to the Government. The B.B.C. is and is not Government controlled. In practice the Government do not interfere; in fact, as the White Paper says:
"the Government control over the Corporation is, in the last resort, absolute."
On the other hand, Parliamentary control is nil, and I for one am glad it is, because nothing could be more sterilising and devitalising than day-to-day Parliamentary

1233
interference. But is the present nebulous and contradictory relationship with the Government satisfactory? We are accustomed to boast of our flair for being illogical and irrational, and I for one have often thought that half the trouble with the French, the Germans and many of our Continental friends is their inability to appreciate or operate a paradox. But we must really not go to the other extreme of assuming that every contradiction is in itself a thing of imperishable beauty. Here we have a compromise by which the B.B.C. has none of the advantages of independence and none of the advantages of Parliamentary control.
This is particularly true in the realm of the Overseas Service. We should merely be putting our heads into the sand if we assume that the Overseas Service is regarded by its recipients as independent broadcasting. It is regarded beyond any question as the voice of Britain. Indeed, it earned that title, and earned it fairly, during the war, and that is how it is regarded now. The result is that it is regarded as the voice of Britain, but Britain, like an adolescent schoolboy, has no control over the use of its own voice. I refuse to admit that Britain ought to abdicate the use of its own voice and entrust it to the hands of a group of civil servants or, more accurately, public servants, however well-intentioned. Foreign affairs have always tended to be the least democratically conducted department of politics. And here we have a further, new and powerful instrument of representation abroad which is completely immune from democratic correction and influence. I say that this is a department—and it is the only department—of broadcasting that should be frankly and openly a Government responsibility, because only thus can it be subject to a proper check by Parliament through the relevant Minister.
The most usual judgment on the B.B.C. is, as one hon. Member said, that it is not outstandingly good or outstandingly bad, but that it is mediocre. It is not mediocre through any shortcomings of personnel. Its personnel includes numbers of able, vigorous and enthusiastic people. The fault is in its anomalous constitutional position. Being responsible to no one it is not irresponsible, but it is over-responsible, it is over-cautious. It is frightened of its own
1234
shadow. It is stifled and strangled and muffled by the quite impossible task imposed upon it of trying to attain the unattainable ideal of impartiality. I am persuaded that the first thing and the greatest service we can do to the B.B.C. is to liberate it from these inhibitions by providing it with full decentralization, and thereby freedom.
6.46 p.m.
Mr. Henry Strauss: It is a long time since I have been in agreement with so much that has been said by hon. Members on the Benches opposite as well as on this side of the House. It is quite clear that in the very important topic with which we are dealing there are a great many points on which there is a considerable measure of agreement, however little that may affect the policy which is going to be in operation for many years. I share with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) his objection to this monopoly, but I do not think that it would be in order to develop that point at any length. I regret the fact that it is a monopoly. I think it would be much better if it were not, and I am very sorry indeed that the Government decided to renew this Charter without having an inquiry which would have enabled all these matters to be gone into.
May I say at the outset to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) that my intervention on the subject of television was not intended to indicate any approval of his suggestion that our proceedings should be broadcast or televised? I think, in fact, that he was guilty of an error in logic. He wanted the public to be better acquainted with our affairs here, but he assumed, I think contrary to the fact, that making them acquainted in the way he suggested would not destroy the very thing he wanted to make known. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and others that the B.B.C, of course, gives us good value in the sense that each of us would take out a licence even if it cost more than it costs now. At last through the third programme we can get good music. I may say—and this concerns a point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris)—I hope that the B.B.C. will not make a wrong use of what could be useful, namely, listener research. I remember

1235
advocating for a long time that they should give us more good music.
I found that the reason they did not give more good music was not because those in charge did not wish to give more, but because, through the returns from listener research, it was shown that much fewer listened to, say, Mozart than listened to some very inferior stuff. Then I found that the deductions made from this research involved an obvious fallacy, which I think the House will agree was a fallacy. They had the percentages of the total number of sets that were being used in the various programmes that were being broadcast. I remember asking "Is the percentage taken as proof that the programme is desirable or not, so that, if the percentage for each programme went up to 100, that would be ideal?" and they said "Yes." That would mean that every instrument in the country was continuously in action from the moment broadcasting started until it stopped which is, of course, ridiculous. The right way is to see that all parts of the community have sufficient notice taken of their wants, whether for good stuff, or for other stuff.
The B.B.C. has a vast influence on education and here again it has done both good work and bad work. I think it does bad work when it suggests that knowledge is easy to acquire by sitting in an armchair listening. I think that great injury is done in the case of the Brains Trust, which can be quite good entertainment, by calling it the Brains Trust. The suggestion that that is the way in which serious men either acquire or impart knowledge is a danger. Where it is merely regarded as entertainment it is all right. While I am on the subject of education I should like to say that in England we have the greatest lyrical poetry in the world. I do wish they could get some ordinary people to read this poetry decently, and not one of those awful readers of poetry, who do more to put people of taste off poetry than anything else.
I should like now to leave the subject of education and turn to the main point about which I wish to speak, which is controversy. Everybody is agreed that some controversy is desirable, and I think that it has also been stated from both Front Benches that they wish the B.B.C.
1236
to be fair. How are those two things to be reconciled? The attempt to reconcile them can be made only in one of three ways. All these ways have been attempted. The first, and, I think, the worst way of doing it, is to seek an impartial person to deal with a controversial subject. That is the worst of all methods because of the difficulty of impartiality which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, and because, if it is desired that people should be educated in both sides of a controversy, the best method is not that an impartial person should give a sort of summary. The attempt breaks down, and, if I may, I will give an example.
Everybody in this House knows that the subject of the closed shop is controversial, but how did the B.B.C. treat it the first time they mentioned it? They had a gentleman who spoke on the closed shop after the 9 o'clock news one night, Mr. Raymond Postgate, who is well known to many hon. Members of this House. Let me say at once that I make no sort of complaint concerning the broadcast he gave, which was of the kind one would expect from a man of his known antecedents. He made a broadcast in general sympathy with the closed shop, which he was fully entitled to do. I inquired of the B.B.C. and said, "This is controversial. Is it proposed to allow an opponent of the closed shop to have the same facilities on another occasion?'' The answer was that they did not see the necessity. Mr. Postgate had given an objective account without coming down on either side—or words to that effect. Of course, the person who wrote the letter to me acted in perfect good faith, and did not realise that it was a controversial subject on which the opponents of the closed shop had not had their say at all.
The next possible method is to have an actual debate between two opponents. That, I think, can often be good. What I would suggest there is to let the two people hit at each other and to leave the public to judge. Do not let them have, say, some centenarian Liberal in the chair to say at the end of the proceedings, "I really think we are all in agreement.'' I hasten to add that nothing personal is meant, but that is the tendency. The B.B.C. seem to think that if we have two vigorous controversialists on foreign affairs—someone like the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus), on the one

1237
side, and my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), on the other—it is necessary to put a Liberal in the chair to say that he thinks that everyone is in agreement. I think there should be nobody in the chair, or at least nobody in the chair taking part in the discussion or summing up.
The third method is very important and must be the one that is very often adopted. It is that people of quite extreme but differing views all get their chance, and I think that is right. I do not often agree with the Communist Party, but I would certainly give them their chance on the B.B.C. provided that the Tories were also given theirs. In fact, I would give everybody a chance. The great danger at the present moment will be seen from an example which I will give in a moment. I informed the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate that I should mention this case, and my remarks are not in any sense an attack on the Government. I merely wish to demonstrate to the House what is happening because I think hon. Members should know.
The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate from the Government Front Bench spoke about the power, under the Licence, to control broadcasts on foreign affairs to foreign countries. But, of course, foreigners can also listen to broadcasts on foreign affairs given in our home services. The broadcast I wish to mention was given last Friday by Mr. A. J. P. Taylor, described as a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, whose talk was one of a series. Let me make it quite clear that I am not suggesting for one moment that Mr. Taylor should not be allowed to broadcast on foreign affairs. What I am suggesting is that it will cause immense mischief if he is allowed, with his views, to give a series of broadcasts on foreign affairs while those who think his views intolerably mischievous are not allowed to give their views in reply. I am speaking not merely from the point of view of our own predilections in this House. There may be a few hon. Members on the other side, possibly the hon. Member for Gates-head, if he were present, who would think Mr. Taylor's views admirable, and many other hon. Members on both sides who would think them as deplorable as I do. The point is that if Mr. Taylor, with his known views, is selected by the B.B.C. to give a series of broadcasts, and no one
1238
with differing views is given a similar series in which to correct them, then it is not only some of us in this House who may think that a mischief has been done. It may have great repercussions upon our relations with foreign countries.
In this broadcast the speaker was introduced as Mr. A. J. P. Taylor, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, who was giving a series of talks on British foreign policy—I repeat, "British foreign policy." He said at the beginning that he was going to talk about British relations with the United States. Because I know that many hon. Gentlemen want to speak I will not read nearly as many extracts as I should wish, but I emphasise, since I am anxious not to be unfair to Mr. Taylor, that hon. Members should obtain copies of the full text. After describing the great power of the United States and their great wealth, and the very high proportion of their expenditure which they are spending on armaments, Mr. Taylor dealt with American policy. May I read a short extract?
"… American economic policy assumes that a free world market conducted by private enterprise is 'normal ' and that ' equality of treatment ' is a fair system between nations. This is like saying that teeth may be freely used for biting both by wolves and sheep. And the Americans use their vast economic wealth to enforce this equality of treatment. For instance, only countries that allow unrestricted foreign trade, such as Italy and Greece, are going to receive help from America; in countries that are trying to plan their foreign trade—Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia—the children must starve. When I say, ' the Americans ' I don't overlook the fact that there are many Americans who are as disgusted and ashamed of this policy as you or I would be. But they are the defeated of the recent Election and their influence is declining all the time. The American policy of the next few years will be increasingly selfish, harsh and self-centred; but it will not embark on aggressive war. That's why I think those are wrong who suggest that American aggression is likely to cause a new war. American policy will use every resource of economic blackmail and political threat to get its way; but, so long as America remains a democratic country, it won't start a war. That's an important proviso: the coming economic catastrophe in America may destroy the American democratic system and in that case—but what's the good of trying to cross bridges which haven't been built yet."
I hope hon. Members will remember what I said at the beginning. I am not suggesting that this broadcast should not have been allowed. I am suggesting the great danger of allowing this view to be expressed if other views in contradiction are not expressed at all, preferably in the

1239
same week, and with at least as many broadcasts as are given to Mr. Taylor. Let me give another passage. Mr. Taylor, at a later stage, attacked our Middle East strategy. He said:
"In fact, our Middle East strategy is full of contradictions. We protect the American oil reserves in Arabia in order to earn American help: but if we didn't protect these reserves we shouldn't need this help. We maintain our strategic positions in the eastern Mediterranean and refuse to give Russia security at the Straits."—
Mark that: We "refused to give Russia security at the Straits" because we thought our Ally, Turkey, had some right to its Treaty rights—
"a policy which would make sense only if we were projecting (and this idea is seriously canvassed publicly in the United States) an attack on Southern Russia through the Black Sea."
I could read many other passages. I will content myself with one final passage:
"If the Americans want to cause economic chaos throughout the world (and that's the inevitable result of their present policy) or if they want to destroy the world with atomic bombs (and that might be the result of their policy too), we can't escape the consequences; but we can get away from their immediate wake. We can cast off the tow rope which binds us to America though we can't avoid being at sea in the same storm. But this involves having political leaders who understand the implications of Socialism in international trade; it involves having diplomats who are not gentlemen "—
I do not know whether the broadcaster regards himself as a candidate—
"and military leaders who can forget the tradition of Russia as the ' secular enemy'; it involves most of all a public opinion which will recognise that the Balance of Power in Europe and British naval supremacy both have ceased to exist."
And so on.
Nothing could be worse than that sort of thing broadcast upon foreign policy and unanswered. It is wild attack on the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. That is allowed to be broadcast and heard in this country and abroad, and will be reported abroad. I do not know whether this broadcast will be printed in "The Listener." "The Listener" may be frightened, as a result of the speech I am making. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I hope that it will be reported in full in "The Listener." I beg His Majesty's Government to say, not that such a broadcast should not be allowed but that such broadcasts should
1240
not be the only broadcasts. It is really outrageous that there should be somebody in the B.B.C. who can always pick just at the right moment the right kind of man to advance the policy which is being so clearly outlined in the "Daily Worker," and to give a defence of that policy. The Communist Party publish the "Daily Worker" and hon. Members will find some of the very passages there in almost the same words that I have read out or that are found in other parts of the broadcast.
Constantly there is somebody in the B.B.C. who can manage to get these particular people with these particular views and secure for them almost a monopoly of the serious broadcasts dealing with foreign policy. That is getting the worst of all possible worlds. Nothing can be worse than that. I offer a suggestion: Why is it that my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University is not invited to give some of those broadcasts? I hope the House will realise that I do not want to suppress any broadcasts. Nauseous and contemptible' though I thought this gentleman's broadcast, I do not want the matter suppressed one bit. By all means let Mr. Taylor have this series of talks, but, for the reputation of this country, for our reputation in foreign countries, for the reputation of the B.B.C, and in the interests of truth, I beg the Government to see that this sort of one-sided policy, in which only Communists and fellow travellers have their say, comes to an end.
7.8 p.m
Mr. McAllister: Perhaps the most intriguing part of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) was when he sought to answer the question whether the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) would be a greater menace to the welfare of the country as a Governor of the B.B.C. than as a Member of this House. That is such a fine issue that I cannot hope to deal with it. I would like to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman has done a signal service by calling our attention to the fact that the B.B.C. is not simply a sounding-board for Parliament or for individual politicians, but is a vast organisation dealing with music, the arts, literature, the drama and variety, which is an art of a different kind. I do not think we can qualify these

1241
things by saying that the Third Programme is good and the Light Programme is bad. There may be first-rate variety, and there may be first-rate Bach. I want us to get first-rate quality all the time, in all the programmes and not second best.
I disagreed with both the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen and with the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in some of their references to listener research by the B.B.C. The B.B.C. have been at enormous pains to tell the listening public exactly how the Listener Research Department works. I cannot think of any department of the B.B.C. to which more attention has been directed in this way. Every six months or so, I believe, there has been a special programme to tell the listeners exactly how listener research is conducted. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities was quite correct in saying that the first general test of the efficiency or otherwise of a particular programme was the amount of electricity consumed by the sets turned on. That gives a broad, general and fairly accurate picture of the number of listeners listening but the matter is not left there. Under the guidance of a brilliant statistician, Mr. R. J. Silvey, the Director of Listener Research, further checks are carried out. No fewer than 30,000 citizens of this country are interviewed every day by the B.B.C. in order to determine what things they listened to the day before, and what they thought of particular items in the programme. It seems to me that if that survey, by itself, is carried out in accordance with the well-established modern methods of survey, the information acquired is bound to be valuable and useful as a guide—
Mr. H. Strauss: I agree with what the hon. Member has said. My criticism was not of listener research but of the false deduction based upon it. There is an undue tendency, for example, in a case where it is found that the number listening to classical music is small, to come to the extremely illogical conclusion that that programme should be sacrificed, and replaced by something more popular.
Mr. McAllister: I accept that as a reasonable argument, but it is not entirely in accordance with the facts as they have
1242
been developed during the past year or more. During the war, the B.B.C. did adopt the policy suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but for the reasons that they had to be restricted to two main programmes and had to serve a public which was working enormously long hours, and was not really in a fit condition for heavier mental stimulation, the programmes were light and were not to the satisfaction of those members of the public who wanted something which was better or which required more concentration. I think it will be conceded that in the invention of the Third Programme the B.B.C. have done something quite remarkable and distinctive, and of most enormous value to the cultural life of the people of Britain. Perhaps I should qualify that. I said the cultural life of the people of Britain, but it is rather a sad thought that very few of the people of Britain can, in fact, hear the Third Programme.
Two issues arise out of that. One is the question of wavelengths and the other is the condition of wireless sets. Both these are intimately bound up. Most of us are working with prewar models with valves worn out, and under all sorts of difficulties, and it is therefore not right to criticisa the B.B.C. in every instance. The trouble may be a bad receiver in some cases. When the Governors of the B.B.C. come to consider future policy, and particularly the important matters of future wavelengths and the regionalisation of programmes, they ought to take some independent evidence from people in the wireless manufacturing trade and from technical engineers outside the B.B.C.'s own service. I say that with no disparagement to the B.B.C.'s engineers, who are obviously first-class of their kind, but there ought to be some independent survey of the question of wavelengths, efficient diffusion and efficient reception.
I would remind the Assistant Postmaster-General, if he were here, that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) raised the question of a Scottish broadcasting service some six months ago. For once there was unanimity among Scottish Members. We had no doubt about it at all. It was not a question of political nationalism, but of cultural nationalism. We appealed to the Assistant Postmaster-General to give us some kind of autonomy in our Scottish broadcasts. It is a matter

1243
for regret that no provision of that kind is made in the interim proposals which the Government have put before us. I do not want to beat the nationalist drum, but if, anywhere, we are entitled to some expression of our national culture, tradition and outlook, it is in the field of broadcasting and in the arts generally. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) if we are to have internal competition by the setting up of different regions or programmes, under their own management so to speak, the best starting-off point then would probably be from the point of view of England, Scotland and Wales.
I would like, if I may, without infringing the rules of Order in any way, to make a short reference to the question of monopoly vis-à-vis commercial broadcasts. It is relevant, in that we are proposing to continue this Charter for five years. At the end of that five years, the Charter will be renewed, or a new Charter will have to be introduced. It would be well if the Government were to consider in the course of the inquiry which they are going to set up the question of whether it would not be possible to introduce commercial broadcasting into the country, not in the American or Radio Luxemburg sense but in the sense of the Government itself having a radio station, which would depend for its revenue on sponsored programmes and advertising programmes. That would have one excellent effect. It would prevent those people who now try to get at the B.B.C. to put across sponsored programmes going to the wrong place. Those who want sponsored programmes and who now go to the B.B.C. could be told, politely but very severely, where they ought to apply. We can shut our eyes to a great many things, but beyond all question we want the B.B.C. to remain of the highest integrity, and if we could have State-sponsored programmes and State commercial radio for sponsored programmes, it would get over one of the difficulties—
Mr. Baxter: Does the hon. Member visualise a Government-owned station with very great revenue coming in from the advertisers, being in open competition for the services of artists and others, with the half-child of the Government, the B.B.C?
Mr. McAllister: I think it would sort itself out. The B.B.C. has a vast revenue at the moment, and its revenues may become vaster still, and it would be quite possible, because the Government would receive the revenue from the sponsored programme station and it could, if necessary, allocate part of that revenue to the B.B.C. proper.
The main point raised today on all sides of the House is that we want a more vigorous and more imaginative B.B.C, less tied to the apron-strings of the Governors, or that if it must remain tied to the apron-strings of the Governors, the Governors should themselves become more imaginative and more willing to present all points of view. I think the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities made a mountain out of a molehill, which if one comes to think of it, is quite a remarkable achievement, in raising the case of the particular broadcast last Friday. I am quite certain that the broadcast and the name of the gentleman who delivered it have received far more publicity as the result of his speech—
Mr. H. Strauss: I hope so—
Mr. McAllister: —than it otherwise would have done. It seemed to me fairly innocuous. It is so easy to say of something which is being said by a member of an opposite party, who is taking a completely different line to the listener, that it is clearly prejudiced.
Mr. Gallacher: It is next to impossible for a member of the Communist Party to get on to the B.B.C.
Mr. McAllister: I do know one or two who have been on the B.B.C, but they have not remained on the B.B.C. because they were very closely associated with the hon. Gentleman's party.
Dr. Morgan: He was not an orthodox party member, but even an unorthodox member of a recognised party has no chance of getting in at all.
Mr. McAllister: That is one of the main points to which I am coming.
Mr. H. Strauss: May I put this to the hon. Gentleman? The gentleman is to give a series of broadcasts. As far as I know, no one else has been given a series of broadcasts. Does he think it proper that only a gentleman who attacks the

1245
policy of the Foreign Secretary should be allowed to broadcast, and that people who take a different view should not be allowed to do so?
Mr. McAllister: Certainly not, but I rather imagine that the hon. and learned Member—who, like most of us in this House, has all too few opportunities to listen to the radio—if he listened to that speech last Friday, has magnified the whole issue, and that if a little programme research were carried out in the matter—I speak without knowledge of the particular thing—he would find that the B.B.C. had made arrangements for other views to be given. I do not think there is any doubt that the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of the Minister of State, and of other Ministers responsible, are well known to the people of Great Britain, and if somebody cares to put the opposite point of view for 15 or 18 minuter, no great harm is done. I think we are all agreed that at the moment it is rather a question of people saying in the most placid way, "Yes, I quite agree with you, old man, but don't you think—?" which does not really get us very far. I would like to see the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) debating some of the great issues of our time either with the hon. Member for West Fife or with his friend and colleague, Mr. Harry Pollitt. I do not think the slightest harm would be done to anybody, I think it would liven up broadcasting, and it would help the nation a great deal.
Mr. Gallacher: If you can get Harry Pollitt on the B.B.C., I will give you a medal.
Mr. McAllister: Politics is not the only question which ought to be debated over the air. There is the great question of religion. It is rather a curious fact that here we are, the British nation, the British House of Commons, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and we say rightly, to some extent that we are a Christian nation. But we are addressing a world which is not exclusively Christian, and even when we are addressing our own Emipre, we are not addressing people who are exclusively. Christians. Yet if the records of the B.B.C. were searched from the days of 2 L.O. to the present day, one would find that to the Hindu religion, for example, the amount of time that has been given would not add up to 60 minutes all told. It is rather a pity that,
1246
when you have, as we had just before the war and at the beginning of the war, a Prime Minister of this country who was a Unitarian, under no circumstances would the B.B.C. have allowed him to speak for ten minutes on the views and philosophy and outlook of the Unitarians. I am not saying that the B.B.C. should lay itself open to every minute aspect of religious organisation and religious belief. Nevertheless, we are living in a world which, somehow or other, has to become a united world. The motto of the B.B.C. is "Let nation speak peace unto nation." Yet we shall never speak "nation unto nation" if we are speaking in an exclusive language of our own, which other nations do not understand, and if we are making no attempt whatever to understand their point of view.
We must have controversy, we must have deep and profound discussion of all these great questions. The B.B.C. must be given not a directive, as the hon. Member for West Fife might put it, but the idea that the people of this country and the Members of this House are waiting for something more exciting than we have ever had from them in the way of discussion of art, literature, religion and politics, and before the Charter becomes due for renewal or for complete revision, we on this side of the House, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, should have our minds made up as to how these great things can be achieved.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Anyone who has listened to the whole of this Debate must, I think, have come to the conclusion that what we are all condemning—whether you call it that or not —is this single, all-powerful monopoly, and that what all of us really want is an opportunity for competition in thought, expression and speech. The speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) was, in effect, an appeal for some other vehicle in competition with the present Broadcasting Corporation to offer facilities for all those other lines of thought to which he referred. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was equally an appeal. Clearly, had there been two, three, or four British Broadcasting Corporations, the speech to which my hon. and learned Friend quite rightly objected could have been answered by a

1247
speech from him or from somebody else on the other side. That, indeed, is the only true answer to all these objections. I speak, as does the hon. Member for Rutherglen, as a Scotsman, and we are absolutely at one in requiring a more satisfactory vehicle for the expression of national sentiment in Scotland. It is equally so in Wales, and I would have liked nothing better than to develop this theory of the evils of the present monopoly, but I dealt with it at some length in opening the Debate on this matter on 18th July, and, therefore, I will not trouble the House further on that point now, except to say that I stand by all I said in July.
Since the Lord President of the Council is here, this is an opportunity to put a few questions to the Government because, in a great many directions, the Government are directly responsible. Therefore, I think that now is the proper time to invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information on a good many important matters. Of all the important matters— I mean important in a national and international sense—there is none more important than the present overseas broadcasts, particularly to Europe. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a good many questions about that in the previous Debate, and I made some charges to which, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman gave me no reply, nor did any reply come from the Assistant Postmaster-General. I charged the European Broadcasting Section of the B.B.C. with having cut down its service at the behest of the Government in an economy drive. I charged the Section with inefficiency in its work, and I gave the House such evidence as I was able to acquire. As I say, no answer was given, but I was invited by the new director of the European Broadcasting Service—an exceedingly charming man—to visit the headquarters in Kingsway. I did so, and I confess to being greatly impressed with all that I saw. I thought the director was a man of very high intelligence and great capacity, and I have no doubt at all that he will make as much a success of that job as any man can do, but he is working, and must continue to work, under peculiar difficulties because the Government—in the words of the Assistant Postmaster-General to-day and of the Lord President two or three months
1248
ago—have made themselves responsible for overseas broadcasts. Therefore, the Government really must give us some information about that matter.
We see in the paper before us the setup of that overseas European service. It is exactly the set up that I described to the House two or three months ago. I have no doubt it is the best set-up they can get, but surely it is not perfect. We couple Russia with a whole lot of other countries in the same group responsible to the same man. We couple Austria and Germany under the same direction when clearly our policies towards Austria and Germany are as different as two things can possibly be. Since he is responsible, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the effect of the broadcasts to Europe since the war ended? It is not necessary for me to emphasise to the House the supreme importance of the policy of those broadcasts at the present time. It is of overwhelming importance that our view should be understood by, and rightly expressed to, all European countries. To take the simple case of Russia, the reason for most of the unhappily increasing and continuing misunderstandings with Russia is that Russians do not know for what the British people stand. The right hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for putting that across to Russia. Has he done it? What have been the methods of testing, and what reports has he received? When I visited Kingsway House, I had some evidence, but the service was only beginning, and the director had only been appointed in August. Are relations improving? It is vital that we should know about these things.
We see in the White Paper that great strides were made in broadcasts to America during the war. I believe 72 American stations were linked up at odd times. There is another country with which we should have the closest and warmest relations. This is not a new suggestion, but I repeat it. Why cannot we have a British Raymond Gram Swing, to tell our story to America each Saturday night? The effect of Raymond Gram Swing's talks to us during the war was profound. I imagine that no greater broadcasting audience listened to anyone. It was fascinating; week by week we followed him to see how opinion in that great nation was developing. It is just as important for Americans to hear our

1249
opinions, and they are dying to get information from this country of events, movements and opinions.
Mr. Bracken: Mr. Raymond Gram Swing was employed by the B.B.C., and it shows the goodness of their judgment. But, if it is suggested for one moment that the many broadcasting chains in America would be willing to nominate a British Raymond Gram Swing to give the week's talk, then, although the hon. Member speaks from knowledge, he does not speak from knowledge of American broadcasting conditions, because no such person would be given facilities on the broadcasting chains of America.
Mr. Stewart: While I agree with that point of view, it does not alter the value of the suggestion. I know that a great many people here, and in America, would welcome such a weekly talk.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about broadcasts to the Colonies. No doubt he is well informed about the matter and will be able to give an answer. One gathers from the Report that a Colonial director has been appointed and that considerable assistance was offered to the Caribbean area during the past year. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is happening, and what precisely are the functions of that gentleman? I was in the Caribbeans two and a half years ago, and found the services of broadcasting between this country and there in those days were very poor. All complained about it. Is it better now? What is being done to improve it still further? It is of tremendous importance that we should keep our Colonial Empire in touch with them. Here is an opportunity for the Lord President to tell us where the nation's money is going, and what is being spent.
Dr. Morgan: Would it not be better, when considering Colonial broadcasting, to have a broadcasting station in the Caribbeans, rather than broadcasting from Great Britain?
Mr. Stewart: It may be, but I mention the fact because in the Report, in page 26, there are some interesting things and I invite the Lord President of the Council to tell us more about the matter. I think he should go further. On the first page of the White Paper dealing with the Licence and Agreement it is stated that overseas broadcasting services per-
1250
formed at the request of any Department on behalf of the Government must be carried through by the Broadcasting Corporation, and such sums will be spent upon it as the Lords of the Treasury authorise. This is the sentence to which I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman:
"The Corporation is to deliver to the Postmaster-General such account of its expenditure on the oversea services and other services performed at such request as he may prescribe."
But ought not Parliament to be informed also of the way in which the money has been expended, and the results of that expenditure? I take it that this means a private report to the Postmaster-General? It does not say that the report will be published. I am interested in the Colonies, and I want to know, and think I ought to know as a Member of Parliament, exactly what is happening. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us, I will be very glad to know. During the Debate on 16th July, the Lord President told us something about his strange operations with Radio Luxemburg. I invited him to explain to the House exactly what he was doing. It seemed to us that he was monkeying about with something rather tricky and difficult. He explained to us his policy—
Mr. Speaker: The Motion before the House is to approve the Licence and Agreement. It is not a Supply Day on the B.B.C. Subjects outside the Agreement seem to me to be going far too wide.
Mr. Stewart: I venture to point out to you, Sir, that the White Paper does deal with the question of the cost of overseas broadcasts.
Mr. Speaker: The White Paper can deal with what it likes, but that is not the Paper before the House.
Mr. Stewart: With respect, I mean the Paper before the House. I invite you to look at the cover page 2 of the Paper on "Broadcasting Copy of the Licence and Agreement." Is not that what we are discussing?
Mr. H. Morrison: We are having that Debate over again.
Mr. Stewart: In the sixth paragraph there is a reference to overseas broadcasts the cost of which is to be the responsibility of the Government. I was dealing with

1251
overseas broadcasts, when I asked about Radio Luxemburg, because the right hon. Gentleman told us on 16th July that he proposed to use that station for carrying the British message to Austria and Ger many. I suggest that this is precisely within the terms of the Paper we are discussing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what was the result of the negotiations. Did they come off, and has he acquired the station? What was the cost of acquiring its time, and what was the result of acquiring its time? I invite him to give us the story.
My last point is with regard to the home broadcasting service. On the last occasion I referred to the view of Mr. Eckersley on the possibility of rapid development in re search and technical advance. He had written to "The Times" on the day of the Debate, stating that if the experts were given their heads they could make immediate progress. Every one knows that until we get a great development of frequency modulation, and particularly of wired wireless, we shall never make the progress here which everybody desires. There are not the wavelengths available. The demand for wavelengths is universal. I believe that Russia has not been very accommodating in the division of the world's wavelengths. Because of that we in Scotland cannot hear many of the English programmes we want to hear, and when I am in Surrey I cannot hear the programmes from Edinburgh. Frequency modulation and wired wireless are of enormous importance to our country. The Assistant Postmaster-General did not tell us much today on this aspect. He told us something about frequency modulation but he said nothing about wired wireless Yet the Government have a contract with wired wireless which expires in 1949 What is being done now to extend that service for the benefit of listeners in this country? I have put a number of questions to the Government on an occasion when I expect a reply. On the previous occasion I put a series of important questions, to not one of which did I receive any response whatever. Not only shall I be disappointed, but the whole House and many listeners outside will be disappointed if something like an adequate response is not given this evening.
743 p. m.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Almost every speaker has referred
1252
to the lack of imagination and the lack of vigour in many of the B.B.C. programmes. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House realise that something of that lack of fire, the fire of controversy, which many of us would like to hear on the B.B.C, is due to the very way in which the programmes themselves are organised. I believe it to be a fact that before a controversial broadcast is made it is necessary for it to be rehearsed. It is rehearsed several times, and very often as a result of that it lacks the spontaneity which is absolutely vital for a fiery, interesting Debate. I believe it was for that reason that it was necessary to submit a script to the B.B.C. before a broadcast, and for quite a number of years Mr. George Bernard Shaw, whom a large number of people would have liked to hear on the B.B.C., refused to broadcast since the B.B.C. demanded a script first.
The second matter, which has been mentioned by several speakers on both sides of the House, is that it might be a good thing if the B.B.C. had a certain amount of competition, perhaps by divisions sufficiently independent, or perhaps by there being several broadcasting corporations. I hope that the Government will pay special regard to this, because we have only to reflect that the Government themselves have proposed to institute an inquiry into the Press for reasons which include our dislike of some of the monopolistic tendencies on the part of some chains of newspapers owned by certain Press Lords. To be consistent with that, if they say that we want objective news to be spread around the country, it would be appropriate for them to apply the same principle to the B.B.C. to ensure-that there are a certain number of organisations which are sufficiently independent, so that we can have this vital, controversial, varied type of programme coming across.
I wish to address my remarks more particularly to that part of the White Paper, page 5, paragraph 4, which requires the Corporation to send out each day an efficient programme on both the Home and Overseas Services. I have certain complaints to make against what I think to be the Corporation's inefficiency in this respect. Lest it be thought that these are my own personal views, I wish to relate to the House, briefly, how these various sources of information came to my notice.

1253
I have been taking an interest in the reinstatement of ex-Service men and women into civilian life. I receive through the post a great number of letters from men and women complaining of their inability to get started again in the B.B.C. This is the sort of thing they say. First of all, here is a letter which came from somebody who is interested in the musical profession. As he is in the profession himself, I consider him to be something of a judge.
He related the case of a young man who, before entering one of the Services, had given some 1,500 broadcasts. When he came back from the Service he found it extremely difficult to get started again. He was given a chance in one programme entitled, "They are out." I do not know whether that was a programme which was sponsored specially as a swan song for the party opposite, because this programme appeared about the time of the General Election. Nevertheless, having had one chance to broadcast, he finds that he cannot now make any further progress. He is quite willing to go through auditions with the B.B.C. but though he has indicated his willingness to do this, he finds that the B.B.C. will not even give him the chance of an audition. They have not even invited him to attend one although this young fellow, in the opinion of this professional musician, has a magnificent voice. Indeed, my correspondent went further, and suggested that he would stake his professional reputation that this young fellow, aged about 23, was a star in the making.
That is not an isolated case. There is a flight-lieutenant in the R.A.F. whose case has come to my notice. He finds it quite impossible to break into the B.B.C. programmes. He has received letters from the Producer's Section, Administrative Division, which says that the performance was not regarded as suitable. Another letter he received from the B.B.C. said:
"This decision has been reached by the Director of Music after careful consideration, and must be regarded as final."
This flight-lieutenant had taken the precaution of having some of his broadcasts in the overseas programme recorded, and he has these records, which anybody who wishes to pronounce judgment could hear, and people well known in the profession have been able to pronounce such judgment, which is of a very different
1254
order from that given by the people in the B.B.C.
It seems that if artistes feel that they are treated unfairly they have no chance of stating their case for some independent opinion to be given, and they may be permanently debarred from broadcasting. I can quote another case of an artist, who writes: "I am fighting for a chance to work." He says he does well in variety programmes on the music hall stage. He adds:
"To get a break on the air seems practically hopeless."
There is the further case of a man, one of two brothers, on the variety stage. He finds that he cannot break into what he calls the "Music hall closed shop of the B.B.C." His brother has just returned from India, where he has been soldiering, and they are having a hard struggle to get started.
They find it impossible to get into the B.B.C. The further point of these complaints is that they, having written the usual letters to the B.B.C, find that the producer concerned has not even had the courtesy to reply. That is quite inexcusable. All Government Departments, sooner or later, reply to correspondence— at least to letters from hon. Members; but here we have the B.B.C. in a completely monopolistic position and the producers have not the courtesy of an ordinary business house, yet their behaviour should be exemplary
Another case brought to my notice was of a man who was broadcasting in 1923 and again in 1935. He gave a considerable number of broadcasts, continuing until 1938. This is the important point. He then queried the judgment of one of the so-called producers, and from then onwards he has not broadcast. I have two final cases complaining of people who are amateurs, people who do not have to earn their living by their musical or other talents and who have other good jobs, and yet they are given the chance to broadcast whilst those in the profession, some with very fine reputations, are kept from broadcasting and not given a chance. One of these amateurs admitted that, having reorganised his own industry, he was yielding to the temptation to do four half-hour programmes on records for the B.B.C.
Those are just a few of the many cases which have been reported to me by people

1255
who complain of the treatment accorded to them by those who make up the programmes. When hon. Members write an occasional article, it is realised that they are not following their regular profession. They may like to earn a certain amount of extra money, or kudos, by writing articles. Perhaps that is excusable. However, in the case of the B.B.C., which is a monopoly—there is only the one organ of the type from which people can broadcast—then, surely, we should open the programmes only to those who have proved their competence professionally and not just to any amateur who happens to know somebody in the B.B.C. As a result of these complaints, I took the opportunity of finding out what was the organisation. Very briefly, it is, that the programmes are made up some months in advance of the actual broadcast date by a board of programme planners. Under these planners come the executives, or the directors in charge of each section. There are six main sections and the executives compile the details of the various parts of the programme for which they are responsible. I make my complaints not with regard to all these departments. No doubt, some are doing their work very well. The six main sections deal with features and drama, schools, education, music, variety, and television. It is with particular regard to the variety section that the complaints have been made.
The complaints hinge upon the producers and centre on the fact that these producers are members of the staff of the B.B.C. who seem to have got there for every other reason than the fact that they are really knowledgeable professional individuals who have had proper training for the work for which they are responsible. In my view, that is a serious complaint which needs to be carefully looked into by those responsible, at the head of the B.B.C, for seeing that the organisation functions adequately. With reference to these producers, there was an article written in the "Musical Express" for Friday, 25th October. I do not know whether it is connected with any other organ with a somewhat similar name but I think we can take it to be reasonably accurate. The article analysed the sort of work done by the producers. It described the type of people who do the producing. It indicated, for example, the
1256
case of a well known dance band which had established its reputation and which, according to the "Radio Times," is produced by somebody who it is well known in the musical profession has never had the necessary training which would qualify her to produce a band. The work done by these so-called producers is to time the performance, to use a stop watch. In some cases they are simply the assistants of people who have been in the B.B.C. earlier and who had the necessary qualifications. When the qualified individual has left the staff, then automatically the assistant has taken his place, without, I suggest, having the necessary qualifications.
Complaint is also made of the way in which auditions are held. It appears that one person on the staff of the B.B.C. can listen to a prospective broadcaster, an artiste, and the opinion of that one individual may condemn the artiste, and prevent him from taking part in programmes. If there is this monopoly, and if one person can have that sort of influence on the career of a professional artiste, I think it is a very grave defect in the organisation of the Corporation. I referred this matter to the Director-General of the B.B.C. He wrote to me on 9th October with reference to one of these individuals, saying:
"On this occasion the verdict was not from one person only. Music auditions are never attended by fewer than four members of the music department's staff. Usually, more than this number is present."
These auditions may be attended by more than one person, but the opinion of one member of the staff can debar a person from broadcasting: In a later letter from the Director-General, I was informed:
"I am satisfied that as far as the 14 identified artists are concerned…"
I had brought some of these cases to his notice—
"…there has been no discrimination by the B.B.C.'s staff against any of them, and, in general, it is fair to say that the decision as to their work has not rested on any one member of the staff here."
"In general"—that is not good enough. It is an admission that this defect is there, yet, so far as I can see, no steps have been taken to remedy the defect.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am not at all clear that he is in Order in giving this multitude of illustra-

1257
tions. The question before the House is as to whether the Licence and Agreement shall be approved. The hon. Gentleman appears to be going into a good deal of detail as to various complaints. I am not at all clear that he is in Order in doing that. If he can indicate any ground for assuming that he is in Order, particularly in giving an excess of illustrations, I will be glad to hear him.
Mr. Cooper: I appreciate the point you make, Sir. I would rest my argument on the fact that reference is made, in the Paper before us, to the efficiency with which broadcast programmes shall be carried out. I referred, in particular, to certain words in the paper in the earlier part of my remarks, and I used examples in order to refer to the defect which I claim is still there in the organisation.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be in Order in giving an odd illusitration or two, but he seems to me to be indulging in excess of illustrations, which is not in Order.
Sir. Cooper: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will refrain from making voluminous references to examples. The point of my argument is that, if one individual on the staff of the B.B.C. has an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the artistic or professional merits of certain aspirants for inclusion in broadcast programmes, it raises a sufficiently serious defect as to require immediate attention. I brought this matter to the attention of the Director-General, and I did so because individuals on the staff are placed in the position of deciding on the possible careers of those who want to broadcast, and they can, therefore, very easily be placed in a position of influencing certain people. The temptation is there to influence those who have to make the decision, and it was because of that temptation that I was giving specific examples of cases where members of the staff of the B.B.C. had succumbed to that temptation.
For example, contracts for work with the B.B.C. were fixed up over the luncheon table at public houses in the vicinity of Oxford Circus, but it does not stop there. That may be quite in order and may not matter, but when it comes to questions of silk stockings being given to members of the staff of the B.B.C, or fur coats, as has been suggested—
Mr. Bracken: I do hope the hon. Gentleman will substantiate that statement. It has been stated in this House that B.B.C. contracts are fixed up in public houses and that fur coats and silk stockings are given to people, with corrupt motives. I feel that these statements should be substantiated, and I think it is distressing that accusations of this type should be made in the House of Commons against a body of people who have served their country with just as much distinction as the hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. Cooper: I am very glad that interruption has been made, and to have the opportunity of substantiating the point I have made, and I made it advisedly. I have the evidence, and I have brought the matter to the attention of the Director-General, who has gone so far now as to appoint a K.C. to go into it. I mention this now in public for the reason that in so many cases in the past, there have been investigations made, and what has happened has been that the individuals concerned, or those who were implicated, have received the treatment that perhaps, was justified by whatever was discovered. This is the real point at issue. These people are made scapegoats for the misfortunes in which they find themselves through having to work under such conditions and under such an organisation which produce the very circumstances of their own downfall. Further, I make this point because I lay the responsibility for this defect, which is extremely serious, where it really belongs—in the management of the B.B.C. The particular case that I put forward is, at the moment, sub judice, but, if the result is merely to dismiss people and not to bring this defect out into the light so that it is remedied, the investigation will fail in its purpose.
Mr. Bracken: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but, if he says that the case is sub judice, why should he prejudice it by talking about it in this House?
Mr. Cooper: That, again, is a good point, but I made it for this reason. I brought this matter before the Director-General last August. It was only yesterday that the Postmaster-General informed me that this inquiry is going to be made. In other words, it has to wait until there

1259
is the possibility of a Debate in this House and the matter being brought forward before an attempt is made to have an inquiry. After all, if on an important matter of that type, on which a serious accusation is made, it takes all this time before the necessary machinery is put into effect for remedying this matter, I would ask, what will happen to all the suggestions that have been made in the House today? In my opinion, if any suggestions are made, as things are at present no notice will be taken of them.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? After all, this is a matter of very great importance. I would like to ask him whether he asked for a reply earlier or whether he merely relied on some pressure coming from this Debate.
Mr. Cooper: My correspondence has shown that I have had to follow up my letters on two or three occasions to the B.B.C. before I have had a reply, and it is because of that defect that I have no compunction—
Mr. Burke: May I say that the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Postmaster-General and that we understood that, the matter being under investigation and that an opportunity would be given us to investigate it, it would not be raised here today?
Mr. Cooper: I realise that the Postmaster-General is having an investigation made, but the matter should not have had to go to this stage before it was looked into. I maintain that, if the Directors of the B.B.C. and their administration are really sound, this sort of situation should never arise. There is a defect there. The B.B.C. is not a new organisation, but it holds a national responsibility, and, therefore, I say that it should be pre-eminently fine in its organisation to ensure that this sort of thing could not happen and it is possible to prevent it.
Mr. Bracken: They are much better than any Government Department that I know.
Mr. Cooper: I will make one suggestion, therefore, before I conclude. At the time of the Debates on the Civil Aviation Bill—I use this as an illustration to support the suggestion—it was put forward by hon. Members on this side of the
1260
House that there should be a national consultative and advisory council for the civil aviation industry. We knew that, unless some influence could be brought to bear upon the boards of the corporations, there was the possibility of serious complaints being made going unheeded and we wished to ensure that democratic influences should be capable of being used, if necessary, against the controlling authority of these corporations. As a result of that particular proposal being turned down in the Debate on that Bill, there was considerable controversy in this Chamber. Now, however, the new Minister of Civil Aviation has seen fit to give effect to this suggestion, and I mention this only for the reason that, because the wisdom of that proposal has now been appreciated by the Minister for Civil Aviation, I would like to see some parallel appreciation of that point by the Director-General and the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. I suggest that they would be extremely wise if they appoint to such a body, people who are representative of the various interests in the industry.
The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) made the point of the proper representation of the trade unions, and it is that sort of thing that I have in mind, and I think that, if there is an advisory or consultative body representing such organisations as the dance band leaders' organisation, the Musicians' Union and the British Song-Writers' Protection Association, it would ensure that, as complaints do come along, and they do in any large undertaking, they will be aired and ventilated in some well-recognised and understood way. If that were done, I maintain that the sort of very serious situation which has now arisen in the B.B.C. would be prevented from arising, because the early indication of the defect would be seen, the matter would be reported upon and investigated by the organisation of the B.B.C. itself, plus this outside representation, and the defect would disappear.
As I see it, far too many of those people who, to some extent, depend on broadcasting for a living, find that Broadcasting House is too much of a "Heartbreak House." That sort of situation must be remedied, and, if the suggestion which has been put forward is followed, I maintain that the result will be that broadcasting in this country will go to greater heights than it has achieved so far.
8.11 p.m.
Sir Waldron Smithers: Except for the very strong remarks made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) about the powers to be given to the Postmaster-General, the speeches by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), this Debate has, in my opinion, been too complacent and too much on the lines of a mutual admiration society. I do not think the House realises what powers are being given to the Postmaster-General. I want to criticise the giving of this Licence on the ground of the Left Wing bias of the B.B.C. That bias has been strengthened today, because, after what has been said by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, what hope is there for Conservatives? We have now got a newly appointed Socialist chairman, a Socialist Postmaster-General and a Socialist Lord President of the Council—who has sufficient power already. I do not want to see any more power put into his hands.
I have received many complaints and criticisms from people similar to those mentioned by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I have always said to them, "Bring the evidence, be prepared to go into the witness box and I will take the matter up." The reply I receive is always that they dare not, because they would get the sack. That is a very serious position. I do not say that it is the fault of Sir Allan Powell or of any of the chief Governors, but there are the smaller fry further down the scale who can give decisions and who, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough says, are in a position to destroy or give a start to broadcasters, whatever sphere of art they wish to take up.
The biggest trouble with the B.B.C. is that it is a monopoly. There is no competition to make it efficient and clean. If the Governors of the B.B.C. had to face a shareholders' meeting once or twice a year and had to answer questions such as Ministers have to answer at Question time in this House, I am sure that the whole organisation would be much more clean and efficient. We have no means of knowing whether these allegations and criticisms are true or false. I often go to the Clerks at the Table, who are always
1262
so helpful in these matters, and they advise me that no Minister is responsible for B.B.C. policy or programmes. I then write to the chairman. Here is a chairman of a company with an income of about £10 million a year who will not answer letters—he answered one or two of them. I write again and again, and all that I get back is a printed postcard. I have about ten such postcards, which I keep as evidence of the unwillingness of the Governors of the B.B.C. to reply to genuine questions to which I want a genuine answer. They retire behind the iron curtain of Broadcasting House.
Mr. Messer: Would the hon. Member be surprised to know that I wrote to the B.B.C. on one day and received a reply two days later?
Sir W. Smithers: No, it would not surprise me, because the hon. Gentleman is on the Government side. Reference has been made to music. Today, there is a tendency to try to demoralise by playing down to the lower instincts of our people and having all this jazz music and crooning. No Debate in this House could pass without a word being said about ITMA, the most popular programme of the B.B.C. Before this licence is granted, I should like to draw attention to the number of foreigners employed by the B.B.C. Their employment might have been necessary during the war but many ex-Servicemen have now returned who are linguists, who have travelled and who are highly qualified to take on broadcasting and administrative posts. I think that they should be given the first chance. I am not a member of it, but there is a wonderful world organisation called the "British Israelites," who claim to have 3 or 4 million members all over the world. According to the last information I received, they cannot get permission to broadcast in this country, although I understand that permission is given to them to broadcast in America and in the Dominions. Here is some information about the Left Wing bias of the B.B.C, which I hope—
Mr. Messer: What about "The Week in Westminster" a fortnight ago?
Sir W. Smithers: I have sat here for four hours and am getting a little weary. I should like to be allowed to continue. I do not know whether the following allegations are true. It is one of my chief

1263
criticisms of the present organisation that we cannot get these allegations denied or confirmed. I am told that the B.B.C. is riddled with Fabian high-ups and more high-ups of the Society of Cultural Relationship with Russia. It is impossible to get in unless your politics are very "red."
Mr. Benn Levy: Will the hon. Gentleman say from what he is quoting?
Sir W. Smithers: No, I cannot.
Mr. James Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman say who told him that? What is he quoting from?
Sir W. Smithers: I am not going to give the name.
May I tell the House of my own experience of a broadcast which I once gave? We went to the studio to take part in a Brains Trust—Six autour du micro—a Brains Trust in French. There were six of us and we were offered a sumptuous meal, cocktails and drinks of which I did not partake because, in my opinion, the B.B.C. were breaking the Regulations of the Ministry of Food. I wrote to the Ministry of Food and told them. I believe that the Ministry made an inspection, but they made some excuse for what happened. What would have happened to a small shopkeeper or a small restaurant in similar circumstances? We sat there in the studio. On my left was the question master, a Frenchman; on my right was a man who said he was a "good Marxist," and facing me on the left was another French Socialist, while opposite me was a young lady who said she was a Socialist. She had red toe nails, anway.
Mr. Callaghan: If she was a Fabian, ought she not to have had pink toe nails?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think these personal details are very relevant.
Sir W. Smithers: I am trying to show why, in my opinion, the Licence should not be granted. One of the first things the question master said was, "I sympathise with Sir Waldron Smithers because he is in a minority of four to one," and I was. In one of my replies I said that was about the balance of the importance which the B.B.C. attached to the political parties. We did 50 minutes' broadcasting, which was recorded. We
1264
were then asked to go back and hear the recording so that we might make suggestions as to which pieces should be left out, so as to reduce it to 40 minutes. There was one silly little question asking why the pavements in Paris were broader than the pavements in London. I asked, "Could we not cut that out?" and a young man with corduroy trousers said, "No, we have decided to keep that in." I said, "Forgive me, but why the hell did you ask me to come, then?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] We were asked to make suggestions, and when we did, some junior official who had the real power there did not listen to us, and the question about the pavements was kept in.
I do not want to transgress the rules of Order, but this is a forum where public opinion should be heard. After that broadcast, I wrote a letter to the papers and I received a mass of correspondence from all over the country. I have the originals in my bag in the Library. I have had extracts made, which I think Members ought to hear. Again I must say that I do not know how true they are; I do not know whether they are exaggerated views or not, but I do say there ought to be some method by which we can compel the B.B.C. to reply to our letters, or else there should be a Minister in the House to give answers. I will quote only a few of the extracts. Copies are available to any Member who would like to read them. Here is one:
"Thanking you and hoping that you will fight for a change in that decadent, highbrow lazy club at the B.B.C."
Here is another one:
"Loud cheers! Someone has at last had the pluck to express publicly what many people have been thinking for some time. Thank you very much for writing your letter to the B.B.C. What you say wanted saying badly."
Another quotation says:
"Most of the officials of the Corporation appear to be left wing intellectuals—a poisonous type. Because they have attended the 'London' School of Economics (by the way, why 'London'? What right have such people to use the word) and have learnt something of the school's particular brand of economics they think that they know everything, although they know practically nothing of actual industry and commerce. Who are the pets of these officials? Such men as Joad, Julian Huxley, Haldane, Bernal, Priestley, etc., all of them left wingers, and some of them avowed Communists."
Here is another one:
"The Brains Trust is at times an absolute danger. The views of the ordinary decent

1265
person find little expression, and the listening public gets the impression that the opinions of these left wingers are the correct thing, and must be held by anyone claiming to have the slightest intelligence."
In view of the enormous influence of the B.R.C., these expressions of opinion are well worth hearing. A mother writes:
"I have myself been disgusted at how everything almost that one hears on the wireless lately is expressed from the Labour point of view. … I am glad I have no little children to be taught by these men of hideous ideas. Thank you a thousand times for your plucky letters."
Another writer says:
"You are right. There is an idea abroad that the B.B.C. seem to have a left hand bias."
Yet another says:
"One hesitates to say it, but there also seems to be a degree of anti-religious propapanda introduced very carefully at times. The Methodist President has just protested and another example I considered was the repeat broadcast of the Battle of Sedgemoor aimed at reviving memories of old religious differences between Catholic and Protestant."
Let me give another quotation:
"Permit me most cordially to agree with your remarks about the B.B.C. as reported in the 'Daily Telegraph' today. For years now one has been disgusted by the Red 'twist' which that institution gives to every announcement or other broadcast which is at all susceptible of such a thing, and it is just about time somebody in a public position like yourself said so. …What one would very much like to know is whether—"
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I indicated to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) that 'he was indulging in excessive quotations. I think the hon. Gentleman is now doing the same, and I hope he will not continue with these illustrations.
Mr. Alpass: Do not spoil the programme.
Sir W. Smithers: The B.B.C. are very subtle and clever. They used to broadcast in French in the European programme from 7.40 to 7.45 every morning—I do not know if they still do so—and there were five minutes' real Left Wing propaganda very subtly put across. It was put across in French. I now wish to give a very different quotation, Sir, which is very important. When Mr. H. G. Wells passed away—no doubt everybody is sorry when anybody passes away—the B.B.C. made it an occasion for a series of broadcasts with a Left Wing bias. This is a copy of a short note from America:
1266
"The astonishing suggestion of H. G. Wells recently given wide publicity on the radio and in newspapers here, that Royalty, the House of Hanover, should be abolished and the personages exiled to some districts in America where uniforms and pomp are admired, has, in my opinion, brought the wrath of both peoples down on him."
I quote that because I think it is so important. That kind of broadcast should not be allowed, for the sake of offending the general feelings of the people of the world. I am glad to see the Lord President of the Council has just come into the Chamber, because I wish to say that I think he has enough power already. I do not want to put any more power in his hands. It may be said that the Postmaster-General will not use these powers which he is being given, but he has them. The fact remains, the Postmaster-General and Government Departments generally can order the B.B.C. to broadcast something, or not to broadcast something. I think that is wrong, and it was against that sort of thing that we fought for six years and now we are losing the battle for freedom on the home front.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Robens: If we want to appreciate the size of the task which the B.B.C. has in meeting the tastes of the people of this country, I think we should be able to do so from the speeches made in this Debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), who entertained us so well in his speech, made some very interesting points, inasmuch as he is convinced it is a Left Wing element which is running the B.B.C. If he would come with me to my constituency, and meet some of my Labour Party colleagues, he would hear from them that they are equally convinced the B.B.C is run by a Right Wing element. It is all a matter of approach, depending on the way in which people listen to what is said on the B.B.C. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that this question of taste is one which cannot be decided by individuals, such as hon. Members in this House. We are not the people who listen to the radio. The great mass of people who listen regularly, to perhaps all three programmes, are not, in my view, sufficiently tested in order to find out precisely what are their likes and dislikes, although the listeners research may do something towards it. I think something more might be done, along the lines of finding out from the listeners exactly what type of entertainment they appreciate.

1267
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) made some comments in relation to fees, and the part of them which the Treasury were not handing over. He put that forward as some sort of objection to the granting of this Licence. It seems to me that that matter involves the whole question of the raising of revenue. I myself like the principle of licences taken for a specific purpose being used entirely for that specific purpose. I would prefer telephone rentals and telephone charges to be used for enlarging and improving the telephone service. Nevertheless, I think it was a Member of the right hon. Gentleman's own Government who first introduced the idea of robbing a fund. If he will cast his mind back to the fund raised, for example, for roads in this country, I think he will find it was a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer who first robbed that fund for another purpose. There is nothing new in that. I do not think the problem is one which could be dealt with here on this particular issue, but it is one which will have to be dealt with very broadly.
The main point I wish to make is in relation to something said by the Assistant Postmaster-General, when he was dealing with technical advancement, and the carrying out of a scheme of development by the B.B.C. He referred to research on frequency modulation. I would like to hear something more about that from the Lord President of the Council. The Assistant Postmaster-General did indicate that the B.B.C. should be free to give the public what the public wants. In the Northern Region there are something like half a million licence holders who are confined to the transmitting station at Stag-shaw. In Northern Ireland, using the same wavelength, there are over 100,000, perhaps 150,000, licence holders. That means that under the present system, due no doubt to the fact that there are not sufficient alternative wavelengths available, Northern Ireland and the Northern Region share the same programme. On examination of the programme, I do not think it is in proportion to the licence holders. It may be difficult, however, to do that. But the programme is certainly not what the public wants. For example, when someone in the Northern Region is anxious to listen to "Those Were The Days," he is switched off suddenly and has to listen to the Ulster news. The
1268
people in Northern Ireland have the same grievance, that they are not very interested in what is happening in the North of England. We have also got the problem in relation to the Third Programme that it cannot be heard all over the country.
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that there is need, indeed, for greater technical development, and research. I hope that the Lord President will be able to say something about that and, also, to give us some hope that there will be, within a reasonable time, opportunity for development, so that there will be an additional wavelength, or the use of a wavelength for this new research, in order that we can break programmes up, and not have the position which exists in the north at the present time. The people feel very keenly about this in the Northern Region. Questions have been asked in this House; very reasonable answers have been given; but that does not satisfy the licence holders, numbering more than half a million, who are compelled to listen to a programme in which they have very little interest.
The last point I want to make is this. A great deal has been said in the House about competition, and the need for controversy, and so on. Something has been said, too, about listener research. It seems to me we have to get down to the consumer of this service—the listener. We have three programmes, the Home Service, the Light Programme, and the Third Programme, and each should work along the line of attracting more and more listeners, each in its own way, according to its particular policy. It would be a perfectly easy thing to find out from listeners, when the licences are issued, which of the three programmes is receiving the most support I would not mind if the Postmaster-General were to go into the question of finance some time, to find out whether a scheme could be operated whereby, when a listener was getting his licence, he would be enabled to earmark a portion of the licence fee for a particular programme. For example, if 10 per cent. of the licence fees could be allocated to a programme on the basis of the listeners' choice, we should have an indication of the listeners' likes. This would provide some incentive to the people responsible for all the programmes, an incentive to them to attract listeners' support.

1269
Throughout this Debate there has been, in the main, criticism of the B.B.C. I think it would be wrong if the general idea went abroad that we have nothing else but criticism for the B.B.C. Despite all their difficulties, in the great task of pleasing all people's tastes, they have done a first-class job. They are doing a first-class job of work, and I wish them well; and I hope the House will approve this, Motion, and that the B.B.C. will go on, with the good wishes of this House, to provide the entertainment the people of this country desire.
8.38 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Robens) has very properly and reasonably raised the question of the service for the North of England, over part of which area there is a sharing between Northern England and Northern Ireland. We do quite appreciate the feeling about the matter, and we sympathise with it. As he has said, there is a corresponding feeling in Northern Ireland. There, they do not particularly want to listen to the Northern English Programme. We very much appreciate that, and accept the view that it is not satisfactory. We are sorry about it, because it does mean that listeners, either in the areas served by the Stagshaw transmitter, or in Northern Ireland, get a service which, to them, is not wholly acceptable or satisfactory. We made most careful investigations, and we considered all the alternatives; and we were driven to the conclusion that any of the available alternatives, would leave the situation less satisfactory than it is at present.
The fact is—and it affects my answer to my hon. Friend, and to a number of other hon. Members—that the number of wavelengths at the disposal of our country is strictly limited, and is inadequate to do all the things we should like to do. That is where we are in existing circumstances, and there is no possibility of allocating to the North of England region the sole use of a second medium wavelength in addition to that of the 449. I metres at present used by the Moorside Edge transmitter. The only courses open to the authorities were, therefore, either to synchronise Moorside Edge and Stagshaw on the same wavelength, or to continue the arrangement whereby Stagshaw shares its wavelength with the Northern
1270
Ireland station. If we had adopted the former course, it would have caused a very serious deterioration in the reception of programmes over a large part of the Northern counties, because the "mush" area which is the inevitable result of trying to synchronise two transmitters on the same wavelength, would have fallen on the land, whereas now it falls on the sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the difficulty that we are in and I am very sorry about it; I can assure my hon. Friend that should circumstances change, should we get more elbow room, so that we can do anything for his part of the country, we shall give the matter the earliest and the most sympathetic attention if it becomes practicable to do something for the North of England and for Northern Ireland. He is quite justified in bringing the matter up, and we hope at some time to be able to meet the perfectly fair and legitimate points of criticism which my hon. Friend put before the House.
The Debate has been an interesting one, as all Debates on British broadcasting are. And, on the whole, the B.B.C. has not come out of it too badly. They have no need to weep too many tears, although of course they have been knocked about, and that they must expect. Parliament on these occasions is bound to have a number of criticisms to make of the programmes and the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and it may well be that some of the criticisms are fair and legitimate, while others may reflect genuine differences of opinion, because undoubtedly opinion about what people want from the B.B.C. varies enormously. One person likes one thing, and another person likes another, and that is why I think it an exceedingly good thing that we now have three distinct programmes, the Home. Service, the Light Programme, and the Third Programme. I wish with others that we had the Third Programme made available all over the country, but unhappily we have not. However, we have these three distinct programmes, plus a number of regional programmes, and therefore there is a fairly wide public choice. Undoubtedly, there are sheer conflicts of opinion. That could be heard in the speeches today; it is perfectly clear that some hon. Members are favourable to one line of broadcasting while others favour another, and I dare say that even

1271
the opinions of each one of us, individually, at different parts of the day or year, according to what we have had for breakfast or with whom we have had a row, or how we are feeling in health, vary from time to time, about what we want out of the B.B.C.
Therefore I make no complaint about criticisms. Indeed, why should I? It is not my business, necessarily to champion or defend the British Broadcasting Corporation; they have no obligation to do what the Government want and I have no obligation to defend them, so it is a perfectly free situation on both sides. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) speaks with a good deal of experience of this matter, because he was Minister of Information during a considerable part of the war. Then, indeed, he had a responsibility for the British Broadcasting Corporation, because necessarily in time of war he had the fullest powers to give orders and to interfere as much as he liked. As a matter of fact, my recollection is that he interfered very little with the B.B.C., and, if I may say so, he was right. I think it was a good thing that even in the war this great weapon of broadcasting was interfered with very little by the Government of the day. I think it is greatly to the credit of the libertarian principles of this country.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, who are to retire at the end of the year from the Corporation. I have known Sir Allan Powell for many years. I knew him first as Clerk to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, then as chief officer of the Public Assistance Department of the London County Council, where he had a great job to do in creating a county machine out of 28 boards of guardians. Later, he was on the Import Duties Advisory Committee; then he has been on the British Broadcasting Corporation, which he has served for about eight years, including the war years. I think the country is indebted to him for his services, and to Captain Millis, who has been Vice-Chairman for an even longer period of service, I think it is up to 10 years. He has specialised in the financial and accountancy work of the Corporation, without prejudice to his other responsibilities. To him also the country is indebted for the services he has
1272
rendered. I am sure that the House will join with me in wishing their successors happiness and success in their work.
The right hon. Gentleman said we must face the fact that the B.B.C. is now an adult institution—that it comes of age next year. He thought that the Government were keeping it in leading strings. I do not know that I agree with him. He was fair enough to say, with regard to the power to direct the B.B.C. to broadcast news or not to broadcast news, that we had lifted those provisions which, I think, have been in the Charter ever since it started under the Conservative Government, in 1926. There is no reason why a Socialist Government should do what a Conservative Government did, and we are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for inciting us not to follow the steps of the Conservative Party too closely. I think it is right that those provisions should be there. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, those provisions, even in the war, were very little used, and I do not think it at all likely that they will be much used. I believe it is the custom, at the end of the news, to say, "Here are two police messages." So far as I know, the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary do not order the B.B.C, in writing, to disseminate these messages. They are sent along in the ordinary way, and quite often there is, unhappily, a note about foot-and-mouth disease, which I always find very depressing.
These things happen, but so far as I know, they are not directions from the Government. They are sent to the B.B.C. in the ordinary way. If the B.B.C. think the Government are sending too many, they send a representation to that effect, and sometimes suggest the form should be altered, and an amicable arrangement is made. The power is not used as a formal power. The power to direct that something shall be done, has not been formally used, and that is a very good thing, but you never know. We might have a critical situation, or an emergency might arise, and in that case it would be necessary to have the power to direct to broadcast or not to broadcast. In cases where they are directed to broadcast, the B.B.C. may say "The Government made us do this," which is an implication to the listeners that "We would not have inflicted this upon you, if we had not had to do it." If that direction is not to do something then the

1273
Government may decide, at their discretion, whether the B.B.C. are to be permitted to say that they are directed not to do it. If they propose a broadcast which, in an emergency, would be contrary to the national interest, it would be awkward if the B.B.C. were to say, "We were intending to broadcast so and so tonight, but His Majesty's Government have stopped us." Half the game would be up anyway if they mentioned what the broadcast was to be about. I can assure the House that this Government will be as sparing in the use of this power as their predecessors have been.
I hope I shall keep in Order in what I am about to say, but I must confess that the more I listened to the Debate, the more baffled I became about what is in Order and what is not. I shall do my best to keep within Order, but the line is exceedingly fine. I think everybody has been in this difficulty. However, I only wish to deal with the things which have been said. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that we need not put in a direction as to Parliamentary proceedings. It is a fair point. We think it right that the B.B.C. have been doing Parliamentary broadcasts, and I think we all agree that, broadly speaking, they have been very fairly done. It is not an easy thing to pick up a summary of a Debate in this House, and deal with it impartially. I do not always listen, because I cannot, but I have listened often and I have always found these broadcasts fair, impartial, and competently done. But the Governors might change their mind. They might decide not to do it, and we thought it right to lay it down, in black and white, that it is the duty of the B.B.C. to keep the country informed of Parliament's affairs, that we should impose the obligation upon them, in the light of day to do these daily broadcasts. Of course, the Governors would probably go on doing it anyway, especially as it is a popular feature. We have put it there in order that the Governors shall not forget, even if they were so minded, that it is one of the duties of the B.B.C. to keep the country informed about Parliament.
While it would be nice if the broadcast were at 10.15 p.m. or earlier, instead of 10.45, it could not be done at the earlier hour unless the end of the Debate was left out. Often the winding up of a Debate is the most exciting feature of the
1274
day, especially when the House is full, the issue is contentious, and everybody has fed well. When we are about to divide, and the House is "hotted up," it can be an interesting time and it would be a pity if that part of the proceedings were left out. So I think the B.B.C. are driven to the 10.45 hour and, after all, it is not so late although I agree that some people go to bed earlier. Sometimes, on a Friday and Saturday, I go to bed earlier myself, because I have been up until two o'clock in the morning during the earlier days of the week, and I want a change. For most people this hour is all right, and I do not see how it could be earlier unless the House altered its hours of Sitting. I agree about controversy. There has been general agreement that the Corporation should not be afraid of controversy. We should let it be known that we applaud the B.B.C going in for controversy. But there are two limits to it. One is that it must be fair. If there is to be an attack one way, there should be a possibility of defence the other These things should be balanced. There must be thrust, as well as cut, in the argument, pro as well as con. But it must be remembered that the B.B.C. might sometimes be pushed into discussions of a controversial character, where real trouble would arise.
I personally am not afraid of any controversy on the B.B.C, and I am not afraid of any subject. I am not talking about my taking part in it, but as a controversy and as a subject. But the Governors are right on one aspect anyway. People like ourselves are used to the rough and tumble of public life and to all sorts of ideas, some of them quite shocking; it would be difficult to shock this House about anything; but you can get on to a subject of controversy where the conscience, the mind, and even the soul, if I may say so, of a substantial part of the community would be really shocked and outraged, and they would be worried about their children hearing it. It may be that we ourselves would not worry about it, but it is a fact of which the Corporation must take account. These are the two limits to controversy. Subject to them, let controversy proceed, and one hopes that we can make arrangements about controversial broadcasts of various sorts. Mind you, we shall all grumble now and then, because we are all very good and tolerant about listening to a controversial

1275
broadcast which is up our street, and we are not so tolerant in listening to a controversial broadcast which is up the other fellow's street; and so we must be ready for the occasional heat and feeling about these things. I hope that the Governors will not be too timid, and will take account of the spirit of the House and perhaps get a little more controversial that way.
The right hon. Gentleman was very cross about the Treasury getting a little surplus at the expense of the Corporation. I must say that he was a. great champion of the B.B.C., and I felt that I was almost listening to the B.B.C. itself when he was speaking with such authentic voice on its financial and other interests. It all confirms my experience of public life in national and local government. You put a conservative anti-socialist—the more anti-socialist he is the better—in charge of a socialised institution, and, so far as that particular socialised institution is concerned, he will be as good a socialist as any of us. That is what has happened to the right hon. Gentleman. I must be careful—I am only saying this by way of illustration. The Conservative Chairman of the Highways Committee of the London County Council some years ago, having fought an election on the municipal tramways, which were losing money, fought like the devil for the preservation of the municipal tramways when I took them over.
The right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by ex-Postmasters-General when he was making his speech. There was one on either side, and he talked about the Postmasters-General in a most condescending and contentious manner. I thought that they looked a bit embarrassed. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was only getting at the present Postmaster-General, and had forgotten that he had one on either side. The Postmaster-General is an exceedingly important Minister, conducting a very great business undertaking. It is, of course, perfectly arguable, from the Socialist point of view in particular, as to whether economic undertakings publicly owned should make profits, and, if they do, whether the profits should go to the taxpayer or the ratepayer or be ploughed back into the business for the benefit of the consumer. That is a fair point to argue. If these
1276
profits were being made by a private commercial undertaking, the right hon. Gentleman would not be in any dilemma at all. He would know where they should go. There would be no query mark and no embarrassment.
Mr. Bracken: They would be ploughed back into the business.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me at this point, but I will not follow him. Some of the profit might be ploughed back into the business, and very sensible that would be. Some companies are very good at doing that. But a lot of it would be ploughed back into the pockets of the shareholders or the directors, as the case might be. Is there anything shocking in the idea that a socialised institution should make a surplus and that that surplus should go to benefit the taxpayer of the country? It is not very shocking.
Mr. Bracken: There was no question about profits going back to the Treasury. My point is that 10,500,000 people in this country pay a licence fee of £1 each to the B.B.C, but the Treasury and the Post Office between them take 4s. out of every £1, and I consider that to be very bad accounting. I very much hope the Lord President of the Council will use his influence to see that the people who pay £1 to listen to the B.B.C. get the full benefit of their expenditure, and that it does not go to the Treasury.
Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say that I wish I had analogous figures for electric lamp bulbs. I wish I knew how much each consumer is paying for them and where the money is going. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Find out."] I can easily find out; probably I will. Why should there be this shock when a surplus arises and goes to the relief of the general body of taxpayers?
Mr. Bracken: It is not a surplus.
Mr. Morrison: It is.
Mr. Bracken: It is taken away.
Mr. Morrison: So does the electric lamp manufacturer take money away from the consumer. It is exactly the same procedure. You pay for an electric lamp when you get it, and you pay for the B.B.C. when you get a licence. It is money over the counter. In the case of the B.B.C, it is over the counter. There is nothing

1277
shocking about it. The fact is that we have to fix some figure for the licence fee. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he thought it was right to increase it to £1. I agree with him. It is about two-thirds of a penny per day, and it is amazing what we get for two-thirds of a penny. It is very good. The fee was fixed at £1. It is very difficult to fix an exact figure that will produce precisely the revenue we want the B.B.C. to have. It has to be a rough and ready affair. Moreover, as the years go on, the B.B.C. may want to spend more money, and, therefore, it is wise to have a fee which, on the whole, will produce a bit more than is needed at the moment. The licence fee of £1 results in our getting more revenue than the B.B.C. at this moment has reasonable cause to spend. I think it is spending up to its own estimates. I do not think we have played about with the estimates to any extent. There is, however, a surplus which has to go somewhere, and on the whole, it had better go into the public coffers. After all, the State has granted this great monopoly to a great institution. It is not too improper that the State should get a bit of a percentage of it. In the Post Office itself, letters, telephones, and that sort of thing, give a surplus of £36 million, which goes to the relief of the Exchequer. There is nothing shocking about it.
Mr. Baxter: Why not improve the telephone service?
Mr. Bracken: The Lord President must realise that if the B.B.C. is to do what is expected of it by way of research and the development of television, it ought to build up reserves now. In my judgment, the B.B.C. should be allowed to use any surplus it receives from licence fees to build up reserves against development in the future.
Mr. Morrison: I do not think so. It is far better that the B.B.C. should agree about its research and what is wanted with the Treasury and the Post Office as it goes along, and we have said that as and when it justifies increased expenditure, we will be willing to give the matter sympathetic consideration. I do not think it would be a good thing if the B.B.C. were to build up reserves. It had better justify its expenditure as it goes along. The right hon. Gentleman said that it
1278
is a pity the B.B.C. has to negotiate with the Government about money. It is very good for expensive institutions to have negotiations from time to time with the Treasury otherwise there might be squandering of public money right and left. Some Members here today have been positively encouraging artistes and other people in this direction. The whole point of some people urging that more money should be available was that it might be available for artistes' fees and such like. Members of Parliament are most interesting, especially when they are keen on putting up other persons' incomes. I admit they do a bit in raising their own, but at the moment do hon. Members say that artistes are not properly paid? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not sure, but I know that there are some people in this world, and they shall be nameless, who think that the B.B.C. is fair game for wringing money out of. I do not accept the view that merely because there is more money about we should hand it out to artistes and so on.
If the artistes have a case for more money, let it be represented and argued out. We ought not as Members of Parliament to be stimulating expenditure and inflation, like the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who positively incited money to be spent. Yet he would be one of the first, if financial difficulties met this country, to say this was the result of squandermania. Members of Parliament are most interesting on matters of public finance until they become Ministers, and then they get still more interesting. With regard to the 6 per cent. cost of collection, I am told by the Assistant Postmaster-General that this is most scientifically worked out. It is based upon the positive estimate of what it costs the Post Office to do this work for the British Broadcasting Corporation. Again, if it is found that 6 per cent is beyond what it costs the Post Office to fulfil this service there will be an adjustment. The Post Office is not trying to make large profits out of this sort of thing.
Mr. Bracken: Why are the B.B.C. accountants not given the opportunity of inspecting this charge?
Mr. Morrison: On the contrary, they are brought in for consultation and they argue the case with the Post Office, at the

1279
end of which a decision is arrived at. I am sure it would cost the B.B.C. a great deal more to collect this money if it had to open offices all over the country. Certainly, it would be in a much worse position than a 6 per cent. cost. With regard to the Governors and their salary, it is true that at one time the salary was £750 a year, after which it went up to £1,000. Now we have reduced it to £600. It is a matter of estimate and consideration of what is a right reward for part-time services by the Governors or directors of public corporations. There may be a public corporation with a tricky, complicated, highly commercialised business to handle, in which it may be right to pay more than we would in the case of some other service. It must depend on the nature of the service, the number of meetings, the amount of travelling, the amount of effort required and so on.
I agree that the position of a Governor of the B.B.C. is a highly responsible office. I would not wish to interfere with its dignity and responsibility in any way. The kind of person we want as Governor of the B.B.C. is the kind of person who may be experienced in public affairs, who may have been knocking about in one way or the other, of good character, good sense, with his heart in the right place and a British citizen. One of them requires to be an accountant. I understand that their meetings used to be once a fortnight, but the Governors are now often meeting once a week. I admit they are meetings of substance. However, it is a matter of fairness and one would wish to be fair to the Governors and so attract the right kind of people. Even if the meetings are once a week and last for three or four hours, or may be only two, £12 a meeting is not bad going. We have to be very careful in the wide range of appointments to public corporations that are going to be made We have to balance up very carefully as we go along. We must not be finding soft places for people to fall on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that some hon. Members opposite agree with me because I remember something of that sort in the past before this Government came in. We have to be careful or something might easily go wrong about this sort of thing.
I agree that the Governors of the B.B.C. are important. I would do nothing to injure the dignity of their position; but
1280
the Government thought that £600 a year was not a bad reward for the amount of time the Governors give. In addition to the fortnightly or weekly meeting, there is an implied obligation that they should listen to broadcasting from time to time or even pretty regularly, and should even go and look at the regional offices. Nevertheless we did not think that it was bad. I will not go on to refer to the leg-pulling about public relations officers. I do not control them. Each of them is controlled by his own Minister, and believe me, I have quite enough to do without controlling those gentlemen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Benn Levy), and also the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), all referred to the idea of a series, perhaps three or four, or more, independent broadcasting corporations, or sub-corporations, as one of my hon. Friends called them. They would be independent and would be competitive and each would frame its own programme. This may be a possible thing in a vast country like the United States of America. It would be a possible thing in the Soviet Union, a most interesting thing for them to do. No doubt the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will support me in that suggestion. I see they are not present in the Chamber. Probably they are broadcasting. The two great countries I have mentioned have a number of wavelengths, but we live in a little island. The number of wavelengths we have today is limited. One of the troubles in the Continental service is that we have precious few wavelengths to play about with. I do not see that we could have enough wavelengths to run independent national corporations—and if they were to be worthy they would have to be national. The wavelengths are not there. They are partly taken up with the three existing services, and partly with the separate regional services.
I say that we have not the wavelengths but let us suppose we had. The proposed Corporations are to be independent and are to be competitive. They will be competing for the same talent and for the same comic people in the variety talent— if you can find them. There are not enough funny men to go round as far as I can tell by listening to the B.B.C. It

1281
is much easier for a man with a red nose and a curious hat to go on to the stage. He need not do anything; he gets the laughs straight away. That is no good on the B.B.C., because nobody sees the red nose and the funny hat. It is very difficult. The corporations would all be scrambling for the comic people. As the competition went on, artists' fees would go up, which would please the hon. Member for Wood Green. In this respect he is an enthusiastic inflationist. The next point is that, being competitive, they would make their own programmes and order what they liked. The whole lot of them would have their comic turns, and there would be the menace of those comics all doing something similar at the same time. That is one of the inevitable consequences of complete, competitive freedom. Even if we said afterwards, "We did not quite mean that. These bodies had better get together and co-ordinate themselves," where should we be? We should be back to the position of bringing these regional offices and shows together into one corporation, so that it could be coordinated and unified.
What are the Corporation doing? Perfectly or imperfectly, the Corporation must, first stimulate healthy competition among the Home Service, the Light Service and the Third Programme. I am told that the competitive spirit among those three services has developed, particularly since the Third Programme has come along. It has put the others on their toes. That is a good thing. I believe in competition. I like to set the services of these public concerns competing with each other. It is very good for them. There is competition among the three national programmes. There is competition among the regional programmes. As a matter of fact the B.B.C. are now in process of inviting a lot of people to serve on advisory committees, for Wales, Scotland, and the English regions, and they will stimulate competition. I believe that if you get enough emulation and competition among the British main services and emulation among the regions with a good deal of autonomy, there will be more progress than would be achieved among separate competitive groups, which I believe to be technically impossible. I believe they would not work as things are.
Mr. Benn Levy: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his last arguments contradict each other? He first argued
1282
against a multiplicity of competing broadcasting stations on the ground that there was not sufficient available talent. He said therefore that competition among them would be impossible. Then he went on to say that there was already competition. If there is, then his first objection falls.
Mr. Morrison: I think that my hon. Friend fails to distinguish between independence, separation, doing what they like as independent units, and the competitive emulation of organisations under a common ownership, and a common supreme control in the last resort. I think that what I have said is logical. Perhaps my hon. Friend will change his views when he looks at HANSARD tomorrow. The hon. Member for Wood Green was critical and caustic at the expense of the B.B.C. I like his idea about topical controversy. There is something in it which may be worth white taking notice of. It might get the B.B.C. into trouble on the ground of its topicality or the personal element but it is an idea which is worth their consideration. I do not know so much about bad singing and bad violin playing. I have heard some very good work in both directions. What I like to hear are those choirs of the people from Wales, the North and from Scotland. I like to hear the native music of the people in the regions. They should be encouraged on account of the possibilities which exist in them. The hon. Member for Mile End wants the Minister to be accountable to Parliament and for the Minister to run the B.B.C. I do not want anything of the kind. It will be a bad thing when any Minister has complete responsibility for running the B.B.C. We must preserve the independent status of the B.B.C. and it must not be afraid of the Government on the one hand, or of the Opposition on the other. It must not be afraid of anybody. It must do its job and maintain its independence. If ever it takes liberties and betrays its public trust, which is its first consideration, Parliament can always jump in—and will jump in—but subject to that, I would say, let the Debate go on, and let the criticisms and arguments be heard, but let the Governors remain responsible for running it. It would be bad for the liberty of our country if the Government had the direct day-to-day management of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I hope it will not be necessary.

1283
The hon. Member for South Ports-mouth (Sir J. Lucas) raised a question about somebody's property which the B.B.C. had requisitioned, but I am not in a position to deal with that. If he will let my hon. Friend have particulars, it may well be that the matter will be looked into. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) raised the subject of the broadcasting of Parliament, and wanted a Parliamentary wavelength. Well, I nearly said, "Dear Sir and brother, there ain't no such wavelength available." We just have not got one to spare, unless the nation would like us to give up some big service of the B.B.C. in order that Parliament may be broadcast hour by hour and day by day, but my guess is that the country would not like that. On this matter of the live broadcasting of Parliament, I am a conservative. I do not believe in it. There is something subtle about this House of Commons. It is a great insister on publicity. It hates Secret Sessions. It never liked them during the war if it could possibly avoid them. It likes the right of the public to be here and of the newspapers to report and comment. Yet this Parliamentary institution has a private life of its own, and if anybody comes poking around and interfering with it, we really get very cross. This is another of the contradictory charms of this great Parliamentary institution, and I do not want hon. Members when they are addressing you, Mr. Speaker, to forget you and think of the microphone and those who are listening outside. It would spoil our Debates.
I shall never forget going to New York City once. It is a very poor comparison and it would be perhaps very rude to make it, and I do not make it. But New York city council decided to broadcast. I know the New York city council. The business men of New York City used to go to hear the council meeting broadcast at their "elevenses" once a week. Why? For fun. To enjoy themselves. It was a joke. We here have good fun among ourselves—and this is a well-behaved assembly, an amazingly well-behaved assembly. This body controls itself to a great extent, and we have a joke and can see the fun of it, and it is enjoyable. But one could not be sure that people hearing us on the wireless would follow the joke. They might think we were being silly,
1284
when we were nothing of the kind. No, Sir, let us preserve our own domestic life among ourselves and let us not talk to mechanical instruments suspended from the ceiling—
Mr. McGovern: The less they hear us, the more they like us.
Mr. Morrison: I would not go as far as that. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) referred to the money and the Treasury "rake-off" though I do not think he called it that. Probably I have introduced that expression. He again would be one of the people who would condemn us if and when we squandered money and got into financial difficulties. I have explained to the House the principle upon which that matter is based. I have largely dealt with the principal points upon which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke. He is afraid that a monopoly in opinion would be a threat to democracy. One of the safeguards is that the B.B.C. is not permitted to have any opinions of its own—
Mr. Benn Levy: I did not say monopoly of opinions.
Mr. Morrison: Opinions come out during a broadcast, but they are not the opinions of the Corporation. The hon. Member wants to multiply the channels of expression. I do not disagree with him in principle, but there are practical difficulties on the lines which I have indicated. I am not unsympathetic about his appeal that the independence of the regions should develop and expand. I think it is happening. That would not be discouraged. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) again urged controversy as long as it was fairly done, and made a considerable point about a broadcast by somebody—I do not know who he is; I have never heard of him before—associated with Oxford University. I have read the talk and the hon. and learned Gentleman is, I am told, wrong in thinking that this gentleman is himself doing a series. He is one of a series, so I am told—
Mr. H. Strauss: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on that. This gentleman has given the second of his talks and at the end of the broadcast it was said that he would be giving another talk next

1285
Friday. It was a series of at least three. Of course he is a great favourite of the B.B.C.
Mr. Morrison: I am told that he is one of a series. There may be a misunderstanding. Perhaps I am not quite rightly informed, but I understand that there was a team consisting of Mr. E. H. Carr, Mr. Lionel Curtis, Mr. A. Toynbee, Mr. A. J. P. Taylor—the gentleman mentioned —Mr. R. C. K. Ensor, and one other to come. So it is a mixed bag. If that is so, I think part of the criticisms of the hon. and learned Member would recede. I am bound to say, and I say it without heat—it is the B.B.C.'s business—that I have read it and I think the broadcast was anti-British, anti-American, and not particularly competent. And that is all I can say about it.
Mr. McGovern: Apart from that it was all right.
Mr. Morrison: I do not defend the B.B.C.'s choice, but there it is. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) praised the Third Programme and I agree with him. I think it is one of the most daring things anybody has ever done. There have been long things in it. Look at "Man and Superman," which lasted for over three hours and was given on three nights. Then somebody read about that Japanese place—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hiroshima."] I cannot pronounce it—where the atom bomb went off. He read the account, I am told, without drama, without music or anything, straight over a period. It was a most daring thing to do and it has come off. In the Third Programme they have really gone above the popular estimate of popular taste; nevertheless, they have hit it, and even if their listening public is only 30 per cent.—I do not know what it is—they are right. They have done a great thing. And what a lesson to popular journalism there is in all this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] And, if I may say so, for Members of Parliament, too. The truth is that the public is never as bad as people think it is: it is better than in the judgment of even the experts. This public is coming up, it is going on, it is getting better educated, it is more intelligent. Watch it, politicians.
Mr. Baxter: Is that why the "News of the World" has a circulation of over 7 million a week?
Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the "News of the World" is a more intelligent paper than it was ten years ago—and the "Recorder" is better than it would have been ten years ago, though I must say that a gentleman called ''Brutus'' is a bit rough now and again.
Dr. Morgan: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us that joke, because we did not hear it over here?
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend, being an Irishman, would not understand it. This is a Wood Green joke. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutherglen about taking account of Scotland, and I hope the Scottish Advisory Committee which is about to function will be helpful in that direction. I do not agree with him about sponsored programmes. I just do not want the business of commercial advertising in the B.B.C, and I hope that we shall not have it.
Mr. McAllister: What I was suggesting was that sponsored programmes should be considered at the inquiry.
Mr. Morrison: As far as that is concerned, it will be perfectly proper for that to come within the inquiry, and evidence on it can be given. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) asked about overseas and colonial broadcasts. The situation of the overseas broadcasting to foreign countries is distinctly encouraging. Results, as far as we can test them, in Europe, are good. It is the case that staffs have diminished. There was the period of uncertainty at the end of the war, for one thing, and we could not go on spending money at the rate at which we were spending in the war. The money had to be cut down but now it is coming out of the Treasury. It did deteriorate, I admit, but we are trying to build it up again. The Colonial Empire is more difficult, because it is so far-flung. But the Colonial Office and the B.B.C. are giving the matter their closest attention, and doing their best about it. In regard to Radio Luxemburg, on which the hon. Member and I crossed swords some months ago, I am sorry to tell the House that the negotiations were not successful, and we have not got Radio Luxemburg. I wish we had.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman no longer desires to interfere with the liberty of Radio Luxemburg?
Mr. Morrison: I am not sure about that. Anyhow, he can be happy, as I have not the chance at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) made some allegations, or raised some questions, about suspected—I do not know whether it was suspected or alleged, because I was out at dinner at the time—bribery in connection with the B.B.C. I am told that the B.B.C. have asked my hon. Friend twice to let them have the evidence on which the suspicions, or allegations, are based and that he has not yet let them have the evidence. I have heard these things elsewhere. If I may say so, I think that if hon. Members have reason to suspect irregular practices, no one would jump on them more willingly than I would, if evidence were produced. But it is not altogether fair within the protected privilege of this House for us to make allegations, unless we produce the evidence. I am sure if my hon. Friend will produce the evidence either to the B.B.C. directly, or to myself, the allegations will most certainly be investigated.
I am much obliged to the House for the friendly and sympathetic way in which it has received the Motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and I hope very much it will now be passed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That the Licence and Agreement, dated 29th November 1946, between His Majesty's Postmaster General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was presented on 3rd December, be approved."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise further increases-under and otherwise amend, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and to continue that Act in force as amended, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenditure which under subsection (1) of section five of the said Act of 1944 is to be defrayed out of moneys so provided, being an increase attributable to—

  (a) provisions of the said Act of the present Session, operating from such date as may be specified therein,—

  1288

  (i) raising the limits of income and pension up to which increases may be made under section one of the said Act of 1944, in the case of married pensioners and pensioners with dependants to four hundred and fifty pounds a year, and in the case of other pensioners to three hundred and fifty pounds a year;

  (ii) raising the limit of pension up to which increases may be made under section two of the said Act of 1944 to seven hundred and eighty-seven pounds ten shillings a year;

  (iii) raising the scale of increases under sections one and two of the said Act of 1944;

  (b) provisions of the said Act of the present Session continuing in force the said Act of 1944 after the date on which it would otherwise expire, but subject to special provision in the case of pensions determined by reference to the average emoluments of service part of which was served before such date as may be specified in the said Act of the present Session."

  Resolution agreed to.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. Osbert Peake: Are we not to have an explanation of the Bill from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?
  9.34 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): This Bill has been introduced at the request of the Trustee Savings Banks Association, a body which has been in existence since 1887, and which was formally recognised in the Savings Banks Act, 1929. The purpose of the Bill is to give these savings banks two powers. The first is to make provision for the improvement of the superannuation benefits of their staffs; and secondly, to empower the banks to make advances for the extension of existing, or the formation of additional, savings banks. The savings bank movement has grown steadily during the last 150 years There are now 87 such banks, with branches to talling something like 800. Their total deposits now exceed £600 million, and they have between them surplus funds amounting to approximately £16 million.
  The first five Clauses of the Bill contain provisions to enable the savings banks,

  1289
  the Association itself and the Inspection Committee, to make better superannuation arrangements for those whom they employ. They will, if the Bill goes through, be able to set aside and build up superannuation reserve funds. They will also be empowered to set up contributory pension funds for new entrants, to provide, on the lines of the Superannuation Act of 1935, for death grants to dependants of members of their staffs who have died in service, and also to permit a superannuation beneficiary to make provision by allocation for his widow or other dependants. Clause 6, the remaining Clause, might be described as a development Clause. It enables banks with surplus funds to assist other banks not so fortunate, to expand, or to open new branches. That, quite briefly, covers the provisions of this Bill. It has been considered in another place, in our view it is not contentious, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading without much trouble.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: We are indebted to the Financial Secretary for his explanation of the Bill. The trustee savings bank movement is very valuable. It has rendered yeoman service in this country for over 150 years, and has deposits approximately half those of the Post Office Savings Bank, and some 4,250,000 depositors. Therefore, anything we can do to assist these institutions in their internal machinery for making provision for their employees as regards pensions, etc., will be welcomed in all parts of the House. The only Clause of the Bill about which I am a little puzzled is Clause 6, which enables these institutions not only to advance money to each other in order to enable extension of business to take place, but also enables the trustees of a savings bank to advance money to persons who are desirous of forming a new bank. As the Financial Secretary told us, there are some 89 trustee savings banks already, and they have innumerable branches. They are all perfectly free to open new branches whenever and wherever they please. I am, therefore, a little puzzled by the provisions of Clause 6, which enables these banks to lend money to enable new banks to be established. I daresay that it is a good thing. Certainly it does not seem as though it could do anybody any harm. At the same time, I am a little puzzled by
  1290
  the necessity for including this Clause in the Bill. Perhaps when we come to the Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman would give us a little fuller explanation of the necessity for this Clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL [Lords']
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. John Dugdale.]
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: We wish from these benches to welcome the general object of this Bill. It is very desirable that these awards should be made available to a wider circle of people than has been the case in the past. It is wise also to remove the present restrictions on the amounts of the awards. On these two main points of the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty can count on the support of hon. Members on these benches. Now, let me come to a complaint which we have about the Bill. We do not complain of what is in it but we complain of what is left out. In previous Greenwich Hospital Bills the upper limits of the scales of pension and benefit have been specified but these are removed from this Bill, and rightly removed, if it is intended to increase them. However, no new limits have been substituted or prescribed in their place in the present Bill. Instead, I understand these limits will be fixed by the Admiralty and determined by Orders in Council.
  On this side of the House we feel that this is yet another example of a Bill introduced by the present Government which removes the power from the people and places it in the hands of the Executive. I agree that Orders in Council issued under this Bill will be subject to discussion by this House but such scrutiny, I think, lacks the flexibility which is provided by the normal passage of a Bill through Parliament. Orders in Council, as hon. Members know, can be discussed but they cannot be amended by this House. They must be accepted or rejected as they stand. It would have been preferable if

  1291
  the scales of pension and benefit had been specified in the Bill as they have been in the Greenwich Hospital Bills of the past. I do not want to keep the House long and I would ask the Minister whether he can tell us what those new scales are to be? If he cannot tell us tonight, I wonder if he can promise to look into the matter and see if it is possible to inform us during the later stages of the Bill. From these Benches we promise general support to the main theme of the Bill.
  9.43 p.m.
  Major Bruce: I would like to endorse the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas). I have no doubt myself that any intention which the Parliamentary Secretary has in regard to this Bill is a perfectly good one. The Bill itself gives no indication as to what are the intentions of the Admiralty. All it does is to remove a series of restrictions. It removes the restrictions laid down by Section 5 of the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1869, as subsequently amended, which I believe imposed a limit of £45 12s. 6d. for any pension. It goes on to amend certain Sections of the Act of 1872. I have been at some effort to endeavour to find out how these provisions have been amended in the years since 1872. As I see it, the present position, as left by this Bill, is that Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1872 is deleted. That prescribed that the total number of girls who are the daughters of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Navy and Marines, being educated and maintained at any one time, shall not exceed 200. Section 5 (2) removes the restriction on the amount.
  I have been unable to trace exactly what is the effect of this Bill on Section 4 (2) of the Act of 1872, which says that the amount expended under any Section for any particular girl will not exceed £20, and also, as regards Section 5 (1), where it is prescribed that the total number of boys and girls being educated and maintained under Section 5 will not exceed 50. I am a little mystified by this, because, under the Second Schedule to the Bill, it is indicated that the whole of the remaining part of the Section is repealed, whereas, if one turns to Clause 1 (b) and (c) of the Bill, it appears only to repeal the Subsection, and I should be very pleased
  1292
  if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty can inform us whether there may have been other Acts in between which repealed the remaining Subsections, or whether it is, in fact, the intention to repeal the whole of the remaining Subsections
  I now pass to Clause 1 (2) which indicates, I think, rather an important point in regard to how the Greenwich Hospital pensions shall be assessed in future, in regard to the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1920 and 1944. Under those Acts, it is made clear that increases in pensions granted under both those Acts shall not be taken into account when determining Greenwich Hospital pensions; or alternatively that Greenwich Hospital pensions, in being determined, shall not take account of any pensions granted under those Acts. I observe that, in this Bill, this provision in. those Acts is, in fact, repealed, and, therefore, in future, grants of Greenwich Hospital pensions shall, in fact, take into account any pensions granted under any other Act. I am bound to say straight away that this appears to conflict with the general intention of the grant of these pensions originally, and they go back to 1865. In fact, in the Fourth Report of the Committee on Public Accounts (Command Paper 172–1), in which the Greenwich Hospital pensions were reviewed, it was made quite clear, when the Chairman, questioning Sir Sydney Barnes, asked: ''These are pensions which are something extra and special, after other service pensions?", and the answer was—" Yes." Originally, they were granted by Greenwich Hospital to the Navy alone, but, in 1920 it was agreed that all the Services should undertake their own pensions, the difference being that Greenwich Hospital is a private charity, whereas the Army, Navy and Air Force pensions are paid for from the Services Votes."
  Having regard to the record of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on Service pay and pensions, and to his intentions under this Bill, I have no doubt that we shall get a satisfactory reply when he comes to speak, but, under the Bill itself, it is by no means clear. I myself would like a declaration from the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not the basic principle behind the original grant of a Greenwich hospital pension, which is made to the aged and infirm

  1293
  people of our country who have served in the Navy and the Royal Marines, and originally, also in the Merchant Navy, is, in fact, going to be departed from, and. if so, in what respect. It may be said that the intention behind the Bill is generally to upgrade the pensions which have been previously granted under the Greenwich Hospital Acts. If so, I feel sure that everybody will be only too pleased to support it, but one is bound to point out that, when the estimates for the Greenwich Hospital were debated some two or three months ago, the estimate for the current year was some £30,000 down.
  I should be glad to know how the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to reconcile the estimated reduction in expenditure for the current year—which we discussed in this House a little time ago— with any anticipated increase under the Bill. I am confident that all these things will be capable of explanation when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, but they are not obvious on the face of the Bill.
  There is one other point on which I should like a little information. In the past, it has been laid down by regulation, or by Order in Council, that if a Greenwich Hospital pensioner is, for any reason, in receipt of public assistance relief, or is in a public assistance institution, he is not permitted to have a Greenwich Hospital pension. I have raised this question in the House before, and I hope it may be possible to effect some kind of redress in regard to these pensions.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I only wish to ask one question, which is: To what extent does the stoppage of the Greenwich Hospital pension increases contribute to, or permit of, the extension of pensions to be made under this Bill? I ask that question because I have tried and failed to get the information before. To what extent will these stoppages assist this Bill? I was informed last June, in reply to a Question, that the amount saved as a result of stopping the pension increases—an action which, incidentally, has caused a considerable amount of discontent among our chief petty officers and men who have recently left the Service— would be used for the purposes mentioned in this Bill. To what extent financially
  1294
  do these stoppages contribute towards the objects of the Bill?
  9.52 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am sorry that there is not very much time left in which both to reply to questions and to explain the objects of this Bill. I had prepared a rather longer speech, going back to William III and Mary, but I have scrapped most of that. I want to make quite clear, as briefly as I can, exactly what this Bill does. It is aimed at removing restrictions both on the amounts which may be given to people and on the categories of people who may receive those amounts. That is the main object of the Bill. It repeals the maximum of 17s. 6d. a week which was fixed in 1898. That maximum included any income which a man might derive by way of a naval pension, with the result that anybody in receipt of a naval pension today is, in fact, excluded from it. The Bill removes certain minor limitations, which I will not mention for the moment, and it also, which I think is perhaps the most important thing of all, widens the class of people who may receive this benefit. In the past, only the widows and dependants of people killed or drowned in the service of the Crown might receive it. Today, the relatives of people who are killed or drowned in the service of the Crown receive pensions from the Ministry of Pensions and, as a result, Greenwich Hospital Funds have not been able to help them. We are, therefore, proposing to give pensions to people who are killed or who die, not by being killed or drowned in the service of the Crown, but from any cause whatever, the object being to fill in the gaps in all those cases where people do not get pensions under any of the other numerous Acts passed by this and other Governments. We want to be certain that nobody is left out.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, said that the upper limits had been removed and he wanted to know what the new figure would be. Our aim is that the new figure should be somewhere round about 35s. a week, but it may be more. That is roughly the figure we are working on at the moment, but, on the Committee stage, perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman something more definite. Orders in Council are naturally subject to discussion, and if the Opposition

  1295
  wish to raise any particular point on the Orders in Council in connection with this Bill they can, of course, do so.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: They cannot amend them.
  Mr. Dugdale: They cannot amend them, I agree, but they can raise points on them, they can divide upon them and they can defeat them if they wish.
  The only other point I wish to mention is the one raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), to which he had drawn my attention before. That is the position of people in public institutions. In the past, if they have been in public institutions they have been unable to benefit from this pension. I undertake that I will produce amending regulations by which, if a local authority will guarantee that the money goes to the man himself who is in hospital and is not taken by them by way of relief of rates, the pension will be given to the man in the hospital. I could say a great deal more, but I do not propose to say it because I do not want to talk my own Bill out, and I notice that the Whips are looking a little restive This is a small Bill, but it will help a very deserving class of citizens. Without it, many people may go unaided. With it, I hope we shall be able to make a little happier—perhaps I might even say, much happier—the lives of a number of deserving men.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tomorrow—[Mr. R.J. Taylor.]

  COTTON (CENTRALISED BUYING) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for centralised buying, selling and distribution of raw cotton and for the establishment of a Commission for that purpose (in this Resolution referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) The issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums for periodical advances to the said Commission as follows, that is to say—

  (i) for the purpose of meeting outgoings of theirs properly chargeable to revenue account, advances such that the aggregate outstanding at any time in respect
  1296
  thereof, and of such part of the net value of assets transferred to them by virtue of the Act as may be treated there under as an initial advance for that purpose, shall not exceed the aggregate of that part of that net value and seventy-five million pounds, and

  (ii) for the purpose of meeting outgoings of theirs properly chargeable to capital account, advances not exceeding in the aggregate ten million pounds (reckoned without bringing into account such part of the net value of assets transferred to them by virtue of the Act as may be treated there under as an initial advance for that purpose).

  subject to provision for the making of payments by them to the Board of Trade by way of interest on such initial and periodical advances and of repayment thereof.

  (b) The issuing out of the Consolidated Fund, for payment to the said Commission and credit to their reserve fund, of a sum representing the net profit accruing to the Board of Trade from the discharge of their raw cotton functions on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, determined having regard to all relevant considerations including the net value of assets transfered as aforesaid.

  (c) The raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorized to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned in this Resolution or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued.

  (d) The payment into the Exchequer of payments to be made as aforesaid by the said Commission to the Board of Trade, the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer representing such payments, and the application of sums so issued in redemption or payment off or debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

  Resolution agreed to.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Dartmouth, a copy of which Order was presented on 9th December, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Stroud, a copy of which Order was presented on 9th December, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act. 1932, to the Rural District of Petworth, a copy of which Order was presented on 9th December, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

  FRIED FISH SHOPS (RURAL AREAS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— —[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Glossop: I make no apology at this late hour for raising on the Adjournment the question of the lack of fried fish shops in rural areas. I think it is somewhat interesting that while so many of the supporters of the Government claimed at the last Election that they represented a certain section of the community—those with limited financial means—there were 38 Members on the opposite benches a minute and a half ago, whereas there are nine of them at present, and Members of the Opposition should be left to draw attention to the lack of fried fish shops in rural district council areas. On 20th November I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food a Question asking him how many applications for licences in rural district council areas had been made during the last 12 months, and how many of those licences had been granted. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that for the 12 months ending 15th October this year, for the country as a whole, 2,379 applications had been made, of which 1,163 had been granted. In a supplementary question I pointed out that I had not had an answer to my original Question, and that what I wanted to know was how many applications had been applied for in areas represented by rural district councils, and how many, in fact, had been granted.
  It being Ten 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. Simmons.]
  Mr. Glossop: The Minister told me in reply to that supplementary question that his Ministry—in which I had the honour to be for four years, when we were indeed hard worked—only had the figures for the
  1298
  country as a whole, and had not, in fact, the figures for the rural district council areas. It was because of that answer that I gave notice that I would raise this question in the House again.
  I do not wish to take up very much time, because I want to give the Minister ample time for reply. What I want to know is: How many applications have been received from the respective fish fryers in rural district council areas, and how many, in fact, have been accepted? I agree with the Minister, there is a very great shortage of fats. I have a horrible feeling that the longer this Government remain in office the shorter will grow the amount of fat available. The fact remains, that during the last 12 months 1,163 applications for fried fish shops have been granted. If the Minister is unable to tell the House how many of those have been granted in rural district council areas, I think that I should be right and fair in assuming that, once again, there is a definite bias by the present Government in favour of the people in the towns and the people in the urban areas as opposed to the people living in the countryside. Taking everything into account, I suggest the people who live in the countryside are entitled to exactly the same amenities as are provided for the people in the towns and urban areas.
  I now wish to refer for one moment to a matter which, I think, has a relative bearing on this. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Civil Restaurants Bill, the Minister said, referring to private enterprise and catering—and I have notified the right hon. Gentleman in advance that I would refer to this:
  "So far, on the whole, it has not provided, on anything like an adequate scale, for public eating out, for the industrial and, for that matter, the agricultural working class of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 1802.]
  How can private enterprise provide eating out facilities in rural district areas unless the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are prepared to give the necessary facilities to private enterprise to provide those eating out facilities? The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary—and again I have notified the Minister that I would raise this—are aware of an application put in some months ago by a Mr. Beck of Seaton Ross, near York, for a fried fish licence, which had the support of the local rural district

  1299
  council Nevertheless, it was turned down by the Ministry. In the application he not only asked for a licence for his own village of Seaton Ross, but said that if the licence were granted he was prepared to run a van twice a week in order to serve nine other villages in the immediate vicinity. In other words there was a newcomer to the fried fish business—possibly anxious to gain financial remuneration; but, after all, there is nothing wrong in getting remuneration. He was prepared to develop and use it to provide, not only one village, but nine other villages, with a regular supply of fried fish each week. I apologise for bringing up what, after all, is just one individual case; but I suggest that that case from Seaton Ross in York is only one of many which other hon. Members here tonight could bring up of applications that have been turned down by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I am aware that it may be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to make concessions tonight. There is such a thing as Government policy. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary—and again, for the benefit of the House, I have written to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject—wrote to me on 19th October, and she said:
  "The policy of the Ministry is to issue licences for fried fish and chip businesses only in exceptional circumstances, where there is evidence that a refusal will cause a very high degree of public hardship."
  Well, I venture to suggest that there are several fried fish shops in both Dundee and West Fulham, and that it is a hardship that here, in the big rural area of Seaton Ross, with nine other villages round about, they should be deprived of a shop, the only shop we are asking for, while the constituencies of West Fulham and Dundee, undoubtedly, have many more than one fried fish shop each.
  I am beginning to wonder—indeed, I am more than interested in this—whether under the Civic Restaurants Bill the right hon. Gentleman has not given a high priority to a civic restaurant at Seaton Ross. I have been in my constituency, and been on relatively friendly terms with the right hon. Gentleman, so, perhaps, I may get an invitation to take part in the opening of that civic restaurant. Quite seriously, I wonder whether the intention of the Minister, in refusing these reasonable applications, is that he is thinking
  1300
  that these are going to be highly suitable places for civic restaurants. I should like to suggest, in all seriousness, that this Government is so dazzled by the multicoloured forms which the Departments are printing, and which our constituents, unfortunately, are having to fill in, and that they are so mesmerized by their red prints of nationalisation, that they have little or no time to look ahead. They will have to face up to a very difficult crisis in 17 or 18 months' time.
  The American Loan is going to run out. It is being spent on films and tobacco, and there will be a shortage of food. Again there will be, for the third time, a great appeal to the agricultural community in this country to produce more and yet more food. The agricultural community will be asked to produce more food than they produced between 1914 and 1918, and probably to produce even more than they did between 1939 and 1945. The House will know that you have only to ask the farmer and the farm man to produce, and you find that there are no more loyal citizens in this country than those two sections of the community. But you cannot produce bricks without straw and you cannot produce farm products without labour, and the labour situation is becoming, and will go on becoming, increasingly difficult.
  We now have the policy, perhaps quite rightly, of month by month returning prisoners of war to Germany, and despite what some farmers may have said about P.O.W. labour, they have been extraordinarily helpful in the past, and therefore we shall find a shortage of labour. Unfortunately, in their wisdom the Government have repealed the Rural Workers (Housing) Act, and it is becoming extremely difficult for houses to be reconditioned and improved. Therefore I would suggest that the question to which the attention of the House and particularly of the Government should be directed is, where is the labour to come from on the land to harvest the crops in 1947 and, much more particularly, in 1948? I have lived all my life in a country district, and I doubt, with all respect, that there are many hon. Members of this House who know the minds and the views of the agricultural worker better than I do. They want, and rightly want if they are to stay on the land, the same amenities as are given in the towns. They want houses, they want electricity, they want gas, water

  1301
  and buses. I know the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for any of those, but he is responsible for food, which is his particular job, and it is on that particular point that I am taking him up tonight.
  If the restriction on more fish and chip shops in the countryside is necessary, why are licences being given in other parts of the country? Surely in the countryside, where there are no restaurants, either British or private enterprise, there is a very real need for the facilities which a fried fish shop can provide? We on this side of the House are often accused of representing a particular section of the community. I live seven miles from a town, and even before the war I never had a free delivery of fish from a fish shop. I am fortunate, I admit it; I can have a motor car and send someone seven miles for some fish, which is all very pleasant for me, but it is not very pleasant for the small tenant and the farm worker, who must walk half a mile to a bus, pay fivepence to get to the town, then—under the present Government—stand in a queue for some fish, queue again for the bus—another fivepence—and then walk back half a mile. That takes almost half a day, and therefore, if there should be any priority at all with regard to the distribution of fish, surely that priority should be given at the present time to the rural areas?
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will not get increased labour on the land, unless they give these facilities. I know the difficulties in the case of bricks, water and electricity, the shortage of iron and steel to provide water pipes and so on, for which the Government cannot fundamentally be blamed, but this is a case where there is a certain amount of fat available, and I suggest that priority should be given in rural areas for fried fish and chip shops. I am anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman time to reply, and perhaps I have not impressed him very much in the few moments available. Perhaps I may impress him by saying that, only 10 days ago, I was in my constituency—and in some constituencies the Government do come in for a certain amount of criticism—where a man in a pub said to me, "You may well find, when the General Election comes along, not only in the country districts but in the towns, chalked on the pavements and
  1302
  on the walls, 'Empty heads put them in, and empty tummies will turn them out.'"
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: I am sure that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Glossop) for having taken this opportunity to bring before the House the needs of rural England so far as fried fish shops are concerned, but I cannot think that the House will be grateful for the third-class political propaganda speech which has taken up 15 minutes of the time. This is certainly a practical problem, and I hope that one day Members on the opposite side will be able to turn to the problems of rural England with a practical outlook, and with an effort to try to solve them. It is true that the conditions were bad while they were in office, and that their conversion to amenities for rural England has been but recent, and consequently, they are like young converts and are quite enthusiastic about the matter. The hon. Member spoke as if he was the greatest authority on this particular subject. I have given a great deal of my time in rural England, and I have come from my constituency, not 10 days ago, but this very day.
  Mr. Glossop Mr. Glossop rose—
  Mr. Dye: I am not giving way, because I shall speak for only a few minutes. As far as my own experience is concerned, I have been the Chairman of the British Restaurant Committee for a rural district during the war, and since the war I have taken an interest in the feeding of my people—we have our British Restaurants, as well as our meat pies. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way clear, in the next few months, or as early as possible, as supplies become available, to enable those who are desirous of serving villages with fried fish shops to provide these facilities. I realise that there is a shortage of fat, and that the people who serve rural England in this respect have done so for very little profit, because there are comparatively few customers. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when he receives a request from a village, it may be for a population of only 200 or 300, such as in the case of a village in my constituency from which an application has recently been made, it will be only for a small shop which will not require as

  1303
  much fat as in the case of the larger centres.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend can be a little more generous in giving licences for fish shops in rural England. I ask him to remember that so often in the villages there has been a lack of amenities and services in this respect, but we hope that, as time goes on, the farmworker and his wife will be able to enjoy fish and chips, not on the one day when they go to the nearest market town, but two or three days a week, when the fish and chips can be fried in their own village. I ask my right hon. Friend to use what additional fats become available in the future to extend this facility to rural England.
  10.21 p.m.
  Brigadier Rayner: I would like to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Howdensbire (Mr. Glossop). When I was commanding First Army Signals in the war, we organised one of our lorries as a mobile food shop, and it was used on all exercises and manoeuvres up to D Day. It became far and away the most popular article of equipment that we possessed. It was instructive to see, on a cold and wet day, how morale went up when that vehicle was observed in the offing. I have been trying lately to apply that idea to the villages and towns around my own home in Devonshire, and to fit up a vehicle as a mobile fish and chips shop. I failed, but I am hoping that the Minister, when I write to him shortly to ask for his help with a few odd permits, will be sympathetic. The cowman has to spend seven days a week with cows, and the average agricultural worker has to work outside in all sorts of weather. He needs hot food when he can get it. The men working outside in all sorts of weather require hot food more than do people working in well warmed factories, and I think we should do something about it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Howdenshire that unless we do something to bring the agricultural worker more on a par with the town worker as regards the ordinary everyday comforts of life, we are likely in this country to go a bit hungry in due course.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr
  1304
  Glossop) raised this matter originally because I could not give him some figures for which he asked. I ask him to believe —he tells me that he has worked in the Ministry of Food—that that was not because of any unwillingness, but because it places a very considerable burden on the staff to ask them to try to get figures which happen sometimes, simply because of the administrative arrangements, to involve a great many hours of work. We have tried to satisfy the hon. Member, however, and I can give him, at any rate, a sample. The difficulty in this case is to differentiate the rural areas within the divisional food areas, but we have taken a sample of 64 rural areas, with a population of 500,000, and I can give the figures for those areas for the 12 months ended 15th October last. There were 40 licences for fried fish shops granted, 34 rejected, and seven revoked. If one applies those figures to the total figures in the area, that meant that there was a net increase of nine per cent. of fried fish shops in those rural areas, so that it would not be true to say, in spite of all the considerations which I shall give in a moment, that there are no new fried fish shops being opened in rural areas. Although there are not nearly as many as we should like—I join with every hon. Member in saying that—there are some.
  I think the hon. Member for Howdenshire probably accepts, however reluctantly—and I accept with great reluctance—the limiting factor on the total number of fried fish shops, whether in urban areas or in rural areas, which can be opened, and that is simply fats. It is very sad because we have the fish and we have the chips and if only we had the fats we could go much further. The fats are the deadly limiting factor here. We use 50,000 tons a year of fats in this way, and we cannot go further than that until our fat supplies increase. If they do, we will very seriously consider the use of them in this way among the many other users who are clamorous for fats today. As to the ratio of new licences granted in rural areas to urban areas, I do not pretend to have the complete figures, but from the figures which we have been able to get, there is no evidence at all that the rural areas are doing badly. We do not exactly control the way in which the new licences are granted, because the majority of them have to be granted on

  1305
  priority applications—to applicants who had businesses before the war and who had to close them down because they went into the Forces, or for other war reasons. We have to give back their licences, and they may be in urban areas, so we cannot exactly channel the new applications granted to particular areas, whether urban or rural. The distribution of the new applicants who succeed in obtaining licences is not completely in our hands. So far as I can see, there is no reason to suppose that the rural areas are doing badly in this matter.
  It is a very attractive idea that we should have mobile fried fish shops in rural areas. Once we have the fats, I think that we could always grant such licences. If we had the fats I do not see why there should be any question of licences at all. Do away with them, certainly. We shall do so when that is possible. But as long as there is short supply, we must give it to priority users, and there is a terribly small remaining margin which we can give for consumer needs. It is only in the most extreme cases of consumer need that we are able to give additional licences, because the priority users to whom we must give back their licences use up practically all the supplies we can spare.
  With regard to the civic restaurants, I did not take the hon. Member's point very seriously. If it is taken seriously, I must point out at once that it shows a total ignorance of the Civic Restaurants Measure which is before the House, because he asked me whether I would establish a civic restaurant in some particular rural area. I have no powers
  1306
  under that Bill to establish a civic restaurant there or anywhere else. All the Bill does is to allow the local authority of that or any other area to establish a civic restaurant if it wishes to do so. I am afraid that no civic restaurant will necessarily or automatically get an allowance of fats. If a British Restaurant happens to have an existing allowance, it will probably be able to continue it. But there is no pledge on allocation. If hon. Members think that we shall hesitate in any way to give civic restaurants their equal allocations with other users of fats they are quite wrong. We shall not favour them, but we shall not put them one wit behind the commercial caterers in any of these respects.
  I can assure the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) that we will certainly regard rural areas' needs in this, as in other foodstuffs, as of the utmost importance, and as supplies become available they will be fully shared. But I would not agree on balance that the rural areas are worse off for foodstuffs today. It is difficult to equate the advantages of the town, with its larger facilities for catering establishments, to the advantage of the rural area with facilities for growing food, keeping hens and the like. Far be it from me to strike that balance. The rural areas are quite convinced that they are worse off, and the urban areas are quite convinced that they are worse oft. Far be it for me to strike a balance between them.
  It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

GERMANY
  Bread and Cereals Rations
  Bread and Cereals Rations
  Commercial Exports
  Commercial Exports
  Burglary and Larceny, Herford
  Burglary and Larceny, Herford
  Control Commission Staffs (Germans)
  Control Commission Staffs (Germans)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Custard and Blancmange Powder
  Custard and Blancmange Powder
  Lemons
  Lemons
  Surplus Herrings
  Surplus Herrings
  SOAP
  SOAP
MALAYA
  Rice Ration
  Rice Ration
  Resistance to Japanese (Compensation)
  Resistance to Japanese (Compensation)
  Educational Facilities
  Educational Facilities
  Revised Constitution (Discussion)
  Revised Constitution (Discussion)
FIJI
  Labour Advisory Board
  Labour Advisory Board
  Housing
  Housing
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (OFFICIALS' VISITS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (OFFICIALS' VISITS)
MALTA
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Emigrants (U.S.A.)
  Emigrants (U.S.A.)
TRINIDAD
  Development
  Development
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Ex-officials (Pensions)
  Ex-officials (Pensions)
  Sierra Leone (Legislative Council)
  Sierra Leone (Legislative Council)
  Freetown Municipality Ordinance
  Freetown Municipality Ordinance
ADEN
  Education (Jews)
  Education (Jews)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  PALESTINE (INDUSTRIAL DAMAGE)
  PALESTINE (INDUSTRIAL DAMAGE)
ROYAL NAVY
  Frigates (Armament Accommodation)
  Frigates (Armament Accommodation)
  Ministers' Visits
  Ministers' Visits
  Battleships
  Battleships
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Re-entry Scheme
  Re-entry Scheme
  War Losses
  War Losses
  Ratings (Communication with M. P. s)
  Ratings (Communication with M. P. s)
  Air Stations (Grass Drying Plants)
  Air Stations (Grass Drying Plants)
  White Court, Braintree
  White Court, Braintree
  MERCHANT NAVY (UNION JACK)
  MERCHANT NAVY (UNION JACK)
  B.B.C. (DOLLAR EXPENDITURE)
  B.B.C. (DOLLAR EXPENDITURE)
POST OFFICE
  Polish Sorters
  Polish Sorters
  Oversea Parcels Post (Registration;
  Oversea Parcels Post (Registration;
  Oversea Forces (Newspapers)
  Oversea Forces (Newspapers)
  Postmen (Height Limit)
  Postmen (Height Limit)
  Grimsdyke Telephone Exchange
  Grimsdyke Telephone Exchange
  Parcel Mails (Eastern Europe)
  Parcel Mails (Eastern Europe)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Cinema Service
  Cinema Service
  Wireless Mechanics
  Wireless Mechanics
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  "Soviet News"
  "Soviet News"
  Patrols, Manchester
  Patrols, Manchester
  Mingalodon Station
  Mingalodon Station
CIVIL AVIATION
  Fairwood Common Aerodrome, Gower
  Fairwood Common Aerodrome, Gower
  Prestwick—Montreal
  Prestwick—Montreal
  National Consultative Council
  National Consultative Council
  Scottish Advisory Council
  Scottish Advisory Council
  Pension Scheme (Consultations)
  Pension Scheme (Consultations)
  Pilots, B.E.A.C. (Pay and Conditions)
  Pilots, B.E.A.C. (Pay and Conditions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Boats)
  Purchase Tax (Boats)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Requisitioned Property (Public Funds)
  Requisitioned Property (Public Funds)
EDUCATION
  Training Grants
  Training Grants
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Research
  Research
  VISAS (VISITORS TO U.K.)
  VISAS (VISITORS TO U.K.)
  REGISTRATION (BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD)
  REGISTRATION (BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD)
  CEREAI IMPORTS
  CEREAI IMPORTS
  JAPAN (FORCES MAIL)
  JAPAN (FORCES MAIL)
  PORTUGAL (GERMAN ASSETS)
  PORTUGAL (GERMAN ASSETS)
  RURAL SEWERAGE SCHEMES
  RURAL SEWERAGE SCHEMES
  GOVERNMENT OCCUPIED LAND
  GOVERNMENT OCCUPIED LAND
  TRANSPORT CONCERNS (STAFFS)
  TRANSPORT CONCERNS (STAFFS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Wyfold—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

INDIA.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICKLAWRENCE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I propose to make a short statement on the Indian situation. Your Lordships will have seen that the conversations with Indian leaders which took place during last week have unforunately ended without agreement being achieved. As your Lordships know, the Government issued a statement at the conclusion of the conversations but your Lordships will no doubt wish to have some account of the present situation.
It will be remembered that on May 16 last the Cabinet Mission made proposals which it was hoped would bridge the gap between the Hindu and Moslem points of view and enable Indians to frame their own Constitution by the accepted democratic method of a Constituent Assembly. In order to provide the most hopeful basis for co-operation in Constitution-making, the Cabinet Mission found it necessary to recommend both the outline of a future Constitution for India and a particular procedure whereby the details might be elaborated. The essence of their proposals was that, while there would be a Union of India limited to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications, there would be an opportunity, by the adoption of a particular procedure in the Constituent Assembly, for Provinces to form Groups for the administration of such subjects as it was decided should be dealt with in common.
To provide this opportunity the Mission proposed that the Constituent Assembly, after a preliminary meeting to decide the
768
order of business, should divide up into Sections, two of which cover the Provinces which the Moslem League claimed should constitute Pakistan. These Sections would settle Provincial Constitutions and decide whether a Group Constitution should be framed for the Provinces within the Section and, if so, for what subjects. Individual Provinces would be free to opt out of a Group after the first election under the new Constitution. The intention of the Mission was that the decisions of Sections should be taken by majority vote.
Subsequently a difference of opinion developed between the Congress Party and the Moslem League as to the meaning of the Cabinet Mission's Statement on the question of the procedure within the Sections of the Constituent Assembly, and it was largely because of misgivings in regard to this that the Moslem League withdrew its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission's plan at the end of July last. The Congress view is that Provinces have a right to decide both as to grouping and, as to their own Constitutions and that therefore the decisions in the Sections cannot be by simple majority vote. The Congress, however, have stated that they are prepared to accept the ruling of the Federal Court as to the proper interpretation of the Cabinet Mission's Statement. It was mainly in the hope of resolving the difference of view on this matter that His Majesty's Government invited the Indian representatives to come to London. We had very full and friendly discussions with the Indian representatives but I regret to say that up to the present we have not succeeded in resolving this difficulty. Consequently the Constituent Assembly, which was summoned to meet in India on Monday, is holding its preliminary session without representation of the Moslem League.
In the Statement which the Government issued at the conclusion of the conversations we have said that we have had legal advice which confirms that the Statement of May 16 means what the Cabinet Mission have always said was their intention—namely, that the voting in the Sections should be by majority vote. This is the view which is accepted by the Moslem League and on the basis of which they originally accepted the Cabinet Mission's proposals. From their point of view this is an essential element in the plan because, if the agreement of all the

769
Provinces within the Section is required to the framing of a Group Constitution, it is probable that the opposition of some of the smaller Provinces will prevent Group Constitutions being framed. The intention of the Cabinet Mission was that, while an individual Province might be outvoted in the Section, its freedom would be safeguarded by the right to opt out of the Group after the Constitution had been framed.
His Majesty's Government feel that all parties in the Constituent Assembly should agree to work the scheme in the way intended by the Cabinet Mission, but if the Constituent Assembly desires that this fundamental point should be referred for the decision of the Federal Court, such reference should be made at a very early date so that the decision can be known before the meetings of the Sections of the Constituent Assembly take place.
It may seem to your Lordships that these differences as to matters of procedure are of small importance in relation to the paramount need for securing a Constitution for India which has the widest possible measure of consent. The peaceful transfer of power to an Indian Government freely set up by agreement among Indians is a matter of supreme importance, not only for India but for Asia and the world as a whole. But it must be remembered that the representatives who came to London were not in a position to commit their parties and that the issues stir deep and passionate feelings. Time must be given for the parties, after full debate, to decide their attitude. It may also be that the subject will come under consideration by the Federal Court. In these circumstances the Government feel that a general debate on Indian affairs at the present time would be inopportune and might destroy the prospect of a settlement.
I am sure I am speaking for all parties in your Lordships' House in making appeal to all communities in India to co-operate in framing a Constitution which, because it is based on consent, will be welcomed by all and worked in a co-operative spirit.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full statement he has made, but I think it is no good disguising from ourselves the fact that an extremely serious situation has arisen and that the Government plan for advancing the constitutional future of
770
India, to which they have devoted such efforts and have gone so far, as we would fully agree, in conciliating the two main Indian communities, has not succeeded. Whether this is a hitch, or whether it represents something in the nature of a breakdown which one hopes is temporary, is a matter of opinion on which everybody may hold their views. I think it would be wiser that none of us should make any comments today. The situation is clearly extremely delicate and the statement of the noble Lord will require very careful consideration. But I must say that in these unhappy circumstances which have arisen, I do feel—and I think I speak for other noble Lords on this side of the House—there are extremely strong arguments for a debate before the House rises for Christmas. The Government, I am sure, will agree that up to now we on this side of the House have not pressed them unduly on Indian affairs. We have indeed exercised the greatest restraint, because we have realized how difficult the situation was. But I think it is evident that much elucidation of essential facts is needed for the benefit of noble Lords in this House and also of the country. After all, one of our main functions is to inform the country, and the country is badly in need of such information.
Noble Lords for whom I speak—and I am sure I am speaking for all of them—will wish to consider further the question of a debate in the light of what the Government have said, because clearly one does not want to come to any hasty decision in a matter of this importance. I do hope the Government will understand if we consider it our duty to discuss this question before the House rises. If it is treated in a statesmanlike manner—and I am quite certain it will be so treated in this House—I feel certain that no harm will result, and, indeed, that there will be advantage for the House, the country and for India itself.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, my noble friends on these Benches desire to join in thanking the Government for the comprehensive statement which has just been made, which bring; our information up to the present date. I differ from the noble Viscount who has just spoken with regard to the desirability of an early debate in this House on Indian affairs. We on these Benches have considered the matter, and have decided not to join in

771
pressing the Government to allocate time for this purpose. The particular point which is referred to in the statement today is itself of a somewhat legalistic character. It may indeed be referred to the Indian Federal Court for decision, and I do not presume that any of your Lordships would be prepared to express any confident opinion upon it.
As for the broad situation, by general consent the grave matters under consideration have been referred for decision to an Indian Constituent Assembly, and although it is true that various hitches have arisen with respect to the constitution and procedure of that Assembly I do not see that speeches in this Parliament are likely greatly to help these deliberations. In those circumstances, we here agree with the view expressed by the Government in their statement in doubting whether any useful public service would be rendered by a debate in this House precisely at this present juncture.

ARBROATH GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF DARTMOUTH ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Dartmouth, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF STROUD ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of
772
Stroud, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF PETWORTH ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section of the Act to the Rural District of Petworth, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

AGRICULTURE: LABOUR AND HOUSING
2.50 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to resolve, That this House is convinced that maximum agricultural production at home, both immediately and for many years to come is essential for safeguarding the food of our people, and to that end desires to stress (a) the importance of an adequate supply of agricultural labour, and (b) the difficulty of obtaining that supply without an immediate increase and improvement of rural housing and of the general amenities of life of the countryside.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name is to impress upon His Majesty's Government the vital importance at the present moment of the agricultural industry being placed in a position to make its maximum contribution to the increasingly serious economic position with which many of us feel that the country is faced to-day. In that Motion, your Lordships will notice, I mention especially the vital needs of labour and rural housing. Other noble Lords who are going to speak in this debate will deal with many aspects on which I have not time to touch, so I think that it might perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mainly attempt to establish just why we feel it is

773
right, at the present moment of intense shortage of labour in the country and intense shortage of houses, to make a particular claim on the labour market and a particular claim on the housing market.
Your Lordships will no doubt remember that at the beginning of November a letter appeared in The Times under the signature of the noble Lord, Lord Brand. That letter uttered grave warnings about the danger to the economic position of this country due to the shortage of foreign investments and exchange, the extent of our foreign indebtedness, the rapidity with which we are drawing on our loans, especially from America and Canada, and also the very considerable excess of imports over exports. In your Lordships' House—I think it was in reply to my noble friend Lord Cranborne—the Lord Chancellor, some of us thought, almost went out of his way to state that he agreed with every single word of what the noble Lord, Lord Brand, had said. Since then the Prime Minister has added his views to the growing chorus of alarm, whilst the President of the Board of Trade has, I think, been just a little more specific. In addition to reminding the country of what I think we already know, that we have to put ourselves in the position of exporting a minimum of 75 per cent. in volume more than our exports during the pre-war days, the President of the Board of Trade also reminded us that whilst we drew no less than 50 per cent. of our imports from the Americas, our exports there were only approximately 14 per cent. of our imports.
I think that we have a right to ask the Ministers what they really mean by the warnings. Are they really just pious exhortations designed to stimulate what perhaps some people feel are the somewhat flagging energies of some of us after a long war, or are they really meant to be a warning of what we can only describe as an approaching crisis? Do these warnings really mean what I think some of us find really difficult to believe that they do not mean—that in about 1948, when our loans from the United States and Canada are exhausted, we may find ourselves in the position that, no matter how cheap and how plentiful food overseas has become, we shall just have neither the exchange nor the credit nor the exports with which to satisfy the minimum food needs of this country? I do not want to speak to-day in any spirit of alarm, but
774
I do not think anyone would say that this is an alarmist view to take on what has been said by responsible Ministers of His Majesty's Government. Of course, we have to remember that since the warnings were uttered we have come to an arrangement with the United States about Germany which certainly looks like being a further burden on our exchange. It may well be that that may be the final straw that will produce a crisis even sooner than some of us were expecting.
No one in your Lordships' House, no one in the country, and no one of the farming community, would in any way deny the importance of the export trade. We all of us realize that the estimate of the President of the Board of Trade of 75 per cent. increase in volume is certainly not an understatement. I think we would wish to congratulate both the community and His Majesty's Government on the extent to which the export trade has made progress, but what I certainly find it extremely difficult to understand is that, while we know that to save £100 worth of imports by the increased production of food in this country is just as important a contribution to the saving of exchange as is the finding of an export market for £100 worth of goods, there appears to be no sense of urgency whatsoever in increasing the production of food. The present agricultural production is in the neighbourhood of £600,000,000 a year, and a 10 per cent. increase in production would, therefore, he worth approximately £60,000,000 a year. Yet I think most, agricultural experts would say that I was underrating the possibilities of the situation if I said that even to-day, in spite of the increase that took place during the war, we could well bring about a further increase of at least 20 to 30 per cent. That is either £120,000,000 or £180,000,000 a year.
I said I detected no sense of urgency, and I think that is a remark that needs some justification. I make it in no spirit of controversy: I think it is a fact, and that most agriculturists and those in touch with the position would agree with it. How many of us know that production to-day is on the decrease? How many know that since 1944 our acreage of wheat has gone down from 3,000,000 acres to 2,000,000 acres, and that the whole tillage acreage has gone down? That might be all right if we were deliberately

775
decreasing that area of low-priced low-value tillage craps in order to concentrate cur energies on the production of high-value goods in the form of animal products. Yet if we look at the last returns we find that our cattle and sheep figures stand very much where they did in 1944, whilst we know from the reduction of feeding stuffs that there is going to be a heavy decline, and has been, in both pigs and poultry.
I cannot help getting the impression that His Majesty's Government are not altogether seeing this problem as one. The Ministers of Food and Agriculture, one finds, are intensely worried about the food situation, and they have uttered most grave and serious warnings. Equally, one finds that the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are intensely worried about trade and the need for exports. It may even be that each of them worries about each other's problems. But it strikes me that they are not looking at the two sides of this problem and recognizing that they are merely two sides of one problem.
Agriculture saved millions of tons of shipping during the war, and I think we all agree that it might save millions of pounds worth of exchange to-day if it has the wherewithal to do it, if it has the machinery, if it has the labour, and if it has the houses. It is borne in upon me, going about the country, that there is a feeling of intense discouragement amongst farmers to-day. I am not going to say now whether it is justified or not. This is not meant, in any way, to be an attack on the Government. I am simply stating a fact. The feeling to which I have referred is almost a feeling of impending doom. How far it is due to the losses from the last harvest, how far it is due to the fact that profits have undoubtedly declined, how far it is due to the fact that the last price settlement does not make up for the increase under the last wages settlement, how far it is due to the shortage of labour, how far it is due to the shortage of machinery, and how far it is due to the shortage of rural houses, I do not feel able to say. But I would say that behind the depression about these pathetic facts is the feeling that if the Government really appreciate the importance of agriculture and what agriculture could be doing at the present
776
moment to help the country in this period of new trial through which we are about to pass—indeed, through which we are passing—these shortages, these lacks, will disappear.
That is really the background of my Motion. The point which I would like to stress very strongly is that the purpose of this Motion is not to make a plea on behalf of the farmer for more labour, or on behalf of the farm worker for more houses. Though I believe that that plea would be justified, it is not the plea I am trying to put forward to-day. What I do feel is that a warning should be conveyed to His Majesty's Government that if they want to get the food which we gather they will need by 1948, when our loans have run out, then a very much stronger lead and very much stronger support must be given to the agricultural industry. If that is not done the Government will not get that food.
I have mentioned certain points that are worrying the farmer, but it seems to me that, from the point of view of this debate, it is best to concentrate upon the two main deficiencies—labour and housing. I should like, if I may, for a moment to examine the labour position. In 1939, the total working force in agriculture, including farmers, was about 910,000. To-day it is 1,020,000. But this latter figure includes such wasting assets as over 30,000 land girls, over 150,000 prisoners of war, and a very considerable number of old men who stuck to their jobs during the war. Those old men were stretched to the limit. They are now tending very rapidly to retire. Taking it all in all, when we look at those figures I think we can agree that we shall be extremely lucky if, by the end of twelve months, we have not lost at least 100,000 workers, mainly prisoners of war, from the industry. That will leave us with just about 10,000 more than we had before the war.
Now what has that extra 10,000 got to cope with? First of all, 4,500,000 extra acres of tillage (an increase of 50 per cent.); 1,500,000 extra acres of temporary leys (an increase of about 40 per cent.); and 800,000 more cattle. At the most, if we are lucky, to deal with all this increase we shall have 10,000 more workers. Therefore, before we can speak of any increase in production, or any additional contribution which we may make to save foreign exchange, we must provide, first

777
of all, for the replacement of the 100,000 men we are going to lose. We must remember, also, that the bulk of the labour that we are going to lose will consist of prisoners of war and land girls who have been living in camps, billets and hostels, and are therefore not going to vacate cottages. We shall need additional houses, and at a very moderate estimate I should say we shall need 50,000 to 60,000 houses to house the 100,000 workers. That is an extremely moderate estimate.
How many men do we want to increase production and to what extent do we want to increase it? These are very difficult questions and I think we really want to hear the answers from His Majesty's Government. How much increased production of food do they look for? How much exchange do they hope that agriculture will help them to save? How is the necessary increase to be brought about? Is it hoped to bring it about by ploughing up a few more millions of the ploughable acres of land? (I believe there are about 12,000,000 such acres left actually.) And if this land is to be ploughed should it be turned into arable for crops or into grassland? What is going to be the machinery position? It is quite obvious that if we are going to suffer from a shortage of machinery as well as housing, if we are going to have to carry on with machinery that is continually breaking down, we shall need very many more men than if our labour force was properly equipped.
While I am on this point I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who is going to reply, whether his Department intends to continue the war-time policy of saving the import of grain and bulky foodstuffs—which was a sound wartime policy as we were then short of shipping—and then making extensive purchases of finished products? Perhaps I might illustrate the meaning of my question by reminding your Lordships of the fact that at the present moment we are importing dried eggs, or at least we have been doing so during the last two or three months, at the rate of about £48,000,000 worth a year. It is difficult to give an exact figure.. It is an admitted fact that we could produce that same quantity of eggs, and in fresh form, for an expenditure of about £20,000,000 on feeding stuff—an exchange difference, in that one field, of something between £20,000,000
778
and £30,000,000 a year. Of course, a policy of that character affects the demands on the labour market, in order to save the exchange.
Although it is impossible to say how many men we shall need, because it depends on the answer to these questions, I think your Lordships will agree that to make any serious contribution to a solution of the problem we shall need at least a further 100,000. In terms of houses, it means that in order to maintain production at its present level we shall need between 50,000 and 60,000 new houses. In order seriously to increase production, we shall need between 90,000 and 100,000 new houses. These figures are very rough; I do not think anyone outside the Department can give accurate figures. Perhaps it is foolish of me to risk trying to give figures to your Lordships, but it seemed to me that it might be helpful to attempt to present a rough picture of the problem which we are discussing.
I would like to ask His Majesty's Government this question. In assessing the number of houses that we shall need for agricultural workers in the rural areas, are they basing their assessments on calculations of this character? Are they saying to themselves: "This is the question that matters. How many houses shall we need in rural areas?" Assuming that the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade and others are right in their warnings, how many houses for agricultural workers will be necessary if we are to safeguard the feeding of our people? That is the question which matters. The slow rate of progress of the Government's building programme, the discouragement of private effort, the difficulty of obtaining licences to build houses for one's own workers, the endless number of permits and restrictions to which we are all (including local authorities) submitted if we try to build houses, the lack of any policy for reconditioning, are all of immense importance. They are, however, really incidental to the question of whether the Government realize the gravity—I might almost say the desperate gravity—of the problem with which we shall be faced in the next two or three years.
If the Government have realized the gravity of the position, they will surely face it, and sweep away these restrictions. If not, quite frankly, I do not think it

779
will be very much use talking. The prejudices which the Government have on these subjects go very deep, and unless they are extremely concerned, not to say frightened, about the future, I am quite sure that nothing we can say will affect them one iota. On this question of housing, therefore, I will content myself with asking His Majesty's Government the one single question which I have already put: "Are they basing their calculations of the number of houses needed in rural areas to ensure the feeding of this country, on the assumption that the Prime Minister is right in the warnings he has given to us, on our exchange position?" At the same time, I will simply point out to His Majesty's Government that unless we do have the supplies of labour on the land, there will not be the food, and unless we do have the houses for that labour there will not be the labour.
One other point has occurred to me very strongly since I put this Motion on the Paper. We must have the food; we must have the labour; we must have the houses. But there is another "must". Farmers must be in a position to employ labour. During the last twelve months the price of everything that farmers buy has risen. During the last month I myself have cancelled an order for a tractor for which I have been waiting for eight months, and the price of which has gone up just over 25 per cent. I know that I have had the worst financial year at my farm since 1936, and I believe I am not alone in that experience. Therefore, just as I have assumed, for the purposes of this debate, that His Majesty's Government realize that if labour is to be effectively used it must have an adequate supply of machinery at its disposal, so I will assume that His Majesty's Government realize that if more labour is to be employed by the farmers they must be able to meet the cost.
I close by wishing the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretaries well in the task that lies ahead of them. It is a colossal task, and it is not an easy one. The whole of the agricultural industry—every section of it, quite irrespective of politics or Party—is looking to them to enable the industry to make its maximum contribution to the problems that are facing the country at the moment. During the war, every time the Ministry asked for something, they
780
gave more than was asked or expected. I would assure the noble Earl and his colleagues, if I may venture to speak on behalf of the industry, that, given the lead and given the tools, the industry will do again what they did in the war to help the country face the problems of peace.
Moved to resolve, That this House is convinced that maximum agricultural production at home, both immediately and for many years to come is essential for safeguarding the food of our people, and to that end desires to stress (a) the importance of an adequate supply of agricultural labour, and (b) the difficulty of obtaining that supply without an immediate increase and improvement of rural housing and of the general amenities of life of the countryside.—(Earl De La Warr.)
3.19 p.m.
LORD SAVILE: My Lords, I rise with the due humility of one who addresses your Lordships' House for the first time, but at the same time I feel sustained by the courtesy and indulgence which your Lordships always so generously extend to newcomers and new speakers. I can assure your Lordships that I shall need the benefit of those two qualities very much in the next few minutes. I am also encouraged by the fact that the subject of this Motion is to me one of deep and absorbing interest and a matter of personal responsibility.
We all remember how a few years ago the 14th Army in Burma was referred to, and regarded as, "The Forgotten Army." I am beginning to think that, in exactly the same way, the farmer fears for his future. The status of the farmer to-day is due to the experience of war. Naturally what he is seeking is to safeguard his industry for the future. The thoughts that must be running through the farmer's mind to-day are these: "Will history repeat itself? Are we going back to the bad old days of the inter-war years?" My noble friend Lord De La Warr has already referred to what the agricultural industry did during the war. It was a weapon of war; indeed without the tremendous help of the farmer I doubt whether we could have successfully waged the war.
Experience has taught me to realize that it is essential to gratify the agricultural industry in its demands for public utilities (which I prefer to call welfare) plus encouragement in recruiting the agricultural army. When I speak of recruiting

781
for agriculture I am thinking of educational centres. I should like to see full use made in every Government technical college of an agricultural department. I should even like secondary schools to have agriculture included in their curriculum. In this way we could ensure that the future population would be agriculturally-minded, and we might gradually secure a drift back to the land in place of the urban-mindedness of the rising population of to-day which has produced the drift to the towns which has been going on for so long. I submit that that is one way of ensuring our future agricultural labour.
Now what do we mean by foodstuffs? Do we mean wheat and vegetables, or do we mean dairy produce? From my investigations I find it is a common topic of conversation amongst farmers to-day that the continual use of artificial manures is, sooner or later, apt to bring about the complete disintegration of our soil. I earnestly put the point before your Lordships that, if the land i' to be kept in good heart, dairy farming and animal husbandry will have to become the main concern of British agriculture. I say that with full knowledge of what our responsibilities are going to be in the next six months. I read in The Times the report of a debate that took place in another place about our immediate needs. I am now talking of a long-term policy. I wanted to snake that point quite clear. Abroad we can proudly say that the finest stocks of cattle have been built up on British stock. Yet in our own country our dairy herds and standards of equipment for milk production leave very much to be desired. I should like to stress the point of giving farmers every encouragement to breed first-class milking herds by the introduction of centres which would be handy for breeding and be quite near their farms.
We realize—and this is my main point—that if the farmer claims it is necessary to have humus fertilizing to avoid erosion, then we shall have to concentrate on dairy farming and stock raising for the future. By so doing you are overcoming a problem, which may quite possibly beset the farmer in the near future, of competition from the wheat-growing countries of the world, and stabilizing a badly-needed industry. At the same time, you are resting the land so that at any time in the future when it should be needed it can once again become the scene of that intensive
782
cultivation which is practised to-day as it was during the whole course of the war.
I have said a few words about labour. I should now like to refer to welfare, because without welfare you cannot get labour, and without labour you cannot: get food. I take electricity as an example of what one amenity alone can do to revolutionize entirely the life of any farm or rural dwelling. Not only does electricity provide the housewife with the means of cooking her Sunday joint, and the farmer the light whereby to make out: his numerous Government returns; it is also a means of mechanizing his farm. Most of the great industries of this country and the trade unions have decided on shorter working hours. The only way by which the farmer can reduce his working hours is by mechanization. If this is brought about on a large scale I think it might prove an incentive to the agricultural recruit.
Give the worker some leisure hours. A great deal has been said about the need for attractions. I am of the opinion that leisure is one of the greatest. Last week I was talking to an optimistic young farmer in the district of the West Riding of Yorkshire from which I come and he asked, "Might it be possible one day, and within the bounds of modern science, for a cow to produce milk on a five-and-a-half-day week?" Well I do not know if we shall ever get the five-and-a-half-day cow. What we can do is to ensure a maximum reduction of working hours by electrical appliances and mechanization generally. I have tried to put my case in the shortest possible space of time. For so long the farmer has seen the red traffic light, that it is imperative, if farming is to retain its place in our economic structure, to show him not only the cautionary signal but the all-clear and go-ahead light.
3.27 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships' House for the first time. He made a most interesting and able speech, and I trust that on many other occasions in the future we shall have the benefit of his wise words. I listened with more than usual interest to the noble Earl who opened this debate. The Resolution he has moved is pretty wide and general, but I did not anticipate that almost the whole of his speech would have been occupied in illustrating

783
the depths to which agriculture has sunk and how depressed it is. The noble Earl usually has a smile on his face, but while he was delivering his speech he looked as if he had this afternoon come straight from some funeral. He painted a very sorry picture of agriculture, indeed it was really a despairing one. Yet it was not very long ago that representatives of the agricultural industry met the Minister of Agriculture and new price levels for agricultural produce were fixed.
All I can say is that the noble Earl's information is at variance with my information from farmers in Lincolnshire, who have never had a better time in their lives than they have had in the last five or six years. In fact for the last 25 years they have never had a better time. It may be they have need of some things. If they adopt one system and another is proving more remunerative, they may be "in the cart." The one system of farming for this country—I have said it many times before—is a system of mixed farming. Those who have followed mixed farming have had a fairly easy time of it for the last five or six years.
I sometimes think some of those who talk about farming being in a parlous state and ask the Government what they are going to do for farming, talk with their tongues in their cheeks. Well do I remember working on farms for 9d. a day. Farmers were in a bad way in those days—there is no mistake about that. Wheat was only 22s. 6d. a quarter, and you could get a ton of potatoes, even in the year 1930, at 19s. or 20s. a ton. There was some room for complaint in those days. From my own personal knowledge of intimate friends of mine who are farmers I know that the farming community to-day is not in such a bad way as the noble Earl would have us believe. He made a point about the diminution of the acreage of wheat. I myself thought that, so far as this was concerned, it was due not to the causes that he suggested, but to a lack of direction to farmers to grow wheat at the end of last year, and too late in the spring for them to plant it. I blame the farming community equally with the Government, for a price level for wheat was fixed at about £5 a quarter, and a price level for barley at far more than £5 a quarter. The consequence was that you had six quarters
784
of barley to the acre and only about four quarters of wheat to the acre.
When the price of barley was higher than that for wheat, which do you think the farmers thought they ought to grow? So far as the farmer was concerned, he took it as an indication that what we wanted was barley and not wheat. One farmer I know planted over 200 acres of land with barley, because of the bigger yield of barley per acre, and because he had no directions whatever to grow wheat or any indication that there was a wheat shortage. To some extent I blame the Government for not giving directions soon enough last spring. The barley was already in. The picture painted of the wheat acreage going down is due to the fact that more barley was grown because it made a better return per acre to the farmer than the wheat did. It is known everywhere that that is the fact.
A steady drift from the countryside has been going on ever since I have known the countryside. Houses are going derelict whilst young people want to marry and stay in the village. The lack of houses is no new thing; it was the same when I was a boy. The best men from the villages went into the industrial centres of this country. They were driven from the countryside, where they ought to have been employed and where many of them would have liked to have stopped, by the lack of proper housing. In some places indeed, no houses of any sort could be had. As I have said—I do not know whether I have said it in your Lordships' House, but I have in another place—I went to Epworth, one of the places near where I live, and said to an agriculturist friend of mine: "What are the people parading up and down for; is it a popular place?" He replied: "No, they are building a new house and they go up every Sunday night to see how far it has grown." No one in this village, in their lifetime, had seen a new house being built; it was the first one. That was in the village of Epworth, the birthplace of John Wesley, where they went to look at this sight, wondering what kind of animal they were seeing. And that is not the state of only one village. That picture could be painted of village after village, and well might Oliver Goldsmith have been stirred to write his Deserted Village having in mind some of the villages in rural Lincolnshire and other parts of the country.

785
I think the questions of food and housing must be uppermost in the minds of everybody, particularly those of us who have come into contact with the women-folk to-day. In this country, and in some other parts of the world where there is a family or a man working on shift work, the wives find the greatest difficulty in securing food to pack up for men engaged on nightshifts. From the women I talk to I hear that the most difficult thing is to find food which they can pack up. The shopping problem of the women is not a little problem, it is a tremendous problem. People say they like standing in queues but believe me they only do it out of necessity. When they hear of anything fresh corning into the town the womenfolk in our districts can be seen running to form a queue in order to get something to pack up for their husbands or sons going to work. This is not a fanciful picture but a true one. The problems of food and housing are very near to the hearts of everyone. So far as food is concerned, in some parts of the world people are living in semi-starvation; yet, if what I hear from friends is true, in the United States, in Switzerland, and in several other parts of Europe, there is an abundance of food. That I think is a reflection on those countries who shared with us the glory of winning this victory. They should take a more magnanimous view of the need for feeding other people in starving Europe if it can be done. I think they could help if they would only try.
But of all the problems the lack of proper housing accommodation causes more unpleasantness and misery than any other single problem that I know of. There is scarcely a week-end passes when I do not have a dozen people come to me who are living in rooms where they are not wanted and do not know where to go. A week or two ago an ex-Service man asked me what he was to do. He was living in rooms and he had been told that he was no longer wanted there. I could not do anything for him, the local council could not do anything for him, and no one could do anything for him, so far as I could see, unless he went to the police station and slept in a cell, if there was one empty. He said: "I know what I will do, I will put my few little tucks," as he called them, "on to the footpath, I will bring my wife and two kids there, and I will stay there
786
until somebody does something with me. I am at my wit's end." He went home to trouble every night. There were two women living in the same house, and I say emphatically that there is no room in any house for two families.
Our aim should be to resolve this terrible problem of housing. Most intimate and touching stories could be broadcast in this country by those who try to meet it. Any Government or council which neglects to deal with this problem will be consigned by the people to the limbo of forgotten things. Many of the people affected, as we all know, fought for England and they think they have a stake in this country. So do I: I think they have one—and a big one. They fought that England might live; they sacrificed that we might survive; and I think that the least we can do is to remove every obstacle in the way of providing them with homes in the land which they love and for which they were willing to die. Let those who are trying to resolve this problem be encouraged and not threatened. Let them be helped and not shot at. I consider myself that it is unwise and un-statesmanlike to threaten the building trade for not gutting on with the job that it is not allowed to get on with because it cannot get the materials. If anyone is enthusiastic enough to want to start shooting after we have had five or six years of it, I should not stand in his way. But as far as I am concerned, I am one of those builders who wants to do this building, and I think it would be wiser if we used statesmanlike words and gave encouragement to the trade to get on and do its job instead of threatening it. It would undoubtedly be far more statesmanlike and sensible to do that than to threaten.
What is our real difficulty? Our real difficulty is supplies. We want to do the job. What builder who has got a staff of workmen and an organization wants to sabotage housing? The more houses he can build, surely the better it is for him, even if he only looks at it from a selfish point of view. It is his job and he is anxious to do it. As a matter of fact, there is great trouble inside the industry because some builders are getting more houses to build than others. As was mentioned in this House the other week, the first obstacle is timber. I am pleased to be able to congratulate the Government on obtaining increased supplies of timber

787
from Germany. It is, I know, coming in to certain ports of this country. Good luck to them. I hope that they will intensify their efforts to get that timber, because there is plenty of it in Germany. If they do that, it will probably help us to find a solution to that particular problem.
Another difficulty is hollow bricks. It really astounds me to think that the brickyards that were being worked during the war were levied for the purpose of encouraging other brickyards which were not being worked to keep their plant and machinery in such a condition as to be able to operate whenever they might be required. All over the country there is a shortage of hollow clay bricks for partitions in houses. We have got the clay and we have got the brickyards, but scores of them are not yet working. I wonder if they are still receiving the three shillings per thousand levy that was paid by those brickyards which were in operation to those which were not. I know of some brickyards in my own area that have not turned a wheel since the war ended. There is plenty of good plastic clay, and labour could be obtained for the purpose of making bricks, but we are told that we shall have to wait from six to eight weeks before we can get the hollow bricks for the partitions for the upstairs bedrooms, bathroms and so on. I think that is a scandal, and one which could be easily remedied.
It may be that there is such a great demand that no Government could have foreseen it. I am not charging the Government in respect of that, but I am saying that there could not have been much vision on the part of the manufacturers and the Departments responsible if they did not foresee the demands that would be made. There are so many houses provided for in the housing programme and the number of bricks required in a house can easily be estimated. There is no difficulty whatever about it; yet you are told when you write for them that there are no partition blocks. You cannot get on with the plastering and you cannot complete your house. All you can do is to put a lid on it, if you can get the timber for the spars. A shortage of a thing of that sort is a scandal, and those who have been receiving the levy of three shillings per thousand ought to be told that it was their
788
duty to keep their plants in such a condition that they could have provided a remedy for this hollow brick shortage.
As to electrical fittings—I think it is right that you should know that this is so, because a Government that has the necessity for providing houses at heart ought to be as concerned about it as I am, and I am very much concerned—they are in exactly the same position. If you have got your partition blocks up you cannot get on with the plastering, because there is no tubing. I am told it cannot be obtained because it is in short supply.
Then baths and taps. This is a concrete case. We have six houses almost ready for occupation. All they are waiting for is taps, but we cannot find a tap to put into them. That is the only thing that they require now. After struggling with and overcoming all the other shortages, we have finally got to the position where there is not a tap. I made some very definite inquiries myself last week. I thought I would have my worry before the appointed day, because I could see it was certain to come along! I took time by the forelock and went to see my supplier. He said to me, "There are plenty in Hull," to which I replied, "That may be so, but this is where we want them, not in Hull." He said, "But I cannot get them," and when I asked, "Why not?" he said, "Because they are put into store." They are stored in Hull and are waiting until the "pre-fab" houses come so that the "pre-fab" houses can be completed. The permanent houses must wait because they are expecting the "pre-fabs," and they want the bathroom taps so that they can be completed in record time. I have one word to say about that. I consider it is downright wickedness to leave a house uncompleted which only requires a tap, if the taps are there—and they are where I have said they are. As far as the "pre-fabs" are concerned, you heard what the noble Lord, Lord Portal, said about them the other week. He has as high an opinion of some of these "pre-fab" houses as I have! I should like to see the last of them. Much of this material is in store in different parts of the country, but it is reserved so that this "pre-fab" programme may be completed.
I hope and trust that the few tips I have given to the Government will not have fallen on deaf ears. For heaven's

789
sake, let us do something about it. I have said many times that the difference between a Government Department and a snail is the difference between a snail and something that does not move at all! The snail moves slowly, it is true, but, by heavens, it does move, anyway! If there is anything that can be said to induce the Government Departments to get a move on and to deal with this problem of supplying material, then it should be said. Do not shoot the builder; he is doing his best! Give him the materials, and if he does not then provide the goods, deal with him. Let us criticize him less and give him more encouragement. I am sure that houses, either in the countryside or in the urban districts, will be provided if you give the builder the material he wants. He has both the men and the will to do the job.
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, in offering my very humble but sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Savile, on his maiden speech, and to tell him that we rejoice to hear speeches made up of such substance and so well delivered. We hope that he will do us the honour of joining in our deliberations as often as he can.
I would also like, if I may, to thank the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for raising this question in your Lordships' House this afternoon. There is no doubt whatever that everybody agrees that this problem of food production is a very serious problem to-day. He speaks as an agriculturist of repute, and what makes me like him more than anything else is that he took the trouble to come up to my country and have a look at what we do there. I like that because not many people do come, except in August or September. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison—and I am delighted to see that he is in his place to-day—in a very able speech on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne, spoke of an old political adage, which I think ran something like this: "If you see a political head bob up—hit: it." I could not be more pleased to hear him say that and I could not feel more in agreement with him. I had intended to do some of it myself this afternoon, but the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, has done it for me. I shall not have to worry your Lordships with all this hard hitting
790
because it has been done, if may say so, most effectively, fearlessly and honestly.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, divided his Motion into two parts. He dealt with the question of the labour shortage, and in the second part with the shortage of rural housing. He made it clear, and I think perfectly rightly, that he wished not so much to approach it from the point of view of actual shortage of labour and shortage of houses, as to draw the Government's attention to the fact that if they want food they have got to do something for the agricultural industry. Although I gathered that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, did not agree with him, I think it is common knowledge to most of us—and it certainly is to experts in the north—that something has got to be done if we are going to deal with this food-production problem. There is one school of thought who possibly believe that this desperate food situation need not have arisen to the full extent it has. If I may use a vulgar phrase, as I see it we are "in the soup." and we have got to get out of it. I would like to see a little less of what is known as bulk buying by people who are really not qualified to buy because they are not experts. This applies equally to shipping. You have people interfering with transport who really do not know, and you have a body of men going out where it would be better to send out one expert who knew what he was talking about. I am quite certain he would come back with the goods.
Apart from all that, if we are going to safeguard the country's food supply we must plan well ahead. The noble Earl, Lord De La Wan, spoke on a very high level, and I do not propose to follow him, but we have got to face facts. It is true that 1947 will be bad enough, but I am quite sure—and those who are more qualified than I are equally sure—that the crucial year will be 1948. May we for a moment re-examine this? What will be the labour situation? The German labour will have gone. I can give you an instance in my own country of Scotland, where His Majesty's Department of Agriculture informed the agriculture executive committees that the necessary extra labour, that is to say, the labour required over and above the professional labour for 1947, would be in the neighbourhood of 90,000 people. They maintain that they

791
can get this 90,000 people, but if you come back to this year of 1946 and examine the statistical figures which they gave us, we find they were very far short of what they promised Had it not been for the grace of God, three weeks' excellent weather and the stout hearts of a lot of school children, in my county of Angus we could never have gathered the potato crop which had to be got in.
We cannot continue to go on gambling on labour and expecting results. You cannot go on living from hand to mouth, and you have got to try to get some specific plan going. Another aspect of this case is that the land is getting very tired. You cannot go on growing wheat again and again without giving it a rest, and something will have to be done about that. Whichever way one looks at it, it seems that somehow or other we have not only got to maintain the present food production, but we have probably got considerably to increase it for 1948 if we are not going to starve.
May I once again touch on this question of the loan? How are we going to meet this loan? Is it not true that in 1948 both the American and Canadian loans will have nearly finished? Shall we not be faced again with importing more food? Even though we increase our production we cannot produce all we need to eat. We are faced with importing more food, importing machinery and materials for industry with no money or exchange to buy them. What does that mean? It probably means that we have got to negotiate another loan, and we had a bit of difficulty the last time. Many of your Lordships will have travelled in the United States and will know the American people and their financiers. I have had that privilege, although not very often and I do not know them well; but I know them well enough to know that they are hard-headed realists and they do not like, if His Majesty's Government will forgive my saying so, their financial pranks—they are frightened by them. I think when you get to 1948 there will be even less desire on their part to help us with another loan.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that this was dangerous ground, and so it is, but we have got to face facts sooner or later. Why wait until 1948? We must do everything that we can in our power now to produce all the food
792
we can. What is really worrying most of us, I think, is the extraordinary lack of desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to put the picture as a whole in front of the public. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, mentioned that point. It is no good having piecemeal driblets from Ministers here and there. We have got to have the picture put in front of the public, because the people should know what the picture is from the highest aspect and from the highest authority; no less, in my mind, than the Prime Minister.
If I may, I will now turn to the second part of the noble Earl's Motion. The first part is really the still-born child of the second. Lack of rural housing is, in the opinion of many who have studied this question, one of the main reasons for the lack of labour in the industry. In Angus, which is the second largest potato-producing county in Great Britain, and which grows a great deal of grain as well, between 1939 and 1946 we have dropped 1,000 regular male and female agricultural workers—1,000 workers have gone. This was discovered by the chairman of the agricultural executive committee by watching the prisoner of war labour and noticing how it was allocated to the farms. He wanted to know why prisoners not only attended on certain farms for odd days for specific jobs such as potato-lifting, but kept on going on and on to the same farms. The answer was because the labour was not there. I do wish, if I may, to stress this need as I have done before—and I hope your Lordships will forgive me—especially from the point of view of remote areas. I come from a remote area, and the problem will affect other noble Lords who live in England and who also come from remote areas. Although there is a slight difference it must apply to them equally.
I know how difficult it is for noble Lords and His Majesty's Government to understand how difficult the conditions are in the north. I tried about a month ago to impress upon your Lordships what an important part in the agricultural economy of this country is played by the uplands and the high lands, and in this I was supported, I am glad to say, by the noble Earl who moved this Motion. If you are to keep a strong virile healthy stock of seed, animals, and man, you must keep the places populated where they breed these types. You have to do everything in your power to check the drift from

793
these areas into the towns, and one of the chief means of doing this is to improve the housing conditions by fair means or foul—or what His Majesty's Government call foul—and thus induce them to stay where they are.
May I develop this a little further from the general point of view? We want houses in this country desperately; we want them both in the urban districts and in the rural districts. We must have a proper balance, otherwise we get once again an unbalanced economy throughout the whole country. The country cannot live without the town, nor can the town live without the country, though one is encouraged to believe that His Majesty's Government believe that the town can live without the country for all the interest they take in rural matters at the present moment. Most of us realize—landlords, county councillors, and all the sinful people of this world—that you do not cure difficulties by palliatives, but you do gain time by these palliatives until the country is in a position to deal drastically and radically with the real trouble. I am not going to question who is responsible for the present muddle. We all hold our own views, most of us very strongly, and from different angles. But when things are as bad as they are now we can only hope to use every means at our disposal to try and give the people some comforts and some amenities, especially those who are living in the outlying districts whose lives in winter are extremely grim. I know that the noble Lord and His Majesty's Government will probably quote the new Hill Farming Act, but I would remind them that it has only just become law. These schemes take time to get out winter is on us with short days in the north and adverse weather conditions. We want help at once.
Meanwhile, what is happening at present in the housing world from the rural point of view? Everything possible is being done to prevent houses being built in the rural districts. I think I am borne out in that by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, who gave instances from his own experience. Lord Quibell is, after all, a practical man, and if I may say so, I think we enjoy his speeches as much as anyone's. I have a report here from one of the officials of the county council of which I am Chairman. This report shows the difficulties and the obstructions which are thrown in the way on all sides by the
794
present regulations and by the frightful red tape. Nearly every single thing that this official has mentioned has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell. Cannot His Majesty's Government get away from what we call in Scotland the "Surrey mentality"? I think that describes it much better than anything I know. Surrey does not fit in with Scotland, and although it is a magnificent place in itself you cannot put Surrey in Scotland.
Cannot His Majesty's Government realize that contractors, with heavy commitments on large housing schemes at their own front door, so to speak, require some inducement to go out into the wilds to build? It is not easy, it is not even funny. They have transport difficulties; roads are bad because of weather; lodgings are non-existent; broken time cannot be easily estimated; water may often have to be carted to the site; and overheads in the way of office, stores, and shelter accommodation at the site are relatively more expensive. In fact, it is nothing but a nightmare to a contractor. Local authorities, with their full programmes on their hands in urban and rural-urban areas, cannot take them on. What is the result? The result is that no houses are being built in these outlying areas. One of the chief troubles is that it is not possible to build within the Government controlled limit of £1,200. It is physically impossible. I approached the Secretary of State for Scotland and said that houses cost nearer £1,700 or £1,800, and could not he help us. He said he could not possibly advise, or even go near the Cabinet and suggest to them that these prices should be put up to that extent. I asked him what was the answer, and he said the answer was to reduce prices. I could not agree with him more, but prices are not going to be reduced; they are rising. Wages are going up at Christmas.
I will give your Lordships an instance of three houses for which application was made and permission sought to build. These three cottar houses—that is, ploughmen's houses—were to replace condemned houses under the Agricultural Population Act. Two were to cost £1,300, and one was to cost £1,360. They were not allowed to be proceeded with 'because the cost exceeded £1,200 each. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, will agree with me that it is not possible to knock off as much

795
as £100 from a house which consists of three rooms, kitchenette, scullery, bathroom, etc., when it is some distance from a town. You cannot do it. What has happened is that these houses are not being built. They cannot be built, and these fellows are having to live in the condemned houses. Is it reasonable that permission to build these houses should be refused when terrible little erections such as the prefabricated houses at Clydebank are costing something near £1,500 a house? Is that reasonable? It does not make sense.
Landlords know only too well that to try to improve and recondition houses that may be eighty to one hundred years old is not perhaps quite so sound as a permanent policy as one would wish, but to advocate doing nothing to better your condition because the Party believes in perfection only is sheer lunacy and downright dishonesty. What about these promises made so freely at the Election? It is definitely dishonest. We believe that in a desperate situation you must improvise. We know the Rural Housing Act is not perfect, but why stop it now in the midst of a desperate shortage? At any rate it did do something towards making the people more comfortable and happy till labour and material get easier and complete rebuilding can be started. We know that one day building has got to be started, but do not stop the Act now just at the time when you are on your last legs and not knowing where to turn.
You cannot go on living on fetishes and theories with the country in its present desperate state for houses. I believe the Lord President of the Council has begun to think somewhat differently from his former way of thinking. I read in my paper the other day—I hope it is correct—of a speech he made on December 1 at Newcastle-on-Tyne. He was referring to the output of coal, and he said they could not wait for new machinery and many of the old methods of production would have to stay for a time. He is only just finding that out, but does not that also apply to housing? Until you can get your houses rebuilt, must you not do what you can so as to give people something to get on with and thus keep them on the land? If you do not they will go from the land. Get the country on its legs first. Of course control is necessary—we all
796
know that—but decontrol as far as you possibly can and delegate powers in order to remove this complete stagnation. And it is stagnation. Work on rural housing in my county has absolutely stopped since there has been such a shortage of wood. We cannot get on, and I presume that the situation elsewhere is very much the same.
I trust that His Majesty's Government will not think me impertinent—that is the last thing I would wish to be—if I say that at one time I was almost persuaded that their Party had some honest intentions towards the welfare of the country as a whole, and that they had some justice and commonsense, withal, within their policy. I formed this opinion through serving with, and under, a member of their Party—one of the most respected men in Scotland today. What impressed me almost more than anything else was that in those days, Country came first and Party second. I will say nothing more, but leave noble Lords to make what deductions they like from that last remark.
But I can honestly and fearlessly say that, as far as the people of my part of the country are concerned, they are utterly miserable from top to bottom. The fact that the top section is unhappy will not, I suppose, cause a great deal of concern to His Majesty's Government. They were always quite honest about their intention to make that section unhappy. But in my country we do not have top and bottom strata in this way. We judge men by how they perform their jobs. Even if those in the top section are miserable what I cannot understand is why it is that the very people whom noble Lords claim to represent are every bit just as unhappy. That surely cannot be a matter of congratulation to the noble Lords. So for the present the one thing we can do is to hope and pray that those who are in power will have enough honesty in their make-up to wish to listen to the warnings and advice of experts and not to continue to let the country go as fast as it can to rack and ruin by reason of His Majesty's Government's strict adherence to unsound fetishes and unpractical theories. To conclude, I would humbly give three counsels all beginning with "d." First, decontrol as far as possible; second, decentralize and delegate powers; and, third, do not poke the Government finger into intricate machinery but let nature deal with the matter as far as possible.
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, whilst I rise with great trepidation and do not wish to weary your Lordships by asking you to listen for long to one so inexperienced in speaking as myself, I would like to support and enlarge upon, if I may, one or two of the points which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and others have made. First, I would like to stress once again that if our agricultural industry at home is to last and be maintained and expanded—which obviously it must do if we are to feed our people adequately in the ensuing difficult year—then the most important part of the industry is going to be the labour force. If this labour force is to be maintained it is clear that we must house it properly. As the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, has told us so colourfully, the housing situation in urban and industrial areas is somewhat different to that obtaining in our rural areas. In the rural areas we have a large number of oldish cottages, and numbers of large and substantial buildings of brick and stone. I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that these are the very things that should be used. Many of them are very strong and they could easily and comparatively cheaply be adapted by small builders, that is to say by builders who are not employed by the local authorities because their undertakings are too small to carry out big housing schemes. If they were employed on this work the labour force required for new housing schemes would not be depleted.
In my own area, I have a pair of old cottages which, if we could get the necessary licences, could be adapted up to the standards required by the local authority at an approximate cost of £450 by a small builder who is not employed by any of the local authorities, whereas to build a new pair of cottages—even if we could get the requisite licences, etc.—would cost at least £2,500, if not more. Moreover, to erect and complete new cottages would take a great deal more time than would be required to adapt older cottages of the kind of which I have spoken. If I may be allowed to mention it, there is a financial side to the question of these cottages. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that, if the necessary accommodation is to be provided—and the landlords are fully prepared to carry their full part of the burden—there
798
must be a rent commensurate with the capital outlay. In the days when cottage rents were about 3s. a week, that was a rate commensurate with the wage earned by the agricultural wage-earner of the time. I am prepared to say that at their present rate of wages they would be willing and able to pay a reasonably higher rent for a decent house, equipped, of course, with such amenities as a bath, electric light, w.c., a decent kitchen and cooking arrangements. They would be prepared to pay more, and to, pay a rent which would pay for the repairs and the building of these houses.
Finally, I would like to say that we of this generation are merely trustees for the future. It is our bounden duty to look after the historic beauty of our villages and of our countryside and not to go haywire and build a lot of houses in such a way that another generation, when things have settled down, wall curse us for having done sc. I submit that His Majesty's Government could produce a lot of adequate houses very quickly and cheaply and still safeguard the beauty of our countryside by following out the suggestions which I have made. Farmers are crying out for labour, and I suggest that His Majesty's Government will be crying out for food. This cry, equally, can be answered if we only provide the necessary houses—and do it in the best and quickest was—for the farm labourers. We have got to remember that potential labourers are coming out of the Services now and will continue to come out for many years to come. Many ex-Service men have not been trained in any job at all and, therefore, they are prepared not necessarily to go back to their old trade but to enter upon a new one, and many of them are prepared to go to the country and work on the land. But, many of them—even those who originally came from rural districts—are married to girls from urban areas. These people, quite naturally, are not willing to go and live in something which is little more than a hovel, and you cannot blame them.
If only His Majesty's Government would allow us to repair and make good these cottages and to convert and recondition some of the substantial buildings to which I have referred—like large blocks of stables, for example—then we shall get the labour force that is needed on the land. It is work which, as I have tried to point out, can be done cheaply and

799
efficiently. I am sure that we can accomplish the task if we tackle it in the way in which I have attempted, very badly I am afraid, to point out, and which other noble Lords have put with much greater eloquence.
4.20 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to express on your behalf congratulations to the noble Earl who has just sat down after making his first contribution to our debates. You will agree that it was a most eloquent speech. The noble Earl, I am confident, will carry on the traditions of his noble father and we shall hope to hear him very often in this House. I rise to support my noble friend Earl De La Warr in his Motion. I do so because I feel that this matter is a very serious one, and one which must cause alarm in all parts of this House. I come from East Anglia, where we are now engaged in the sugar beet harvest, and I think it extremely doubtful whether we shall get it in. If we do, it will be at the expense of other work. Much of the wheat is not in yet. Much of what has been got in has been muddled in, and will be ploughed out. Much of the ploughing is still undone. Yards are still full of muck; ditches cannot be touched, and are rapidly going back to the state in which they were in 1938. If that is the case this year, it is likely to be worse next year.
I would like to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the difficulties in which the war agriculture committees will find themselves. They act as agents for the Government, and they have issued, and are issuing, orders to the farmers of their respective counties to grow sugar beet. The farmers are going to them to say: "We have this order; this is all the labour we have. If we grow this sugar beet, we look to you to provide the labour to lift it." That places the committees in a very difficult position. It costs approximately £35 an acre to produce sugar beet. If a farmer has ten acres of beet left in the ground, and he has warned the agriculture committee of the state of affairs, it is quite clear that the committee have a moral obligation to provide him with the necessary labour. I wonder a little, too, what is the legal position with regard to that, because His Majesty's Judges have not shown any great friendship for the dictatorial powers
800
possessed by agriculture committees. I am a little anxious about the position there.
Taking a longer view, the position is equally serious—for this reason. The young men are not going into agriculture; or at least, very few of them. And why? The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has indicated housing and amenities as two reasons. They are strong factors, but are they the only factors? In my view, they are not. I doubt if they are even the most important factors. When we talk about agriculture, and when people write about it, they are a little apt to shut their eyes to disagreeable facts. I am going to suggest a disagreeable fact—that is, that there are certain very unpleasant and dirty duties connected with agriculture, such as muck-spreading, while lifting sugar beet and mangels is a hard, unpleasant and dirty task. I never see a party of land girls engaged in pulling up sugar beet in weather like we are now having but I say to myself that such things should not be.
When the man who has been engaged all the morning on that task sits down—if he is lucky—in a shed and eats his sandwiches of bread and cheese, he must make some comparisons with the lot of, perhaps, a brother, or a cousin, who is employed in a big firm, or in a Government Department, who works a 37½-hour week, sitting in a comfortable chair in an air-conditioned room, getting a hot meal in the middle of the day—off the ration—and once an hour having a cup of sweetened tea brought to him. When the man makes that comparison does he not say—and does his wife not say even more—"We will spare no effort to see that our children take that path, rather than the one we have followed"?
What is the answer? There is only one answer. It has been touched upon already. It is mechanization. Although our engineers seem to show more skill, and almost more determination, in producing weapons of destruction than in introducing engines of production, combines, tractors, manure distributors and beet-lifters are coming off the stocks in large numbers. But—and there is always a "but" nowadays—the farmer cannot have them. If they are produced in this country, they are going abroad. A man came to our agriculture committee the other day with the complaint that a Ford-son tractor which he had ordered six

801
months ago had not arrived, but to his knowledge there were 3,000 such tractors standing at Dagenham for export, and going rusty as they stood, I cannot vouch for that, but the man is a trustworthy man, and I think there must be something in it. On the other hand, if the machinery is made abroad it is not imported, either because we have not the dollar exchange or because of the overriding claims of gangster films.
I come for a moment to the question of cottages. In my part of the world cottages are going up, although not as fast, of course, as the promises of politicians would have indicated. But when you reach my age you never expect they will. The cottages are, nevertheless, going up. Are the agricultural workers going to live in them? Many cottages have already been built, but I have known only two agricultural workers to go into such cottages; and those two changed their occupation within two months. I would ask, in all seriousness, what steps are being taken to see that agricultural workers do go into these cottages? That is a question which I think should be answered. To me, it looks as if the much-abused tied cottage is about the only cottage which is to be provided for agricultural workers. I have just put up two of these cottages, and I think it somewhat of an achievement in face of the immense obstacles placed in my way. But the roof is on and I congratulate myself. I would point out to your Lordships, however, that these two cottages have set me back, for the rest of my life and a lot longer, £60 every year. Why have I done that? Why have I saddled myself with that financial burden? Why have other people done the same? For one reason, and one reason only; we know that without an irreducible minimum of tied cottages agriculture, and more especially animal husbandry, cannot be carried on. That is why these tied cottages are being built.
Meanwhile, farm buildings, farm houses, and the ordinary tied cottages—if you like—of the countryside are deteriorating, month by month and year by year. Some of the houses are good, some moderate, and some bad. Whatever their condition, they are all getting worse; and that is not only because of the scrapping of the Act which covers reconditioning. There are other causes. I believe that your Lordships' House is a privileged House. I have a matter of
802
which I wish to unburden myself. They say that confession is good for the soul, and I propose to confess one thing to your Lordships. Last summer I committed a crime! It was a heinous crime! I am duly ashamed of it. This is what it was. In August of last year we had a thunderstorm and lightning struck the cottage occupied by my shepherd. What made it worse was that it was a tied cottage. Fourteen tiles were knocked off. I sent my carpenter to replace those tiles. I know that that is a heinous crime! I had not appreciated—and possibly not all your Lordships will appreciate—that that made me liable to a fine of £5,000 and seven years penal servitude. Your Lordships laugh. But when you come to my age, of seventy, seven years penal servitude is not a thing at which to laugh. I mention this matter to illustrate the difficulties with which those people who wish to build houses are faced. Indeed, I think it has more significance than that. It is quite clear that such a measure has brought His Majesty's law into derision, and is apt to bring it into contempt. If that is so, that is not a thing at which to laugh. It is a very serious matter.
We had in this House the other day a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Templewood in which was described the great increase of crime which has taken place in this country. It was a very good debate. I was, however, astonished at one thing, and that was that no one made reference to the vast number of new crimes in the last six years which one can commit. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that, if one is a landowner and a farmer, it is almost impossible to go through twelve months without committing some sort of crime, even if it be not quite such a heinous one as that which I have so brazenly admitted. I would say to the noble Earl who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government that surely the really important thing now is to improve the housing accommodation of our rural population, whether the houses be old houses or new houses. That is more important than sticking pins into unfortunate landowners merely because they are landowners. I am not sure that it is not more important than making an experiment in a new ideology. I would humbly beg of His Majesty's Government to put first things first, and to get on, first and foremost, with the provision of new and

803
better accommodation for those men of our country who are engaged in producing food for you and for me.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I was expecting to speak a little later, but apparently the noble Earl opposite desires to speak after me. I rise to support the Motion of my noble friend Earl De La Warr. In his speech he mentioned—and I do not think with undue emphases the very serious situation which confronts the agricultural industry and, through the agricultural industry, the whole country. Amongst other things, he spoke of the sense of impending doom to be found among farmers. I think he is right in saying that, although I do not know why there should be that feeling of impending doom, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, mentioned, the price-fixing machinery seems to be on a fairly stable basis, and farmers should not be unduly worried on account of the fear that they will not get an adequate price for their produce. However, I think that there are other causes which may make them feel that doom is approaching.
The first, of course, lies in past history. Farmers have never forgotten the betrayal after the 1914–18 war. The second cause is the continued depression caused by the endless stream of forms which still come the way of farmers, which they have to fill in, and which so rarely produce any result in return for their labour. If you want machinery, you have to fill in forms. If you want feeding-stuffs, you have to fill in forms, or produce coupons, and so often all this produces no adequate result. Another question—and this perhaps is the main reason for their feeling of impending doom—is the difficulties with regard to labour. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that there did not seem to be any reason why the present level of agricultural output should not be maintained, and he even suggested that there might be a modest increase. There is no doubt in the minds of all those who know our countryside, and who have had close experience of it during the war, that potentially there is still a very large increase in output in agriculture if the land is properly managed.
In passing, might I say that I wish to take up my noble friend, Lord Savile, on
804
one point. We all enjoyed the noble Lord's speech, and we all hope to hear him speak again. But he did quote a widely-held opinion amongst farmers—and I think he quoted it with approval—that what he called artificial fertilizers were harmful to the land. That was noted with approval by a number of noble Lords on this side of the House, if one may judge by their applause. As Chairman of Rothamsted, which is the home of the mineral fertilizer, I would state that there is nothing very artificial about it. I must say that I think that that attitude of mind is doing a great deal of harm to the agricultural industry. As was proved over and over again during the war, the mineral fertilizer properly used—and I do not decry the necessity for humus in our soil—can make a very great contribution to increasing agricultural production. If the use of mineral fertilizers is decried by any one, a great deal of harm will be done to the agricultural industry and, as a consequence, to the country.
There is plenty of room for increased output, but the labour problem is the one which is very seriously exercising the farmer's mind. We have been able to manage by one shift and another during the war, but the only basis of a satisfactory labour position in the country is a permanent resident labour population in the rural areas. We cannot rely, and shall not be able to rely for very much longer, on prisoners of war, the Land Army, voluntary land clubs, and all those other shifts with which we have made do in the difficult years during the war. Certain areas which were grass before the war—and I know some of them—are now producing a great deal more of different types of agricultural produce from what they were before the war. I can mention to your Lordships one area in Somerset through which I have passed several times, where the land can produce, and has produced, very good crops and which was indifferent grass before the war. Now one can motor across that vale and see derelict farm buildings and derelict cottages to the right and left. Those areas need more houses. Other areas probably do not need new houses to the same extent, because besides getting new labour there is another method of improving the labour situation, and that is to increase the output per man. That can be done largely through the increased use of labour-saving machinery.

805
I could make a long speech about machinery, but I do no.: intend to do so. I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said about the mucky jobs one has to do on the farm. I do know that the Agricultural Machinery Institute has been working hard, in conjunction with the agricultural machinery manufacturers, to try and devise machines which will relieve the farm labourer of those burdens. But the development of new machinery takes time, and I cannot see an output of labour-saving machinery of the type which will save those works of drudgery in time to save the situation in our countryside. We must, however, look forward. I think this country, so far as farming is concerned, is more highly mechanized than any other country in the world, not excepting the United States of America. A high degree of mechanization requires a high degree of skill in the worker on the farm. It is those more highly skilled men that we want to attract to our farms in order to make use of the machinery we have got now and the even more complicated machinery that may be found on our farms in the comparatively near future.
You are not going to get the highly skilled men to come to live in the country unless you provide them with a house which is not only a roof and four walls but which has the amenities which people would expect to find in the towns. That is the real point. It is not only new houses that we want. We want to be able to give to the existing workers, and to the future workers who may be living in existing houses, the same amenities as those which attract them and their wives to the towns. I do not know how many of your Lordships realize what an enormous comfort to the housewife an electric iron is, for instance, and how extremely economical it is for a family to have a refrigerator. I know, as the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, knows, that such things as electric refrigerators, and so on, are being kept back for the prefabricated houses which are going up in the towns. If only some of those amenities of the towns could be released for use in the country, it would make a great deal of difference not only to the type of man but to the number of men we could attract to the countryside.
806
Houses in the countryside are hardly going up at all. I know it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to rely upon the local authorities to provide the necessary houses, but there is no obligation upon the local authorities to ensure that those houses are used for rural or agricultural workers. The speed at which those houses are going up—or rather the lack of speed at which those houses are going up—is accounted for by a number of things, but mostly by regulations emanating from Whitehall. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that I was talking to a member or my own rural district council the other day. That council had negotiated the purchase of a site for four houses in a village where I owned the land. I said to him: "How are you getting on with those houses? So far as I can see, nothing has happened." I think they put up four yellow flags on one day, but they took them down the next. He said: "We are going out to tender." I said: "Then they will soon commence building?" He replied: "No. You see, the tenders are sure to be above the figure that is fixed, and we shall then have to spend weeks and months going through that tender, nail by nail, seeing where we can cut down." That regulation emanating from Whitehall about a £1,200 or £1,300 house is designed to deal with large housing schemes and mass production; it is not designed to deal with four houses here and two houses there in country districts. There should be some relaxation of that regulation if houses built by rural districts are to go up in our countryside.
Moreover, the private owner finds it almost impossible to build a house himself. I shall have to have a word with my noble friend Lord Cranworth on how he got two tied houses built recently, because I am certain he must have committed an even greater offence than he has confessed to. It is almost impossible for the small country builder to tender with any likelihood of success, because, as a general rule, when local authorities go out to tender they go to the bigger builders and with the bigger schemes. The private landowner cannot go to tender, because he is not allowed to build a house. If there were some relaxation, and permission were given to private landowners to build houses—and there are any number of private landowners who wish to build houses to let to agricultural workers

807
—they would find these small builders and, possibly with a certain amount of assistance from their own estate staff, they would build those houses, they would build them well, and the agricultural worker would be housed. There are even possibilities that if material could be made available, the estate staffs on some of the larger estates could build the houses.
I may tell your Lordships that I wanted to build four cottages as a beginning. I had a builder who was prepared to build them, and I was prepared to spend the money. That project has been postponed indefinitely because the rural district council have outrun the four to one ratio. They have outrun it rather badly, so I am not likely to get my licence to build for quite a time, particularly as the council-built houses have not begun to go up. I am also converting what was my private bothy into a number of houses. I have only one bricklayer and his mate on my estate, but I could get a licence to do this conversion only on condition that I engaged no labour outside my own estate. So in order to get houses I am having to neglect repair work on my estate. I am glad to say that the bricklayer and his mate are men of considerable public spirit and, knowing the situation, they have voluntarily been working overtime, including Saturday afternoons, for, I think, seven or eight weeks on end.
There is still a potentiality for building in the country districts if some of these restrictions, particularly those on materials, could be relaxed, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will look into it with the greatest care in order to see how it can be done and to take the necessary action. It has been said that 1948 will be an acute year as far as the food problem is concerned. I think it is only a matter of degree. Next year it is going, to be acute, but in 1948 it is going to be far worse, unless we get something moving soon. Unless the towns are prepared to give up a little to the country, they will soon see their mistake when they find themselves on very short rations.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate very warmly the noble Lord, Lord Savile, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on their extremely interesting and excellent maiden
808
speeches. I hope that they will often take part in our debates. I understand that to-day we are to have four maiden speeches, and I should think that that is very nearly a record for your Lordships' House. It is particularly interesting to me because the fact that four noble Lords have chosen agriculture as the subject on which to make their first speeches shows that your Lordships generally are realizing how important this industry is to this country and how important it will be in the years ahead.
In regard to the noble Earl's Motion, may I say that I thought the speech with which he opened the debate was an extremely powerful one. I should like to say quite frankly that the Government accept his Motion and agree with it. The object of maximum agricultural production at home, immediately and for some years ahead, is accepted by His Majesty's Government as being in the interests of the consumers, and as vital in regard to the question of foreign exchange. We must grow food; we must make our agricultural industry as productive and as efficient as it possibly can be made. Therefore on those points there is, I think, no real difference between your Lordships on that side of the House and the noble Lords who sit on these Benches. During the war farmers increased their net output by something like thirty per cent. in value, and I think that was a magnificent achievement.
EARL DE LA WARR: In money value?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In fixed money value. The truth, however, is that there is no possibility of a further large expansion unless we extend agriculture on to unsuitable land or make calls on materials and labour (which are very scarce) and on fertilizers and machinery which would be out of all proportion to the expected benefits we should obtain thereby. Your Lordships must realize that agriculture, important though it is, is only one unit in the national economy. We have continually to balance the claims of this very important problem of food production against the claims of housing and the building up of our export trade, without which we should have very little chance of existing. It is doubtful whether we could expand our agriculture very largely without regimenting farmers and workers to a degree which would, I think,

809
be utterly impracticable in these days of peace. Nevertheless we are, on the whole, maintaining the same level of production as was achieved during the war. There have been acute shortages of supplies in some directions, and we have also, as your Lordships know, been extremely unfortunate in the weather this year.
One of the greatest difficulties with which we are faced is the shortage of feeding stuffs. The Government realize only too well the immense difficulties which are caused to farmers by this shortage, and they have been taking all possible steps to obtain additional supplies. In view of the general world shortage this has not been an easy task, but I am very glad to be able to announce to your Lordships that, as a result of the efforts which have been made, certain purchases of cereals, mainly milling offals, have now been made, which will allow further small improvements to be made in the ration scales for certain classes of breeding stock from January 1 onwards. Part will be needed for dairy cows, but we have also been able to increase the ration for chick rearing from one unit per 120 birds kept on June 4 last to one unit per 80 birds. Farrowing sows will have six units instead of five, and the monthly allowance for calf food will be restored to a half unit for each calf up to six months old. Details of these increases are being issued to the Press to-day.
We regard the shortage of labour as one of our fundamental problems. His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of this question in relation to food production, and we do not underrate the absolute necessity of doing everything we can to attract labour to the land, and to ensure, so far as possible, that supplies of labour will be available for next year's harvest—and the harvest of future years. As a first step, we must create confidence and stability in the industry and we must see that proper remuneration and proper living standards are assured both to the workers and to the farmers, so that recruits will be attracted to the industry. At the same time everything possible must be done to increase the number of houses in rural areas. On that score there is no disagreement between the two sides of the House.
I want to deal with labour first. So far as 1947 is concerned, there has been, I am glad to say, a very welcome increase in the number of regular male workers in
810
the industry. The present number is a good 40,000 higher than in the middle of 1945 and is, in fact, the highest since 1936. This increase in the number of regular workers is mostly due to the release of former agricultural workers from the Forces, including those released under the special Class B release arrangements made by the Government for agricultural workers. Earlier in this year Class B release was offered to all agricultural workers in the Services who had performed more than one year's service, and His Majesty's Government are continuing to defer, at any rate for 1947, workers in the main agricultural occupations. These additions to the strength of the regular labour force of the industry will need to be supplemented during 1947 in view of the very heavy cropping programme which the industry is being asked to undertake. It will be necessary to keep as much as we can of the auxiliary labour which we have had in 1946. It is also hoped to keep the Women's Land Army in being for a further period. Inevitably, with the end of the war, there was an exodus from the Land Army. Its strength is now about 30,000, but it contains very many of the most experienced women who have been long on the land. We also hope that new recruits will continue to enrol, so that the Land Army can be maintained at a reasonable strength.
In recent years it has been necessary to use a great deal of prisoner of war labour. The German prisoners are now beginning to be repatriated steadily, month by month, but it is expected that there will be large numbers available next year for the harvest, and food production will have a high claim when the men are allocated between different Departments. Consideration is now being given by the agricultural industry to the employment of the Polish Resettlement Corps. The employment of these men is being discussed with a number of industries, and it is hoped that in view of the shortage of agricultural labour a useful contribution can be made by the Poles, a fair proportion of whom we find have had agricultural experience of some kind or another.
Volunteer and school camps will continue, and attention is being given to the question of making conditions at the camps as attractive as possible. Every effort will be made by His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the two sides of the industry, to recruit labour for

811
seasonal pressure. Special attention is being given to this, particularly with regard to the possibility of recruiting unemployed men to work in agriculture. There is one point I should like to make clear. It is, of course, quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to give specific guarantees of certain numbers of men who will be available on certain days. That could not possibly be done. The Government, however, do feel confident that it will be possible to get through the 1947 production programme. They will do everything within their power to see that enough labour is available to deal with the crops which farmers have been asked or directed to grow. In their view, the farmers have no need to be frightened of planting the acreages which they have been asked to grow because of fears concerning the supply of labour next harvest time.
With regard to 1948, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords as a possible critical year, the requirements for labour will depend upon the production programme which has not yet been settled; it is still under discussion.
EARL DE LA WARR: Could the noble Earl give us any idea when we shall hear something about the programme?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I cannot give a definite date as to that, but it is being considered. We obviously cannot forecast requirements for labour until we have considered what the programme will be.
EARL DE LA WARR: Could the noble Earl give us some assurance that his Ministry will not wait until after sowing time, as last year?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think I can give the noble Earl that assurance. To continue, the Government's principal aim is to create such conditions as will encourage the recruitment of the necessary labour by normal means. Such questions as wages structure and apprenticeship schemes are already being examined by the industry. I think a very important step forward is being taken in the form of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Bill, which transfers permanently to the Agricultural Wages Board the power of fixing minimum wages, and extends the powers of the Board in such matters as holidays-with-pay and so forth. The Government's hope is that the various long-term
812
measures which are in action, or in contemplation, will result in a steady increase in the volume of labour. If in the next year or two a very high level of food crop acreages continues to be required, special arrangements of some kind or another will no doubt be necessary.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is of course vitally concerned with the provision of rural housing, and also with amenities in the rural areas, which in a way I think are just as important. This is fundamental to the building up of our rural population, and for securing the labour needed for postwar food production. The Departmental responsibility for this is, as your Lordships know, shared between different Departments; it is on a sort of national basis. The Ministry of Health is in charge of the housing programme, and the rural schools are under the Minister of Education, and so on. However, I can assure your Lordships that progress is being made on all sides, and substantial progress is being made by the rural district councils in the planning and building of houses. As your Lordships know, subsidies are available at a special rate in respect of houses for agricultural workers and progress is being made in the erection of the Airey House, which I think is particularly suitable for agricultural and country needs.
The latest figures I have been given are for October 31, 1946, and they show that in general the number of permanent houses in rural areas for which sites have been agreed, the numbers actually started and the number completed on October 31, compare not unfavourably with the respective numbers in urban areas. In figures the total number of houses begun by local authorities or licensed to be built privately in rural areas was 38,838, and the total number completed 7,216. I think it can be reasonably assumed that the bulk of the 39,000 houses begun by rural district councils or licensed for private building on October 31, 1946, will be completed by the harvest of 1947. They will, of course, be in addition to the 7,200 already completed. Therefore, it would not be, I suggest, unduly optimistic to hope that in spite of the enormous difficulties which everybody admits, the number of houses completed in the first two years of peace will exceed the average increase for the inter-war years, which was roughly 12,500.
LORD CRANWORTH: Would the noble Earl tell us how many agricultural labourers will be allocated for these houses and actually live in them?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I was just corning to that. It is a point which is particularly pertinent to this debate. We do not know exactly the proportion of houses built by rural district councils which are let to workers, but we have obtained figures for nine typical rural districts which give an indication of what is happening. It is, of course, only a small cross-section, but it perhaps gives an indication of the proportion. In these nine typical rural 'districts 125 houses out of a total of 215 actually received the agricultural subsidy. That of course means that agricultural workers have actually gone into them. Whether that will be the same proportion all over the country we cannot say, but it does, I think, give a fair indication, which is not altogether unsatisfactory. Of course, as more information comes in we will obtain a much more complete picture of what is happening.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Would the noble Earl tell us whether there is any means of assuring that the houses which have received the agricultural subsidy remain in agricultural occupation?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The only thing we can say is that as soon as they are not occupied by agricultural workers, the subsidy will be withdrawn. That is the only inducement, but I think it is a very strong inducement. Quite apart from these houses built in rural areas by the rural district councils, it can be assumed that a reasonable proportion of houses built privately will go to agricultural workers. I think the privately-built cottages are finding their way to agricultural workers. I should like to say that adequate machinery exists for consultation, where necessary, between the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Health, and the local authorities to ensure that proper consideration is given to the needs of agriculture in the licensing of house building. I ought to point out here that the rural building resources cannot be wholly mobilized for house building without endangering essential work in the rebuilding or repairing of farm buildings. In other words, we cannot put the whole labour force on to houses. We must allow a certain proportion to repair
814
farm buildings which are, in some cases, in an exceedingly dilapidated and bad condition.
In regard to water supplies, a point which has also 'been mentioned, I should like to say that plans made by local authorities under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, are now being put into effect on an increasing scale. This is very important as in 1943 approximately 740,000 houses in rural districts in England and Wales were without a supply of piped water under pressure into or on to the house. His Majesty's Government are encouraging the promotion by local authorities of schemes for the provision of piped water supplies to all sizable groups of houses in rural areas where this is practicable at reasonable cost. Substantial grants are made towards the cost of this work from the Exchequer under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, and from county councils. Applications for grants have already been received from local authorities in England and Wales in respect of schemes estimated to cost some 7,400,000, and other schemes are known to be in course of preparation. The Government are encouraging local authorities to bring these schemes as quickly as possible to the stage at which tenders may be invited, so that work on them can be put in hand as far as labour and materials are available. Since January of this year, authority has been given for the commencement of 'work for the provision of water supply in rural areas to the value of nearly £1,000,000.
Under the grant-aided scheme for farm water supplies, for which my right: honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is responsible, 4,667 schemes were approved in the ten months from January to October, 1946, at a cost of £1,057,000. The average of 467 schemes per month approved this year compares with an average of 443 schemes in 1945, and it is anticipated that as the main extensions are made in rural areas by the local authorities and water undertakers, many more farmers will undertake farm water supply schemes. Under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, the connexion of farmhouses and cottages to all suitable farm water supply systems is encouraged by means of grant-aid given by His Majesty's Government. This provision is intended to dr al with the more isolated dwellings which will not normally

815
be served by the schemes of main extension carried out by local authorities and water undertakers. Particulars as to the numbers of dwellings connected to farm water systems are not available, but in April last certain war-time restrictions were removed and the number of isolated dwellings provided with piped water has increased.
Electricity, as several noble Lords have suggested, is extremely important, not only in the use of electric irons but in cooking and in various other ways. It is a vital need of the countryside. The Government have received and discussed the programme agreed with the National Farmers' Union and the supply companies for the extension of electricity in rural areas. They are trying to get over the difficulties created by the very great shortage of generating capacity and the supply of poles, and other matters. The proposal to bring the electricity industry under national ownership will, I am sure, have an important effect on these plans. The same may be said with regard to the inland transport services. Generally, the Government policy regarding housing, water supplies, electricity, transport, education and other services and amenities, is on a national basis; but it is adapted where necessary to meet the special requirements of rural areas. There is always the problem of planning a big programme, and mobilizing our resources, and yet being careful to try and adapt ourselves to meet the specialized rural needs of which the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, told us of in his part of the world.
Finally, and I am afraid I have kept the House rather a long time, I should like to assure your Lordships again that His Majesty's Government do fully realize the vital importance and the urgency of this question of food production, and the necessity to produce as much as we possibly can. Moreover, we are very glad indeed that both your Lordships' House and the people outside in the country are beginning to realize the importance of this. I think that only by this can we get that co-operation which we so badly need.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Before the noble Lord sits down might I ask him a question. First of all, he mentioned the supply of labour. Have the Government gone at all into the question of asking for volunteer German labour to remain?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That has been suggested and is still under discussion. It might be a useful solution.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said on a point I had raised. He did not answer my point about the reconditioning of houses. He left it entirely alone. I know it is very difficult for the noble Lord because he comes from England. I would like sometimes to have someone representing Scotland to answer these questions. We never get a noble Lord from Scotland to answer unless it is a specific question, and I think it is not out of place to have someone from Scotland. I tried to make it clear in my speech that because of the limit of £1,200 most of us were prevented from building in isolated areas. Could we not get some help to recondition our houses until such time as we can get labour and 'materials to build new houses?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Earl will know that the question of housing is one for the Department of the Minister of Health.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I certainly do.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I will bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend and see if something can be done.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: This is my last question. You mentioned the water schemes. Does the noble Lord know that at present, as the scheme is laid down, you are not allowed to get a grant for a water scheme for a shepherd's cottage some considerable way away from your farm unless it is connected to the same water supply as the farmhouse. That means to say, if you have a shepherd running a flock for a farmer, you cannot get a grant because he is some distance away and it is not connected with the main farmhouse scheme. Will the noble Lord look into this?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I certainly will.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, so many of your Lordships have a great experience of agriculture that I intervene in this debate with great timidity, and I hope your Lordships will show your traditional kindness to one who speaks in this House for the first time. For those of

817
us who live in the country one of the greatest problems we have to face is the shortage of houses, and consequently, the shortage of labour. His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on introducing a system of guaranteed prices, but that will be of no use if the crops for which those prices are paid are not going to be harvested. In the county in which I live, most of the farmers are anxious to do everything in their power to grow as much food as they can in these critical times. The answer almost always given when officials of the war agricultural executive committees go round and ask for extra acreage of wheat, is that they are prepared to do it if sufficient labour can be guaranteed for the 1947 harvest. When it is realized that in my own county 40 per cent. of the total labour force is prisoner-of-war labour and that at the present rate of repatriation only 50 per cent. of this will be in England in 1947, it can be seen that the position is indeed serious.
Obviously, in the long run, the solution is not foreign labour, whether German labour or Polish labour. We have got to make work on the land sufficiently attractive; to see that it is sufficiently well paid and well housed to bring in the best type of men. Far and away the most important of these things at the moment is good housing. It is the common experience that if you have a cottage you can get labour. If you have not, you cannot. I should like to see more encouragement given to landlords and to owner-occupiers to build their own cottages, and the restoration of the £100 grant for rehabilitation, At the moment, as you know, if a landlord is lucky enough to get a permit to put up a cottage he is entitled to a maximum grant of £15 a year for forty years on condition that he does not tie the cottage. I do not think that any of your Lordships would claim that that is a princely sum. Indeed when the landlord discovers that he has not got to tie the cottage it may deter him from building.
I cannot quite understand the purport of this. I think that it is meant to act in favour of the tenant. In point of fact, it does not. Supposing a landlord puts up a cottage, as it would not be a tied cottage and would be modern and up-to-date, instead of charging the usual rent of 3s. a week, or as in some counties 5s. or 6s. a week, he would be entitled to charge
818
10s. a week and rates. Now supposing the tenant left the farmer's employment. Naturally, the farmer would do everything in his power to get the cottage back. He would apply to the war agricultural executive committee for a certificate of essentiality. As the cottage would not have been built if it had not been essential for the proper working of the holding the Rent Act Panel would be more or less bound to give him that certificate. Armed with that, he goes to the County Court Judge who, for the same reason, more or less, is bound to make an order. Therefore, this regulation may deter a landlord from building and may act unfairly against the tenant who may have to pay up to 5s. a week for the privilege of interviewing the Rent Act Panel who are, by their terms of reference, bound to find against him.
Now on the question of rehabilitation. In some quarters, I feel that it is considered that four walls and a roof make a good enough house for an agricultural worker. That is the effect of the removal of the £100 grant and of the stringent regulations sent round by the Ministry of Health about modernization and repair of existing cottages. In these days ex-Service men are not prepared to live in houses without water sanitation and a lot of those other amenities which they can find in dwellings in the towns. May I give an instance? On a farm that I know in the Midlands there were four exceedingly bad tied cottages. One after another the tenants left and the farmer applied to his landlord to see what could be done to put the cottages in repair. The landlord got out a scheme whereby at a cost of £550 the four cottages could be turned into two cottages equipped with water, light and so on. As a direct result of thaf transformation two ex-Service men and their wives are now living in those cottages. Those men had previously refused jobs there owing to poor accommodation. If it is agreed that rural housing must be satisfactory in order to attract labour, by far the easiest way to ensure that is rehabilitation, with or without a grant. It will, incidentally, save a great deal of material. If the Government could see their way to restore a grant of some sort, it would be widely welcomed. We are not all like a farmer I visited the other day. He is laying water on to his farm and I asked him if he was taking advantage of the 50 per cent. grant. He replied: "I

819
am too old for that sort of silly monkey trick."
Another point which sometimes worries me—but I do not quite see what can be done—is in regard to the large extensions which are being carried out to existing factories in rural areas and in some cases the building of new ones. In my own area there is a factory now employing 300 people at an average wage of £7 for a five-day week. As the result of that many men who should be going back to work on the land are not doing so. And they are hardly likely to do so, faced with this competition. I think that something should be done about this but I do not quite know what.
Lastly, I should like to mention very briefly the agricultural training scheme for ex-Service men in which I am greatly interested. This is an excellent scheme and if it met with the success it deserves it should provide a very useful number of recruits for the industry. At the moment, entirely due in my opinion to the lack of publicity given to it in the Forces prior to the demobilization centre, this scheme is failing. There are great numbers of ex-Service men who have spent a considerable time in the Forces leading an open-air life and they are not prepared to go back to jobs in offices in towns. Those are the sort of people whom we should seek to attract to the agricultural industry. At the moment, only those who by persistence and good luck have found out about the scheme are coming before the Selection Boards. If the noble Earl could persuade the Service Ministers to do something in this connexion it might ensure the success of the scheme and bring a number of valuable recruits into an industry which is badly in need of them.
5.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, it falls to my lot to add one more to the numerous speeches of congratulation which have been made to noble Lords upon maiden efforts this afternoon. I am sure your Lordships will agree that, in this case the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has not only kept up the high standard set by the maiden speeches which were delivered before his but has put before the House a most instructive and interesting series of points in a debate in which such points are badly needed. We all hope that he will speak to us many times again.
820
I feel somewhat less inclined to throw bouquets to the noble Earl on the Front Government Bench who has just sat down. It seemed to me that what I heard him say in effect was—I did not, of course, get his exact words—that it might be imprudent, incautious and unwise, and might strain the resources of the nation if we were to extend agriculture too far. That is the sort of incidental music, the kind of funeral march which we have heard throughout the last thirty years. It takes one back to Kettering and a great many places where people announced that you could do nothing about it. The reply to that is that you can do something about it if you will. The question which we have under discussion to-day is of vital importance and I think that the noble Earl who introduced this Motion deserves the congratulation of your Lordships for stressing the real urgency of the situation as it exists to-day. I could not help feeling that the noble Earl when he replied was seeking to make up a sum of trifles to obscure masterly inactivity, though there were certain points which we gladly welcome. After all, when you get a permit for a little more food for your farrowing sows it does not really do much good because you have to knock the little piggies on the head as you have not got food to give them.
Every speaker who has risen this afternoon has stressed the very great urgency of housing, and, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I haw had a considerable amount to do in my own county with the training scheme for ex-Service men. Against all obstacles, as the noble Lord has suggested, they have made their way into the industry. I have not only to see them at interviews when they start, but I have to follow their careers, and I am particularly struck—except when doctors sand us epileptics because they think that agriculture is the only thing for them—by the really high quality of the men who have come into the industry. I am also certain that these men are some of many who would come in if the houses were there. You cannot get men of that quality, however, unless you have the houses for them.
I will not weary your Lordships on the housing question, except on one point. When the noble Earl said that 39,000 houses were being built, and he hoped a large number of them would be reserved for agriculture, I felt—and he himself has

821
admitted it—that it is a very small sanction in the reservation that once a man has got his house he does not change his occupation. When a rural or urban district council come to allocate houses in rural areas, they cannot at the moment, in all fairness, give more than a small fraction to the agricultural labourers. There has been an over-spread and dispersal of industry during the war, and it had begun even before the war. It is still going on to-day, and the rural areas are demanding houses for all sorts of new reasons that never existed before.
May I return to this question of private building? Knowing that this debate was to take place, I went to some trouble, in a district which I know well, to take a census of rural builders who would be in a position, without impinging on labour for the general public housing schemes of the councils to put up new houses quickly, within the next six months, provided that the materials were there. I found that a very reasonable estimate was one house per 1,000 acres. In the 1941 census, in Hampshire, we found that we urgently needed 1,000 new houses for the county. If we could have put up one house per 1,000 acres we should have met something like 55 per cent. of that demand through local private enterprise, the use of which would not impinge on public demands for labour or, to any great extent, for materials.
One other way of easing the situation greatly, is to put the older people in smaller houses than they often now occupy. Reconditioning can often make four cottages serve for four older people, whereas for a young couple with children you could provide only two houses from the four cottages. Reconditioning, as well as the planning of new houses of much smaller types for older people and for couples without children, is very important. I realize that it may not be the concern of the Department of the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government, but it is disappointing that the Hobhouse Committee reported on reconditioning and rural houses two months ago, and yet we have no inkling publicly of what that Report says. Again, we know that the Rural, Housing Subcommittee has reported in favour of reconditioning, and yet no apparent action is being taken on that Report so far.
822
At this late hour, I will not go into the position regarding machinery. There are one or two points about this matter that are very urgent. Not only are new machines which are badly needed in our own country being exported, but in certain instances parts which are vital to the machines still working are being exported. Not long ago I had a considerable amount of trouble with my cows, because parts of my milking machine were worn out. I found that my cows were getting bad udders and that I was losing milk, and so forth. I tried every means, both fair and foul, to obtain new parts. Finally, I was told by the fountain head of the firm concerned that there were thousands of new parts, but that they were all earmarked for Denmark. And milk is a first priority in this country! If we are to produce the food that is necessary in this country, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, we shall have to reconsider the position of bulk imports, quality imports, high-cost imports against the import of finished products. It seems almost Gilbertian that we should pay Denmark very much more for producing pigs from the same sources of food that we ourselves should have available to us. I may be wrong, but in all the investigations I have made Denmark and ourselves seem to have access to the same raw materials for producing bacon and butter.
We must also remember that when we cut clown the number of chickens, and make it unprofitable to produce beef, pigs, or sheep, we are doing a double thing: we are losing not only our foreign exchange, by paying too much for the finished product, when we could produce it at home, but we are losing the skill in our own labourers. When I was on the Milk Board something like fifteen years ago, we destroyed the whole farmhouse cheese industry in Cheshire in one season by making it impossible for the industry to carry on. It never flourished afterwards. Exactly the same thing happens when you get rid of sheep. Your shepherds disappear; and you cannot create shepherds, or good pig men, or chicken men, in a day. Labour for livestock is always the hardest to obtain, and it is necessary that there should be the greatest care in nursing it. I is therefore folly not to make every effort that we can to import food for keeping pigs and chickens alive, and thereby keep the labourer, with his skill, on the land.

823
Finally, as my noble friend Earl De La Warr said, the position now is urgent, owing to the danger that farmers, through a very discouraging year, through certain indecisions of policy, and the fact that it will probably go abroad to-day that it would be unwise for this country to try and increase our food production very much above the war-time level—
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: May I correct the noble Earl, in case he has misunderstood what I said? What I tried to imply was that owing to the shortage of labour materials we could not increase production; not that we did not want to increase it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It may be that there is a tendency, with the minimum wage as it now stands and with the uncertainty of the future, for a farmer to drop production to the extent that he is no longer willing to employ the less efficient farm workers. It always happens that when the cost of labour and the prices received for food begin to balance, one tends to dispense with the less satisfactory and less skilled type of worker. The farm is a place which can employ all types, if it is made economically reasonable and possible to do so. The price we pay for our own home-grown food is a matter for internal adjustment. It has practically nothing to do with foreign currency, so we are not in difficulties there. We can, therefore, afford to take the minimum wage as the price for the less efficient labour, and put up the wages of the more highly-skilled man, and so have a satisfactory opening for the more highly-skilled people whom we want to attract to the land for the future. If we do not do that, we shall be faced with a very much depopulated countryside and be at the mercy of other nations because we cannot feed ourselves.
I looked at the figures which members of the public—probably nearly everyone in varying degrees—are willing to pay to the Government alone for luxuries. Since 1939 the increased taxes which the people of this country have been paying to the Government on tobacco, on indifferent beer, which is very much watered—I am not attacking the brewers; I am attacking the beer because it is being watered—and on gangster films, amount very nearly to £700,000,000 a year. The public are not paying the extra to the producer of tobacco, to the grower of barley or to the
824
brewer. They are paying it in taxes to the Government. At the same time the Government, in pursuance of their policy and that of their predecessors, have been paying out to the tune of half that sum in subsidies to the consumers to keep down the prices of food. It is a curious state of topsy-turviness which I think we must face sooner or later. If we want food more than luxuries, if one is to live rather than to have amenities—and we must live before we have amenities—then we must face a complete readjustment of our values. As a nation we shall not be capable of independence if, through a shortage of foreign exchange, we are always forced to look somewhere else for food which we have not the money to buy.
5.45 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible, because there are still other noble Lords who wish to speak in this debate. There is, however, one question which I wish to ask, and it is whether we are not exporting too great a proportion of our production of agricultural machinery. During the first ten months of this year we have exported over 18,000 tons of tractors alone. Assuming that each tractor weighs about 1½tons, that is the equivalent of 12,000 tractors, which is one tractor for every fifteen farmers farming over 25 acres in England and Wales. The production of tractors during the first three-quarters of this year (these statistics are from the Summary of Statistics) was nearly 20,000 agricultural types and 11,000 market garden types—roughly 31,000 in all.
It seems that over 30 per cent. of the tractors produced are being exported. It is agreed on all sides that only by a large increase in the amount and an improvement in the condition of the machinery used on our farms can we hope to compete with the threatened labour shortage, and at the same time by increasing the output per man-hour enable the higher wages to be paid which are so essential to a sound agricultural industry which is the vital foundation of a prosperous nation. It must be assumed that no farmer will buy a piece of agricultural machinery unless he is convinced that it will not only pay for itself but will produce a profit. From the number of forms and things one has to fill in to get a tractor, one would think one was going to be given itit! Surely if the implement is going to earn a profit, it is better that it should earn that profit

825
in the British fields, where we can all share in the profit, rather than that it should earn profits in foreign fields while we have to buy the produce which not only pays for the tractor but also for the foreigners' profit.
Of course figures are very misleading, but I believe it is true to say—that is, if my mathematics are correct—that the volume of agricultural machinery exported in the first ten months of this year is nearly three times as great as the volume exported in 1938, whereas the total volume of exports in the last quarter of this year is 103.7 to 100. This is misleading for two reasons. The figures in 1938 were very low and in the meantime production has enormously increased. So also has demand. Surely now is the time to reequip this vital industry even if it means cutting down a certain proportion of ou exports. I quite realize, as do the Government, the vital need for exchange. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking at Huddersfield the other clay, said:
"While American producers are buss' satisfying their own markets, this is our opportunity to capture continental markets previously supplied by the United States.''
As one who is in the tractor queue and nearing the counter at the moment, I suggest that possibly we might look more to our home market than we are doing at the moment.
I shall not detain your Lordships for much longer, but there is one other point I wish to mention. It is not quite within the terms of this Motion. Last Saturday morning I happened to listen to the 8 o'clock News on the wireless. Some extracts were given from a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agricultural journalists. I am afraid I had not got a pencil and paper and some of the remarks had passed before I realized the significance of them. So if I misquote I hope I may be forgiven. The gist of the remarks was that the Government were giving various subsidies which included £1,000,000 for water supplies, £4,000,000 for research, totalling in all about £11,000,000. He then pointed out that £1,000,000 a day was being spent on subsidies for food, about half of which was going to the British farmer. I may have misunderstood the implication of the remarks in this broadcast, but what gathered was that, as the taxpayer had to pay these enormous sums, he would insist on efficiency in farming.
826
I could not agree more with the necessity for efficiency in agriculture, as in every other national industry. But I do think that many people resent the irnplication of this enormous subsidy. I submit it is not a subsidy to farming; it is a subsidy to wages. After all, £187,000,000 is spent on keeping down the cost of home-prod aced food, and £182,000,000 on imported food. If the prices paid to British farmers were above the world prices, then I agree that to call it a subsidy would be absolutely justified. But in fact this is not so, and in most cases the price paid to the British farmer is lower than that paid for imported foodstuffs. For example, the average value of wheat imported during the first ten months of this year, again if my mathematics are correct, is about £19 per ton, whereas the price for British wheat is between £16 and per ton, including the acreage payment. The position is similar in respect of many other crops, but I will not weary your Lordships with more examples.
There are many other things I would like to say, but as other noble Lords wish to speak I will not say them now. I conclude by saying that if our agriculture is to stand up to the test it must have top priority in equipping itself. Having heard one speech on behalf of the Government from the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, I have not quite convinced myself that it is getting top priority. And if agriculture is to hold top place in the eyes of the country it should not be referred to as a heavily subsidized industry when in fact it is nothing of the kind.
5.52 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and, indeed, with an unusual measure of agreement to the many able speeches which have been made this afternoon, including the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, a much better maiden speech than I made under the same embarrassing conditions. I found myself in agreement with him in what he said about the folly of exporting agricultural machinery as long as our own needs in agricultural machinery remain unsatisfied. I saw this year—a very trying harvest year—literally tons of grain, not sprouting grain but quite sound grain, lying wasting on the ground simply because there was not the labour or the machinery

827
for picking it up under the rather difficult conditions.
I was interested also in what the noble Lord said about the food subsidy. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as a measure for sweetening both the farmer and the consumer, but I cannot help wondering whether if the farmer and consumer realized that in the capacity of taxpayers they themselves were providing the money they would be quite so keen about the sweetening process. I should like to support what has already been said by more than one speaker about the undesirability of landlords or others who wish to recondition an agricultural worker's cottage, or to put in the up-to-date modern sanitation, being met by a refusal of licence either from the local authority, or perhaps by the local authority intimidated by a Government Department.
There are just two or three points to which I would like to refer quite briefly, as I do not think they have been touched on during the debate. The first is the need of a really useful building in every village which would act as the social centre for the inhabitants; a building with proper provision for the elderly and the young, where quiet recreation could be enjoyed and also recreation of a more lively character. I would also stress the importance of the provision of proper village schools where the children could receive instruction not only in ordinary book learning but in agricultural work and pursuits. I greatly deplore the modern tendency in some districts to draft country children to town schools. The effect is not at all good for agriculture.
Then I would like to refer to two factors which either locally or nationally threaten, or are likely to threaten, the welfare of agriculture. The first is the operation of brickworks. We have been reminded of the undoubted importance of bricks to the building industry. There is, however, another side to the picture, and I have seen a good deal of it in the part of the world where I live. Brick clay is found to be under some piece of agricultural land. It is acquired by a brick works which then commences operations The result of those operations is to dig a gigantic cavity many hundreds of yards in length and width, and perhaps at the finish forty or fifty feet deep, and when the clay is worked out that land is
828
absolutely derelict and useless. It cannot be filled in because the labour is too enormous, and at the bottom of this cavity, an undrained cavity, you get pools of water, rubble and an immense growth of thistles and other undesirable weeds which spread themselves all over the countryside.
There is another serious nuisance. The smoke and fumes from these brickworks are of a peculiarly poisonous and unpleasant character. They have been known actually to destroy crops and even cattle in the vicinity, causing the bones of the animals to soften. They can also be an intolerable nuisance to people living in the locality who may be unable to let their houses if they desire to do so. As I have said, I fully realize that there are two sides to the question. Bricks form an important part of the materials for building, but it is necessary to remember that under modern conditions, even if you leave out of it prefabricated houses, there are many other materials of which houses can be constructed. It is desirable, I think, that the Government should weigh very carefully here the needs of the building industry against the needs of agriculture, bearing in mind particularly the fact to which I have just drawn your Lordships' attention, that a worked out brickfield is derelict, useless and ugly ground.
With regard to the question of fumes I think a really drastic policy should be undertaken. In my opinion, no country claiming to be really civilized would allow an industrial undertaking, and particularly one starting operations in a rural district, to pollute the air with its fumes or the waters with its effluents. In practically every case there are known methods of preventing these nuisances, and in cases where the industry is wealthy enough to put in the necessary machinery, or whatever it may be, it should be made compulsory upon it to do so. In cases where it would be an unfair burden on the industry I think there is a clear case for a Government grant of money. Money spent for such purposes would be far better spent in my opinion than if it were used to train and equip several more brigades of Government snoopers inquiring what John Citizen is doing and telling him not to do it.
The other possible danger, which has not yet materialized, is this. I believe there are very ambitious schemes under

829
consideration for the construction of new roads, including very wide main thoroughfares, which will inevitably destroy many thousands of acres of agricultural land. Here again there is a need of balance and common sense. I do not for a moment dispute that our road system needs improving, or that some of these new roads may be necessary, but I do say that we need to be careful lest we sacrifice valuable agricultural land merely to the modern craze for increased speed and to enable persons to send by road goods which could better be sent by rail, or even, in some cases, by sea.
6.0 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, it falls to my lot, not for the first time by any means, to wind up a discussion on this fascinating but eternal subject. In doing so, I should like to say that I welcome the Motion of the noble Earl and to express the hope that, whatever Government may be in power in time to come, seeing the abundance of youth with which happily he is still endowed, he may continue these exhortations in the interests of the development of British agriculture.
We have to remember, of course, that we are dealing now with the results of a declension of this industry during two or perhaps nearly three generations. Whatever Government was in power, it could not make up this disastrous leeway quickly. That simply cannot be done. I do not say that in order to suggest any excuse for lack of effort, but solely to state an inescapable fact of which we should never lose sight. Owing to other urgent -work I have not had the opportunity of listening to the whole of the discussion, but that thought has been in my mind all the time I have been listening to it. Nevertheless, true as that may be, it only emphasizes the importance of our addressing ourselves to the task with all the energy and ingenuity we can summon to it. It is for that reason that I am very glad indeed that the noble Earl moved his Motion.
One of the themes that has been prominent in the speeches has been fthe shortage of labour and the necessity for providing cottages, because it is obviously true that until we provide a great many more cottages we shall not get the necessary labour. I am informed that an
830
amendment should be made to one figure given by the noble Earl opposite with regard to the number employed in the industry. In 1939 the number employed was 910,000, which was the figure given by the noble Earl, but the figure which he quoted for the number employed today is, I believe, a slight under-statement. According to my information, the present figure is 1,048,000, and not, as he said, 1,021,000.
EARL DE LA WARR: My figure was the June figure.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand that the present figure is 1.048,000, which represents an increase of 138,000 in the number employed on the land as compared with 1939. That number is nothing like as many as we require, but at all events there has been a substantial increase winch I am sure we all welcome. Nothing was -more deplorable to many of us before the war than year after year to note the steady declension in the numbers of those employed in agriculture. As a matter of fact, I believe that in the years between the two wars the decline was more than 250,000. That decline has now been arrested and there has been a very substantial addition. That is something from which to take comfort but it is by no means enough.
I should like to join with noble Lords in paying tribute to the four noble Lords who have spoken in this House for the first time. As one who has been interested all his life in agriculture, I do not think they could have chosen a worthier topic on which to make their maiden speeches. I was particularly interested, if I may say so, in what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. To some extent I may claim him as a pupil, because I was the Chairman all through the war (I am afraid I did not have the advantage of his help for long) of the county war agricultural committee upon which he now serves, and I am quite sure he will have derived much profit from the lessons and experience of that committee. I join with him in saying how necessary it is that the agricultural training scheme should be developed as much as possible, because, along with every other speaker, I look with dread upon the time when this large number of German prisoners will have returned to Germany. That is a dreadful prospect so far as labour for agriculture is concerned, and one which makes it all the more

831
necessary that this agricultural training scheme should be pressed forward.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say what he did as to the character of the scheme; I think it is a very good one. I confess that up to the end of the war I was rather disappointed at the numbers of men who were coming forward, but I understand there has been a great increase since then. This scheme is, I think, very much better than the rushed system, if I may so describe it, which was adopted after the last war. This scheme requires that so far as possible the men shall be trained in actual farm work on the farm by experienced farmers, apart from the training they get in institutes and otherwise. That will mean, I hope, that as these men become trained we shall not have those shocking failures which, I am afraid, occurred in a great many cases after the last war, when a number of men put their war gratuities and any other funds they could raise into small holdings which they were entirely unequipped to carry on
At all events, the scheme is being established on a sound basis and I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is fully seized of the necessity for making progress with it as quickly as possible. Here again, there is a time factor. You cannot train a man to be a good agriculturist in a month or two. He must see seasons in their sequence, he must know the course of farming operations and so on. It takes time to do that, and nothing that we do will allow us to escape from the fact that it does take time. If we are to reinforce the labour on our land with experienced workers, I am afraid there is no short cut owing to the nature of the case. This scheme, so far as it goes, is making very good progress.
The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, asked a question about the Hobhouse Report. Since the noble Earl asked that question I have been supplied with a reply. It is to this effect, that the Report is now in process of printing and will be published as soon as it is received from the printers, which I think is an answer to the inquiry he made. There was one other question to which I have also been supplied with an answer and to which I must refer. The question was what happens in the event of a local authority building a house for an agricultural
832
worker and the house ceasing to be occupied by an agricultural worker. That is a very important question. Nothing was more disappointing than the inquiries we made some years ago during the war, when we were asked to supply a certain number of cottages under Mr. Hudson's scheme, to find that in almost every case cottages that had been provided by farmers were inhabitated by week-enders and people from the towns; pensioners and in fact an infinite variety of people who never did any work on the land. That has happened all over the country, and nothing could be worse than for us to spend money and perhaps give subsidies for providing houses for agricultural workers and then for the community and the industry to be deprived of the benefits.
Therefore, in addition to withdrawing the subsidy in any case where it is known that a cottage of that kind ceases to be occupied or let to an agricultural worker, it is now provided that an agricultural worker occupying such a cottage must be provided with another cottage by the local authority. But as a matter of fact, in all seriousness, I do not myself think that the number of cases of that kind, at all events in the immediate future, is likely to be large. Rural authorities are just as much alive to the necessity of providing more agricultural cottages as any member of this House, and I am quite sure that in the vast majority of cases they will deal fairly with the community in this matter and not try to evade their responsibilities.
There is perhaps one other question to which I might refer before I speak on the general issue, a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney—and I would join with other noble Lords in congratulating him on his maiden speech—when he said that he complained to some extent of the export of agricultural machinery. We all know how necessary it is that our farms should be even better and better equipped with agricultural machinery, but I do not think the position is quite as bad as the noble Lord perhaps thinks. Last year, of the production of agricultural machinery in this country 75 per cent. was taken by the home market and 25 per cent. exported. The noble Lord may be assured that we do not like exporting machinery any more than he does which we can well use in this country, but we are confronted with a double-barrelled necessity, and unfortunately these requirements are not

833
reconcilable. We must have foreign exchange and, at the same time, we must have food by increased development of our farms. The export of this machinery is only allowed because its value in providing us with foreign exchange and keeping open our overseas markets is very important indeed. At all events that is the proportion during the last year and, as the noble Lord knows, the production of this machinery is rising quite rapidly, and in fact it is I believe already considerably past what it was in pre-war days.
Now I come to the general question raised by the noble Earl's Motion, which I heartily welcome. He urges that more and more food must be produced from our land. He thinks that is possible, and I agree with him. Progress is not very rapid, but I am quite sure he is right in his statement about an attainable goal. In the course of the war the increase in production was really most remarkable, and one of the most successful ways of increasing production was by the improvement of our grasslands. There again you See what we were confronted with. Every noble Lord knows it as well as I do—thousands and thousands of acres of miserable pasture consisting of ant-hills, thistles, rubbish and indifferent herbage. That was the condition all over the country and one had not got to go far to see it. What happened during the war—and what is still happening I am glad to say—was that a lot of this land was ploughed LID and either directly reseeded, or after an arable crop a good ley was grown on it and the stock-carrying capacity of this grassland was thus enormously increased. I do not like to exaggerate, but in the county with which the noble Earl and myself are associated there were many thousands of acres in which the stock-carrying capacity of the land was more than quadrupled simply by ploughing and re-seeding with proper grass mixtures. That process happily is still going on.
There again you cannot do it in a day; it is a matter of time. Unfortunately time is an inevitable handicap in this industry, but I am quite sure the noble Lord is right when he says that by the adoption of improved methods and the expansion of improved methods we can produce much more food per acre from our land than we have been doing in times past. That is a truism and nobody is more alive to the necessity of doing
834
that than His Majesty's Government. Our present emergency makes it more urgent -than ever it was during the war. I can only tell the noble Lord that he is pushing at a door which is wide open. We intend to do our best in that respect, but it depends of course very largely upon the activity of agricultural committees in the different counties and upon their contacts and good working relations with the farmers. But I think the case has gone so far now that the farmers do not need much converting in any county so far as I know. They are well aware of the improvements that are possible. The noble Lord put the figure of possible increase at twenty per cent. Well, I personally do not disagree with that figure a bit. I should think myself that when we get to applying up-to-date methods generally—as they will have to be applied in the course of time—that figure may well prove if anything to be an understatement. But it will taco time to realize it. We are confronted all the while with the processes of nature so far as relates to what can be done in any particular season, and all I can say to the noble Lord is that we are as fully alive not only to the needs but to the possibilities as he is, and that we shall do everything we can to see that the work proceeds on those lines.
I sympathize with the noble Duke behind me in his remarks about the taking of agricultural land for roads and other enterprises. I can assure the noble Lords that His Majesty's Government are very acutely alive to the danger of having this little island too thickly dotted with aerodromes and of taking too much of our precious land for this and other purposes. I Would like to tell the noble Duke that we are fully aware of this risk, and I can say that many of us are standing as champions, in season and out of season, for the safeguarding of agricultural land so far as it can be safeguarded.
I do not think I need enlarge upon the topic any further because the plain fact—and it is inescapable—is that, with regard to the decline in the number of rural cottages available for labour, the decline of labour itself, as compared with fifty years ago, and the deficiency of machinery and so on, we are the inheritors—I am not blaming anybody—of what has happened during two generations. We have certainly made some progress with regard to the augmentation of the labour

835
supplies for the land, but it is still far short of what will be required. That applies also to cottages and to all the other necessities of the case. All I can say to your Lordships is that we are fully seized of these necessities, and will do everything we can to meet them so far as it is humanly possible.
6.21 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am quite sure we are all very pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has joined in this debate. To a small extent, he has certainly made me feel somewhat happier about the attitude of the Government. I must confess that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Huntington, did leave me most profoundly disquieted. There seemed to be a complacency and a lack of any sense of urgency running right through it. If that does represent the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture, I can only say that this country is going to be hungry in the space of eighteen months to two years. It may have been my fault, and I am blaming nobody, but I certainly have not got the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to appreciate what I feel, and what I think a number of noble Lords in this House are feeling, about the present situation. I tried to raise a very direct question: Are our food supplies over the next two years or so in doubt or danger? That was the definite question, and it arose directly out of the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. I have not even had an attempt—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Of course we cannot look with certainty two or three years ahead, but I can tell the noble Earl that we are exceedingly anxious as to the position of our purchasing power in the years to come. We are very anxious. A great augmentation of our export trade is required, particularly in sales to dollar countries. We are not under any illusion about the necessities of the case, nor as to the necessity for increasing our food production at home as much as possible. As to the anxiety, I should have thought that was writ large upon every statement that any member of the Government has made on this subject. At the same time, the noble Earl cannot expect the impossible. For instance, there is at the present time a serious deficiency in the anticipated arrival of supplies owing to the shipping
836
strike and, recently, to the coal strike on the other side of the Atlantic. Nothing we can do can act as a safeguard against emergencies of that kind. We are very greatly short of the shipping programme that was anticipated some months ago because of these events, but we cannot provide against them. I wish we could.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Viscount for his intervention, but the fact remains—and it has been mentioned in almost every speech from this side of the House by noble Lords who really know the position in the country—that there is no sense of urgency as between the Ministry of Agriculture and the farmers. I am quite convinced on that point myself. No reply was made at all to my contention that production has declined. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, mentioned the transfer of acreage from wheat to barley. I have the Ministry's statistics here, and I find that between 1945 and 1946 there was a small decline in the acreage of barley. I am quite sure, knowing what the noble Viscount feels on this subject and on the subject of the development of agriculture and its possibilities, that he would not have given the reply he did today if he were in as close contact with the situation as he was a few years ago when he was presiding over a war agriculture committee. I would ask him not to take it from me, but to ring up any executive officer he likes in the country and ask him whether he feels there is any sense of drive behind the Government in agricultural production at the moment. I ask him to ring up any farmer or any agricultural executive officer, and see what reply he gets.
He tells us, quite rightly, that all these things take time. We know that; and yet, when we were up against it in the year 1939 to 1940, what did we do? We saw an increase in tillage in this country of just over 6,000,000 acres in the space of one year. These things can be done, and that is why I am not attempting, in this short reply of mine, to deal with all the countless and important points which have been brought up about labour and housing and which seem to be details arising out of our sense of gravity of the position. What we want today are not statements by the Government that they realize the position; not even more speeches by Ministers about the gravity of the position. I do not even feel that the word

837
"campaign" for increased production is the word we want. It must be a real crusade conducted throughout every farming body, from the agriculture executive committees down to the individual farmer, such as we carried out during the war.
It is because I do not feel there is that spirit alive in the Government at the present moment that I must confess that this debate leaves me still deeply anxious about the future position of the food supplies of this country. I know that noble Lords who have replied have taken a great deal of trouble to go into the question, and they have done their best to satisfy the House with regard to the minor points of detail that have been raised. I thank them for that, but I repeat that I am deeply disappointed on the point that seems to be the real issue before the country to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the general demand on the part of the public for the issue of an abridged birth certificate establishing identity and certifying age, but omitting particulars as to legitimacy or illegitimacy, having regard to the unnecessary pain and embarrassment occasioned by such disclosure in existing birth certificates; and whether the matter, which is uncontroversial, can be regarded as one of urgency, seeing that over 52,000 illegitimate children are born each year in Great Britain, and through no fault of their own are subjected to this additional and unnecessary handicap whenever a birth certificate is required.]
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the Government are aware of and in full sympathy with the desire expressed in many quarters for the issue of a shortened form of birth certificate which will not disclose parentage. The question has been re-examined in recent months and, in the light of experience in Scotland, where a shortened certificate has been available
838
since 1934, it has been decided to follow suit in this country. As was announced in another place last week, the Government hope to introduce this Session a short Bill making it possible, as in Scotland, to issue at a reduced fee shortened birth certificates which will contain no reference to parentage. The Bill would make similar provision for shortened extracts from the Adopted Children Register.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for his answer, which will be a source of relief and gratitude to many thousands of people who suffer the disability of being illegitimate, as well as to those who have been adopted. There is just one other matter in respect of which I would like to make a request to the noble Earl. I would ask in order to safeguard the object we have in mind, which is the object aimed at in this Bill, that the new shortened form of birth certificate, now to be legalized, will in future be the normal birth certificate, and that the old full certificate shall only be issued in exceptional cases, either with the consent of the Court or some other statutory body. If it should come to be realized that people have these shortened certificates only to conceal matters relating their birth, the object of the Bill which is promised might be defeated.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I understand it is the intention that the shortened certificate should be used as a general rule.

PASSPORT REGULATIONS.
6.33 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD LORD SHERWOOD had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the present position of those who were imprisoned under the Order 18B, and especially the refusal of a passport to Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart., and to move for Papers, The noble Lord said: My Lords, even at this late hour I would beg your Lordships to listen to the words which I intend to speak, for they will deal with a matter which does not usually come within the compass of the ordinary business of this House—the liberty of the subject. After all, this is a matter of the greatest importance, and perhaps this House remains the last of all platforms on which it can be dealt with, without

839
fear or favour. In my Motion I have made reference to the position of people who were detained under Order 18B and I have indicated my intention to bring to your notice, especially, the refusal of a passport to Sir Oswald Mosley, and to move for Papers.
Now I take an interest in this matter, because, before the war, I was one of those who agreed that we were in peril. My Party, the Liberal Party, have had no connexion whatever with Sir Oswald Mosley. The Tory Party he adorned; the Labour Party made him a Minister; but to the Liberal Party he never came. We Liberals, however, do feel that the liberty of the individual is more important than anything else, and that is what is at stake, I suggest, at this moment. Sir Oswald Mosley, as we well know, was imprisoned under 18B and I as a Minister of the Government at that tune bore my share of responsibility. I was equally responsible with the Lord Chancellor who sits on the Woolsack now. I accept my full share of responsibility. But what is the position now of people who were similarly placed to Sir Oswald Mosley? I wrote to the Home Secretary and I got a polite reply—as you always get from the Home Secretary. In this he says:
"My Dear Sherwood,
You wrote to me on July 8 about the question of Sir Oswald Mosley going abroad to the South of France. I find that he has not submitted an application for a passport, but I am afraid that if he does so I would not feel able to recommend to the Foreign Secretary that a passport should be granted to him at present."
That is how the Home Secretary answered my letter.
Now what is a passport? Is it a police permit to allow an individual to go out of the country, or is it the mark of the right of an ordinary Englishman to pass from this country? I say to the Government: "If you are frightened of Sir Oswald Mosley, why not let him go?" Surely that cannot be wrong. You might be frightened of letting him into this country, and it may be that other countries might not wish to receive him. That is another matter. But, as an Englishman, he has the right, just as much as any of us sitting here—make no mistake about that—to a passport. I put that plainly to the Lord Chancellor and the Government. This, I agree, has not been
840
done under Regulation 18B, but under Order 18B, which gives the right to hold back a passport. The reasons which have been given for holding back a passport are quite clear. They have been given by the Home Secretary, and by the Under-Secretary too. They are that someone might try to evade service in the Forces or that someone might try to avoid being controlled in this country. What right is there to say that Sir Oswald Mosley should be detained here because of these powers? We are dealing with dangerous topics and we are moving in dangerous worlds, but one thing that does remain is the complete liberty of the subject.
As I have said, Sir Oswald Mosley has never been a Liberal. He has been an adherent of the Labour Party and of the Tory Party. I admit, quite candidly, to your Lordships, that he is a personal friend of mine, but a political friend of mine he has never been. No one has opposed his political views more firmly and more consistently than I have done, and I shall always do so. Nevertheless there remains the question which we on those Benches regard as so vitally important, the question of the right of a British subject to leave this country and not be under police supervision.
6.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord's speech with considerable surprise. He talked about the liberty of the subject, and he spoke about the ordinary man. I suggest to your Lordships that Sir Oswald Mosley is not an ordinary man, he never was an ordinary man, and he has become an extraordinary man. He became a man who had to be interned because of the views which he held (he held them not only during this war but before the war) when the war was becoming the most tragic struggle that has ever submerged this country or the world.
What was Sir Oswald Mosley's record before the war? So far as his actions were concerned he led a movement which, openly and professedly, was associated with Mussolini and Hitler—with two schools of thought, one described as Fascism and the other as Nazism. With other nations, we launched into this war in order to fight what we and most of the world considered were evil doctrines which would bring the world into worse

841
troubles than it is in to-day. The war is over, but Sir Oswald Mosley wears no white sheet of repentance. From my knowledge of him. I would not expect him to; but I would expect him at least to conform to what the country as a whole believes is right. He has not done so. Immediately he was released, or very shortly afterwards, he began to call public meetings, at: which he adumbrated the same views and policies as he had done before the war. This caused some public disturbance. His meetings were broken up, or nearly broken up. At any rate, those meetings stopped, and I can only imagine that certain indications were conveyed to him, through the Home Office, that it would be better if they were stopped.
Since then, if we are to believe what has come from America—and we learn much from America of things that happen in this country, of which we have no inkling—he is again active. A certain gentleman called William L. Shirer, a well-known American journalist who during the war wrote a very famous hook, Berlin Diary, who lined for a number of years before the war in Germany, and who knew the Germans and their creed, tells us, in an article in which he is analyzing what has happened with regard to the cult of Nazism to-day, that Sir Oswald Mosley:
"moves quietly around the country "—
that is, this country—
"building up a network of cells, and lecturing privately to small groups on the tactics and philosophical basis for a new Fascist movement in Britain."
That is what we are told; and I can believe it. I have every reason to believe it, because I find that Sir Oswald Mosley has published a little book, My Answer, which I presume is along the same lines as Hitler's Mein Kampf—because he likes to emulate Mr. Hitler. This particular book was not specially brought to my notice. I happened to go into one of W. H. Smith's shops about five weeks ago, and saw it on the counter. It was not very expensive—7s. 6d.—although a little too expensive for what is in it. I bought the book. I did not read it for a time, but since this Motion was placed on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, I have had a look at it. I find that Sir Oswald Mosley is still a member—I suppose he is the leader—of the so-called British Union, which started all the trouble before the war, and many of whose
842
members were shut up under Defence Regulation 18B.
I will not weary your Lordships by reading any extracts, except to quote from the last page which, as your Lordships may see, is in very large print. It is headed "Objects of the British Union", and it starts off by suggesting that a Corporate State should be established in Great Britain to secure certain objects. To begin with, however, we do not want a Corporate State in Great Britain. I do not take exception to that part of the rules of this Union so much as I do to the end part, which says:
"The barriers of Class shall be destroyed and the energies of every citizen devoted to the service of the British nation"—
In 'point of fact, most citizens to-day are devoted to the service of the British nation. The war has proved that nearly every citizen in this country, whether fighting man or civilian, has been devoted to the service of his country. The book goes on:
"which by the effort and sacrifice of our fathers has existed gloriously for centuries before this transient generation, and which by our own exertions shall be raised to its highest destiny—the Greater Britain that shall be born of the National Socialist and Fascist creed."
The last few words are the vital words, and I cannot think that anyone in your Lordships' House would agree with them.
Here is this book with that suggestion, after a war into which we have poured every kind of sacrifice—and are still pouring out every kind of sacrifice—in order to kill and strangle that particular form of policy. Sir Oswald Mosley, having been released, comes and starts the old game again. For that reason alone I should not regard Sir Oswald Mosley as an ordinary man, entitled to ordinary liberty, and I entirely agree with the Government in their action in not granting him a passport.
I want to add another point. What is happening in Europe to-day with regard to Fascism and Nazism? We have the clearest evidence that they are still very much alive. I would like to quote from a statement made to a representative of the British Press by Countess Edda Ciano, Mussolini's daughter, on July 19, 1946, only a few months ago. It was published at the time in the Daily Express. The name of the journalist to whom this statement was made was a man called

843
Sidney Smith. This is what Countess Ciano said:
"Like my father, I was glad when Italy joined in the war, because I thought we could win. In Italy there are Fascists who will fight to the death. Nothing can change my sympathies. I am still a Fascist. Why not? I think no one has won the war, not even the Anglo-Americans."
Countess Ciano is a lady of great importance in Italy. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, need not smile. She was Mussolini's daughter and the wife of Count Ciano, the Foreign Minister, who led Italy into the war. There is no doubt whatsoever that she has a very great personal following, apart from any following she might have as a result of this particular matter.
I have dealt with Italy. Let us go to Germany. Field-Marshal Montgomery, in an interesting speech which he made quite recently, estimated that 75 per cent. of the British zone in Germany was still Nazi, that is to say, 15,000,000 out of 21,000,000. I am not going to weary your Lordships by going into too much detail, but I did want shortly to sketch the position in Europe with regard to this matter. I am not going to talk about Spain, but I should like to deal with South America and, in particular, to refer to the Argentine. The most serious menace in the future of Nazism is to be found in the Argentine. The State Department of the United States in February of this year published a Blue Book containing some very startling results of American investigations into the subject of Nazism in the Argentine. I may interpolate at this stage that the Argentinians are people who travel very widely in Europe. Many go to Paris. Many go to the place where Sir Oswald Mosley would like to go—namely, to the South of France. There he would meet those people. It would be quite easy to conspire with them in the South of France or in Paris, and then in the Argentine.
Let me quote short passages from this document published by the State Department of the United States. This Blue Book indicates that at the end of 1945—which is not so long ago—in the Argentine there were 57 schools and more than 500 Nazi organizations continuing activities under camouflage (this is official Government language) with the full knowledge of the Argentine Government. Nazi capital in the Argentine was estimated at
844
500,000,000 dollars and this remains hidden and protected in German hands. Then there are certain statements in the Press, for which one cannot vouch to the same extent as one can those from an official publication, which state that in South America German assets amount to no less than two billion dollars.
Here is the short passage which I am going to read to your Lordships and which is really significant of what is still happening in the world and of the dangers we are still up against. It says:
"In Argentina the Germans have constructed a complete duplicate of the economic structure for war which they had in Germany. They possess to-day in Argentina the economic organization—industrial, commercial and agricultural—which they need to provide a base for the reconstruction of German aggressive power during the period when the homeland is still occupied. The industries essential to warfare in which experimentation in the weapons of future wars may take place, and in which prototypes may be developed, exist in Argentina and are controlled by Germans.
"Businesses which may be relied upon to produce the foreign exchange needed for research, for payment of agents and salaries, for propaganda and so-called cultural activities, and to provide reserves for future aggression in countries destined for conquest, continue to exist."
This is an official American document compiled after, no doubt, the most complete investigations into these matters in the Argentine.
That is the policy—National Socialism and Nazism—which is advocated in this yellow book of Sir Oswald Mosley. If that is the case, surely the Government are right in taking some measures of protection when they are dealing with an extraordinary man—not an ordinary man. No one will agree with Lord Sherwood that Sir Oswald Mosley is an ordinary man, or that he can be put forward as an example of that sort of man to support the well-tried and old principle of the liberty of the individual. Nobody, or very few people in this country, would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, that Sir Oswald Mosley can be put forward as such as individual. Therefore, I suggest that the Government are very wise in not allowing Sir Oswald Mosley to leave this country for fear that he may conspire and create danger by association with these various individuals. Again a noble Lord laughs. But it is true, and some day he will find it out; he is a younger man than I am. It is perfectly true. I think that the Government are right not to take any

845
risk whatsoever in this matter. I personally commend them for the action they are taking; I hope that they will be adamant in that attitude and not agree to any person like Sir Oswald Mosley, or anyone associated with him of the same kidney, leaving this country. I will say this. I know of at least one country, which will not be named in your Lordships' House, that would not receive Sir Oswald Mosley, and I think that may make the task of the Government easier in not allowing him to leave the country.
6.57 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I have listened to what I consider to be a very strange kind of speech, particularly the latter part of it. At least, it is one to which I could not subscribe. I think that, having fought a war for liberty, we ought to set some example in this country. I remember not so many years ago how some of us Socialists were not wanted in certain countries. We were not allowed to enter those countries, and no one felt that restriction more deeply at the time than I did. I think that we ought to protect and respect—and this I believe is something of fundamental importance—individual rights and liberties. What a contrast one finds between the speech to which we have just listened and the speeches delivered by such a man as Cowen, who in his time was a great Radical, who defended the Irish, and who delivered speeches which were a credit to the great Liberal Party of that time, standing up, as he did, for the liberty of individuals then being persecuted.
I can only say that speeches like the one which I have heard to-day give me a real pain in the neck. It is astonishing, after going through what we have gone through, that we should hear opinions such as we have heard to-day. Dealing with colleagues of mine in the trade union movement, I would refer to the late Ben Tillett as an example. He was looked upon as being a funny kind of animal. I think they thought that he was growing horns out of the back of his head. When he wanted to go to Belgium they refused to have him in Belgium. At one time they refused to have him in France. They refused to have him in those countries because they did not agree with his opinions. Much as I differ from the opinions expressed by Sir Oswald Mosley and all that he stood for—and some of
846
the men I know associated with him—I cannot subscribe to the philosophy that because a man has suffered the pains and penalties of his actions—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We had not fought a big war in the meantime.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I will not sit down.
LORD QUIBELL: Then stand up.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I. am going to speak. The parallel which the noble Lord gave of Ben Tillett is an entirely different one from that which we are talking about to-day We had not fought a war then, and he was out there purely on Socialist politics.
LORD QUIBELL: I hope we have marched a little bit since those days and that our minds and outlook have become broadened as a consequence. I hope the passage of time has shown to this country the necessity of giving liberty to the individual. As Patrick Henry said in America: "Give me liberty or give me death." Many men in this country have stood for the rights of the individual, and I feel proud that I have shaken the hands of some of them. If they were here to-day Sir Oswald Mosley would not matter in the least. It is a question of the rights of the individual, and we ought to safeguard them as far as we possibly can, because you and I might be in a minority one day—do not forget that—and might: have our opinions suppressed. Who is to be the judge, after all, of whether it is right or wrong? Many of us may find ourselves expressing opinions contrary to an accepted Government. We can see how things are emerging in the rest of Europe and in other countries, where you cannot express your opinion. I think it is very dangerous for any of us to attempt to suppress opinions or to confine the liberty of the individual. That is what concerns me, the right of the individual to express himself, and as long as the safeguards arr provided there is no special reason for preventing Sir Oswald Mosley from having a passport. I think he should have the same right as any other citizen in this country.
7.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, at this late hour I may perhaps reply briefly, and without

847
unnecessary controversy, to this matter. First of all, let me say this. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, need apologize for raising this matter. It seems to me to be in accord with the best Liberal doctrine that you should always be astute to look after the individual and to see that the individual is not having a rough deal—in short, that you should not apply Fascist doctrines to the individual, even though the individual himself may be a Fascist. With that I quite agree.
The noble Lord draws attention to the present position of those who were imprisoned under Regulation 18B. So far as the general mass are concerned, they are now, of course, free; they are not now under any legal disabilities; and so far as the vast mass of them are concerned they are like any other persons in that if they want a passport they can obtain one. In many cases such persons have applied for and been granted passports. I am not going to embark on a controversy as to whether Sir Oswald Mosley is an ordinary or an extraordinary man, but we all agree that he was a very prominent man, and everybody in this country, and I suppose a very large number of people abroad. Know him by name and know the sort of action which he took.
The problem which confronts the Home Secretary is one which arises under powers which Parliament recently gave to him under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. What had previously been a Defence Regulation, Regulation 18B, was incorporated in this Act and it is the law of this land until the end of next year, 1947. The particular Regulation which the Home Secretary has to enforce is one under which the duty and the burden is imposed upon him of determining who shall enter or leave the United Kingdom. In the exercise of his discretion, the Home Secretary—there are a very large number of people in the United Kingdom; about 45,000,000—has come to the conclusion, as at present advised, and I stress "as at present advised," and it is a matter which should be kept under constant review, that there are five people in all to whom it is undesirable to grant permission to leave the United Kingdom. In making up your mind on this problem I think myself it is idle to deny that you should have regard to the fact that conditions in Europe are still very disturbed. To say that it is a
848
powder magazine is perhaps too much now, but it is certainly a magazine and not and disorder might very easily break out.
I would like to give one illustration only, and I concern myself only with the Jews. Do not forget that millions of these unfortunate people were done to death in gas ovens. If I were a Jew living in Europe to-day I can quite imagine that I should feel deeply annoyed at the visit to the country where I was living of a man who had, rightly or wrongly, been identified as being very anti-Jew in this country. I merely give that as one illustration. If I were the Home Secretary making up my mind on this problem I should look at it from this point of view; everybody ought to be allowed to go, and if I am going to stop anybody there is a strong and clear onus upon me to satisfy myself that I have some real reason for so doing. I should then address my mind to the question whether I had a real reason. I should eliminate altogether the fact that the man had expressed views, or was still expressing views, which I disliked. I should eliminate from my mind altogether the fact that he was imprisoned under Regulation 18B. After all, let us be fair to those people who were imprisoned under Order 18B, and let us remember that they have never been accused of any crime; not only have they not been convicted of a crime but they have not been accused of a crime. That should be remembered in all fairness to them.
Having eliminated those things, I should say to myself: Is it really against the national interests at the present time—the onus being plainly on the Home Secretary to have a good reason—that this man should go abroad? Once he has gone abroad he can go where he likes; he is outside our control, and he can do what he likes. You have to think of it from two points of view. First of all, you have to think of it from his point of view. When he is abroad he is still under the protection of our Sovereign, and diplomatic resources must, of course, be made available to give him adequate protection. If you anticipate that there may be trouble in that regard it is much wiser to think of that in advance. Secondly, of course, you have to make up your mind, the state of Europe being what it is, whether there is or is not a reasonable chance that he may so conduct himself

849
abroad as to make mischief. It is only too true, as has been said, that Fascism and Nazism have not been rooted out. They are there, they are lying dormant at the present time, but it is not impossible that they might be once again fanned into flame. That is the attitude which the Home Secretary has taken in this matter. Addressing himself to that problem, asking himself whether he was really satisfied that there was a good reason why a passport should not be extended to Sir Oswald Mosley, he has answered that question for the present time in the affirmative.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, told us that Sir Oswald Mosley has not made an application since July. 9. I understand further that there has been nothing said to-day, as there was nothing said then, about health reasons, which obviously would be a matter, I should imagine, that the Home Secretary would take into consideration. I do not want the noble Lord to think that Sir Oswald Mosley is in any sense shut off from coming to the judgment seat. He can come and apply, and his case will be considered. On the other hand, I. have no authority whatever to indicate that the Home Secretary will alter the opinion he previously formed, but I do say that the Home Secretary will look at the matter, and look at it from the point of view of desiring to grant to all His Majesty's lieges those rights with which they can safely be entrusted. From that point of view the case will be examined, but in the last resort we must remember that this House only recently passed the Act to which I have referred and which confers these powers upon the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is in duty bound to exercise the powers under the Act and in these few cases he has come to the conclusion that permission to leave this country should not be granted.
7.14 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for what he has said. I do not necessarily agree with his last remarks about this Act, because I think a lot of Acts are passed without people fully knowing what they are passing. The noble Lord has given me a very favourable answer. He has said that this is what is happening to-day and that it can be reconsidered. Because of that I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
850
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT: B.B.C. GOVERNORS
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Walkden.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships' permission to make a statement on the appointment of the Chairman. Vice-Chairman and Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Sir Allan Powell, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and Mr. C. H. G. Millis, the Vice-Chairman, have asked to be relieved of their offices when the present Charter expires on December 31. I should perhaps explain that when they were reappointed for a second term, it was on the understanding that the position would be reviewed at the end of the war, and they both made it known to the Government that they were ready to retire at any time. The Government are grateful to them for continuing to serve for a few months after the Board was reconstituted earlier in the year, in order that the new Governors might have the advantage of their wide knowledge and experience. I should like, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to express appreciation of the public spirit which they have shown in this connexion, as well as of the great services which they have rendered during their long periods of office, and, in particular, of their contribution to the splendid war record of the B.B.C.
The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Lord Inman as Chairman for a period of five years from January 1 next, and of Lady Reading as Vice-Chairman for four years from the same date. His Majesty has also approved the reappointment of the other existing Governors for further periods of from three to four years, and the appointment of Mr. John Adamson, the Chartered Accountant, to the vacancy caused by Lady Reading's appointment as Vice-Chairman. The purpose of spreading the retiring dates over a period is to avoid a situation in which the terms of office of all or most of the Governors would expire at about the same time, and the Government thought that the least invidious

851
method would be that the Governors should retire in the same order as they were appointed. I need hardly say that this decision implies no reflection whatsoever upon the Governors who are being

Date of original appointment

Period of appointment or renewal of appointment as from 1st January, 1947.

Lord Inman (Chairman)

1st January 1947

5 years

Lady Reading (Vice-Chairman)

25th April 1946

4 years

Miss Barbara Ward

4th April 1946

3 years

Air Marshal Sir R. H. Peck

4th April 1946

3 years

The Rt. Hon. Geoffrey W. Lloyd

5th April 1946

3 years

Mr. Ernest whitfield

22nd July 1946

4 years

Mr. John Adamson

1st January 1947

5 years

On Question Motion agreed to.
reappointed for less than five years. I will circulate the details in the Official Report.
Following are the details to which the noble Earl referred:
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.