Sitting of 29 October 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BANBURY CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Planning Authorities and Landowners (Agreements)
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is his policy with regard to agreements between joint planning authorities and local owners of land.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): All agreements made between landowners and local planning authorities require my right hon. Friend's approval and are considered on their merits. General policy, however, is to approve such agreements wherever their provisions are in harmony with the essential planning requirements.
    Mr. Digby: Is it then not the policy of the Minister to discourage such agreements in future?
    Mr. Marshall: I would not say that; I do not think it is.

    Outline Planning
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is now in a position to state the new policy in conformity with which joint planning authorities should prepare their new outline schemes.
    Mr. F. Marshall: No, Sir; but my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to issue a series of advisory handbooks to guide local planning authorities generally on the essential features of outline planning. In the meantime, our Regional Planning Officers are available to advise planning authorities on any immediate problems.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that the absence of this policy is making it very difficult to have a consistent policy throughout the country among planning authorities?
    Mr. Marshall: I hope we shall remedy that very shortly.

    Land Restrictions (Compensation)
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whether he is aware that many persons have, in the past, bought land with a view to development, relying on the fact that it was scheduled for development under the interim planning scheme; that his department are recommending that much of this land should now be included in the rural zone; and what compensation is to be payable to purchasers of such land.
    Mr. F. Marshall: My right hon. Friend is aware of the position. Under present law these owners, who had no justification for relying on proposed provisions of a scheme which had not come into operation, are not entitled to any immediate payment of compensation, but he hopes, before long, to introduce legislation dealing comprehensively with the question of compensation for restrictions on the use of land.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that many people were shown these provisional schemes by a local authority they had every reason to rely upon, and that they are to suffer financial loss merely because they wanted a home of their own?
    Mr. Marshall: I have already stated that there was no justification for expecting compensation when the planning scheme was in its interim state.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no sympathetic consideration for speculators in land values?
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware of a case in my Division where a similar thing has happened? May I send him particulars in view of the preparation of fresh schemes for compensation? Will he give more discretion to the local authorities, especially in the Green Belt, to use some land for development purposes?
    Mr. Marshall: I would not like to commit myself to the last request ma de by the hon. Member. With regard to his other question, I shall be very glad, of course, to receive any communication from him.

    London Region (Advisory Committee's Report)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Regional Planning; and when he will indicate to the constituent authorities his decisions in regard thereto.
    Mr. F. Marshall: The Report of the Advisory Committee for London Regional Planning is now being examined in my Department. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the report and to make a statement on it in the near future.

    Greater London
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, in order to expedite the development of housing schemes, if he will, at the earliest possible date, indicate those areas within the scope of the Greater London Plan which he approves for housing development and those he disapproves.
    Mr. F. Marshall: My right hon. Friend is prepared to indicate areas which he can approve for housing development on the submission of proposals by the appropriate local authority Further surveys have been or are being made at his request by joint planning committees in the more difficult areas to ascertain what land is suitable for housing development. The results of these surveys are examined by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and the Minister of Health, and their views conveyed to the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware of the delay and waste of time, labour, and materials involved in the preparation of informal plans for the development of sites which subsequently are disapproved by my right hon. Friend, and is it possible to avoid such delay by indicating to the local authorities precisely which sites the Minister favours for housing development and which he disapproves for that purpose?
    Mr. Marshall: I think my hon. Friend may take it that any disapproval which may take place is in the interests of good planning. My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties of planning in the Greater London area and I am quite sure that it is the desire of everyone in the House to see that area planned on really good lines.
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning which authorities in the region of the Greater London Plan have revoked operative planning schemes and are now controlled by Interim Development Orders.
    Mr. F. Marshall: No operative schemes in the Greater London Area has yet been revoked, although my right hon. Friend has approved resolutions to revoke operative schemes in Luton and Acton in regard to the whole or part of the areas to which they relate Further, the borough councils of Ilford and Chingford and the urban districts of Chigwell, Thurrock and Haslemere have passed resolutions to prepare varying schemes for the whole or part of the scheme areas, and pending the coming into operation of the varying schemes the provisions of the operative schemes have been suspended and interim development control reimposed.

    New Towns (Refreshment Places)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is the proportion of public houses to the population proposed in the planning of new towns and housing estates; on what statistical or other data has the proportion contemplated been arrived at; and whether it is proposed to erect as a general policy large publichouses or small ones.
    Mr. F. Marshall: The question of the form and character of refreshment places in the new towns is still under consideration.
    Mr. Wyatt: is the Minister aware that I did not ask about refreshment places,

    423
    which presumably includes establishments for the sale of tea and other lukewarm fluids? I referred to public houses.
    Mr. Marshall: I take it that my hon. Friend will agree that beer is regarded as refreshment.
    Mr. Leslie: Cannot this matter be left to the residents and to the licensing bench?
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of applying the principles of the Carlisle experiment to the new towns?
    Mr. Marshall: I am afraid I could not commit myself beyond the answer which I have already given.
    Mr. Scollan: Has any step been taken to consult the local authorities on this question?
    Mr. Marshall: No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: Has any consideration been given to the provision of churches, chapels and assembly halls?
    Mr. Marshall: All those matters will be taken into consideration in the planning of the new towns.

    Rawcliffe Airfield
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has yet provided the Flaxton Rural District Council with the plan his representative promised on 3oth July, showing what prospective building land will have to be sterilised in the parishes of Rawcliffe, Clifton Without, Skelton, New Earswick and Wigginton, in order to protect the Ministry of Civil Aviation's project at Rawcliffe aerodrome.
    Mr. F. Marshall: A plan of the Rawcliffe airfield, showing the boundaries, runways and air funnels, was sent to the Flaxton Rural District Council on 9th October, 1946, to assist the council to comply with the provisions of S.R. & O. 1946, No. 370, designed to safeguard the use of airfields. As has already been indicated to local authorities in Circular No. 23 of 25th March, 1946, detailed plans of each airfield showing areas in which development may be restricted are to accompany the issue of a revised Order which is now under consideration, and which it is hoped to issue at an early date.
    424
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that his representative promised that detailed plans would be received on 3oth July, which is now more than two months ago, and that the plan received merely gives details of the boundaries of aerodromes, which have been known for many years?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate why the Ministry have indicated the boundaries of airfields and the areas in which restrictions will apply, and that it is for the local authorities to send in their own proposals for development.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the regional officer of the Ministry said that all projects in the area were now blocked, pending the arrival of detailed plans?
    Mr. Marshall: I would rather await the proposals of the local authority.

  HOUSING

    Aluminium Houses (Cost)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works the approximate factory cost and cost of erection complete of the different types of aluminium house being constructed at factories in Bristol, Gloucester and Blackpool; and whether these figures include the normal overheads for which any commercial firm would have to allow.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): The aluminium houses being constructed at Bristol, Gloucester and Blackpool are all of the same basic design and not different types. With regard to the factory cost and cost of erection, I am unable to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 8th July. Price negotiated with contractors will include an allowance for normal overheads.
    Mr. Bossom: Are these costs not considerably above that of the ordinary, traditional house? Is it worth while going on with houses that will not give the same satisfaction as can be obtained by the normal methods?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It would be impossible not to go on with these houses at the moment; we are so far ahead with them.

    Ryde
    II. Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Minister of Works what is the cause of the delay in erecting 50 temporary houses at Ryde, Isle of Wight, for which sites have been prepared and houses delivered as far back as June last; how many men are now employed on the site; and what is the cost to date of providing these houses.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Delay in erection was caused by shortage of labour and the need for concentrating first on the preparation of slab foundations and other site works. About 42 men are now employed, and better progress is being made. The cost to date is about £35,000.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that I visited the site last week and found that no progress had been made at all, although numbers of men are on the site? Is it not a fact that hundreds of people are waiting for houses in Ryde? Why are not local authorities and contractors consulted about the erection of these houses, which have been on the sites for months?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The first foundations were not completed until 17th July, and not June, as is stated in the Question. We have had difficulties in regard to labour supply, but since then satisfactory progress has been made.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Is it not a fact that not one house has been completed yet and that all the houses are being put up at the same time? Could not some of them be completed now?

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Requisitioned Hotels
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Works the number of hotels at Droitwich requisitioned by the Government; the total bedroom accommodation at these hotels; the purposes for which they are used; and when it is proposed to derequisition them.
    Mr. Tomlinson: There are four hotels still under requisition in Droitwich, containing 377 bedrooms in all. One hotel containing 115 bedrooms is vacant and is being derequisitioned. Two containing 230 bedrooms are used by War Office for living and office accommodation and
    426
    as a group headquarters for an army unit. A search is being made for alternative accommodation so that the hotels may be derequisitioned. The fourth hotel containing 32 bedrooms is vacant except for the huts in the grounds of the hotel which are used as a prisoner of war hostel. It is hoped to move the prisoners shortly so that the whole of the premises can be derequisitioned. Meanwhile certain buildings in the grounds are being derequisitioned at the request of the owner.
    Sir S. Reed: Would not the Minister treat this matter as one of great urgency, and make inquiries to find out how many people are suffering from arthritis and are prevented from taking the cure, because there is no accommodation?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Certainly, Sir. I am pressing on with this matter as quickly as possible.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: What is the total number of hotels in the country—
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question. The one with which we are dealing applies only to Droitwich.
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Works if, in view of the importance of the tourist industry and the financial loss to the owners by the continued retention of requisitioned hotels, he will have a survey made in order to ascertain the possibility of derequisitioning as many hotels as possible and as early as possible.
    Mr. Tomlinson: A survey was recently made, and showed that over 3,500 hotels, boarding houses and restaurants had been derequisitioned since 1st January, 1945. Those still retained will be released as quickly as possible but in some cases release will depend upon the construction of new building= to provide alternative accommodation.
    Colonel Wheatley: Why is it that, a year and a half after the conclusion of hostilities, these owners still suffer under the injustice of their property being held by the Government?
    Mr. Price-White: In the case of hotels at seaside resorts, would the Minister give a guarantee that he will indicate the date for derequisitioning as far as possible in advance, in order to enable the owners to

    427
    plan for the coming holiday season, which takes a certain amount of time?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have been doing that, in conjunction with representatives of the owners.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many hotels are still requisitioned?
    Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Member will put a Question down I will certainly give him the answer.

    Charles I Statue, Trafalgar Square
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works how soon the statue of King Charles I will be reinstated in Trafalgar Square.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Inspection of the statue has revealed defects in the metal which require repair. The work is of a delicate nature and it is unlikely that the statue can be reinstated in less than six months' time.
    Mr. Keeling: May we take it that the Minister will do what he can to hasten the return of what is one of our finest statues?
    Mr. Stephen: Cannot the Minister use the metal in this statue for housing purposes?

    Official Residence, Foreign Secretary (Works)
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Works the cost of the preparation of the official residence for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and how many men are employed on the work.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The estimated cost of the works in the preparation of the official residence for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is £16,500. This includes the cost of repairing war damage, which was considerable, reinstating the house which had been used as offices during the war, of forming a residential flat on the two upper floors, of preparing the reception, conference, kitchen and other rooms in the lower part of the house, which will be available for Government purposes. About 70 men are or have been employed on the work.
    Mr. Bossom: Will not the Minister consider painting the entire front of that one small block instead of leaving just one slice all by itself among a number of other houses?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The Minister has got into enough trouble for allowing that one to be painted.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister give an assurance that in the circumstances all the materials Leing used are either British or Empire products?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give that assurance, but I should imagine they are to a large extent.

    Building Work (Cost)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works the total value of the building work under contract in Great Britain at the latest date of which he has a record; and what percentage of this cost is attributable to additional expenses brought about by regulations and controls imposed by the Government.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The total value of contracts over £5,000 on which work was in progress at the end of September was just over £500 million. Regulations and controls are imposed by the Government in order to secure the best use in the national interest of limited resources at a time of great pressure of demand and to check the tendency towards price increases. Without them the cost of L uilding would be far higher than it is.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that the great majority of the builders engaged in this work estimate that it is costing them over 10 per cent. to look after tae controls that are imposed, and that they consider that they could do the work 10 per cent. more cheaply—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ad 20 per cent. worse."]—if they did not have the controls?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should doubt that.

    Brick Supplies
    Brigadier Lowasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that there were, at the beginning of October, 500,000 bricks stacked in Blackpool and a further 750,000 coming out of the kilns there; and whether he still intends to continue importing bricks from abroad at a substantial cost to the Exchequer.
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to implement the promise given by his Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool, in a letter dated 21st October, to endeavour to arrange for the surplus bricks

    429
    produced in the Blackpool area to be shipped to areas which are short of supplies.
    Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is bringing the situation to the notice of local authorities so that full use may be made of the available stocks of bricks at Blackpool. Imported bricks will only be used in areas where the local authority has been unable to obtain sufficient home produced bricks; I am making a statement with regard to imports in reply to Question No. 22.
    Brigadier Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has been informed of this situation at Blackpool for much more than a month and that, despite promises by the Parliamentary Secretary, who has now gone away, nothing has been done at all; and in such a case, where bricks are in demand, should not something have been done more urgently?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would not say that nothing had been done at all. Inquiries are being made in that area and the whole of the North-Western district with a view to seeing where the bricks can be used to the best advantage.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that in five weeks not one of these surplus bricks has yet been used although the Minister knew about it? Is the Minister in the meantime still importing Belgian bricks?
    Mr. Tomlinson: In answer to the question about Belgian bricks, of course I am. They are on a contract that was made months ago when things were very scarce. It is true that it is a month since this matter was brought to our attention, but we are endeavouring to see that these bricks are supplied where they are needed.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Do these bricks bear any relation to the numerous bricks that were thrown about at a recent conference at Blackpool concerning the housing problem?
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Are we to understand that the Minister is unaware of these large stocks of bricks which accumulate unless hon. Members inform him?
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to arrange for the payment for and stacking of bricks manufactured throughout the winter against 1947 requirements and surplus to present demands.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health ways and means of ensuring a steady demand for bricks for local authority work during the winter and I do not expect that any abnormal stacking arrangements will be found necessary.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the surplus of bricks in the Blackpool area is now so great that the brick works no longer have any space to stack them? Will he undertake to use British bricks first and to keep his Belgian bricks as a reserve against emergencies?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will certainly look into it, but to suggest that what is happening at Blackpool should determine what should happen with regard to 81 million bricks ordered from Belgium is putting the thing out of all proportion.
    Brigadier Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he had wanted them, he could have had one million bricks at once on demand from Blackpool, and half a million bricks every week? Since, however, he has made no arrangements to get that quantity of bricks, those bricks being produced have to be stacked, so will he do something about it?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am certainly doing all I can about it, and I would say that I am grateful, at least, to the people of Blackpool who have made it possible for us to have a problem with regard to brick stacking.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the position now is that there is no shortage of bricks to meet the overall demand?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, we are still restricted in the main to bricks that are to be used definitely for housing purposes and priority building of other kinds. The fact that there is a small surplus in one district is no indication that there is not a shortage in others.
    Mr. Eden: We quite understand that, but could the right hon. Gentleman assure

    431
    us that, so far as housing is concerned, there is now no problem in respect of bricks?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would not say there was not a problem, but I would say that we have sufficient bricks to meet requirements at the present time.
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Minister of Works the loss involved per house where his Department sells Belgian bricks at market prices when acquired at prices in excess of the cost of home-produced bricks.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The approximate cost of Belgian bricks of English size at port in this country exceeds the controlled price for comparable home-produced bricks by an amount which varies from port to port. The average excess is about £3 10s. per thousand bricks, and the loss per house, if Belgian bricks only are used, would on the average be in the neighbourhood of £70. I would add that the Government do not contemplate adding to their existing contracts for Belgian bricks which are expected to run out next March.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the Minister, therefore, give us the figures of the total loss involved in the purchase of these 81 million Belgian bricks?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not at this stage.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not all this prove that under State control the breakdown of distribution is inevitable?
    Wing-Commander Robinson: May I give notice that, in view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I will raise the whole matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity?

    Lord Hyndley's House (Repairs)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Works who applied to his Department in the first place for the installation of extra wash basins in the house of the Chairman of the Coal Board; and under what powers his Department overruled the refusal of the local authority to grant a licence for these additional amenities.
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Works why he authorised the fitting of wash basins into all the bedrooms in the house of Lord Hyndley after the Chelsea
    432
    Town Council had refused a licence for this work on the ground that the material and labour were urgently needed for more deserving cases; and whether he notified the Chelsea Town Council of his authorisation.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer the hon. Members in the first place to the reply given to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 8th October. The application was made by the Hon. Elizabeth Hyndley. I would add that under Defence Regulation 56A the granting of licences rests with the Minister of Works, and that the local authority who act as my agents were informed of my decision
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman's answer meant to indicate to local authorities that it is the policy of the Government to give priority to the provision of luxuries for senior officials rather than of housing for the homeless, and that they will be overruled if they do not follow this line?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The answer is not intended to convey that. The Minister's answer is that he took responsibility for allowing this to be done on the plea accepted that it was required for a very necessary purpose.
    Mr. Marples: Will the Minister state how many wash basins were installed in order to see that the Chairman of the Coal Board was adequately washed?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give the numbers, but in view of the publicity given to it I would like to say that the original licence asked for amounted to some £500, but the licence granted amounted to £132.
    Mr. Piratin: Does not the Minister think that this is an admirable case to prove the need for better cooperation between the regional licensing authorities and the local authorities as he is aware that the local authorities very often turn down requests and the regional authorities grant them?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That closer cooperation and collaboration is now not only being sought but is in operation.

    Mobile Labour Force
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that operatives are

    433
    leaving the employ of the building contractors and joining the new Mobile Labour Force in order to obtain the more favourable conditions of guaranteed time at 44 hours per week; and if he intends to relax any of the present provisions of Defence Regulation 56AB in order to allow contractors to compete with his Department in recruiting labour.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Apart from unemployed persons who are found to be suitable for the vacancies, men already in employment are only considered for engagement in the Mobile Labour Force after full regard to the work on which they are employed. Men on priority work are not accepted until its termination, and only then if local demands for priority work are satisfied. The terms and conditions under which the Mobile Labour Force is employed were settled after consultation with representatives of the Building Industry and having regard to the special circumstances of the employment. There is no question of relaxing Defence Regulation 56AB which is intended to secure observance of the agreed working rules of the industry where they apply.
    Mr. Marples: Is the Minister aware that many private employers wish to pay the men more but if they did so they would lose their building licences under 56 AB? Can he give any possible justification for the only two exceptions to the rule that more should not be paid being his own Department and the London Co-operative Building Society?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Under the same conditions under which the men are engaged for the Mobile Labour Force, any other employer would be able to do the same.
    Mr. Sparks: What is now the strength of the Mobile Labour Force?
    Mr. Tomlinson: About 4,800.
    Mr. George Porter: Does the Minister agree that there is no reason why the ordinary employers in industry could not offer the same conditions to their workmen as are offered by his Department if they got down to proper organisation in industry?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The same conditions will apply.
    Mr. Marples: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that if any private
    434
    employer can guarantee a 44 hours week as in his own Department, he is being—
    Mr. Tomlinson: No. What the hon. Member can take from the Minister is that if the conditions which are applied to the Mobile Labour Force are applied with regard to a private employer, the private employer will be in exactly the same position.

    Building Industry Production Council
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Works when it is expected that the committee, which was to be formed after the increase in building trade rates was agreed in December, 1945, will report on the progress made to bring the output of the building industry up to 1938 level; and what recommendations have been made by them on the subject of payment by results.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the National Joint Production Council for the Building Industry which was set up together with its regional committees with the object of securing a higher rate of production. I am informed that regular meetings have been held and in addition production officers have been appointed by the council in consultation with my Ministry who will visit actual sites with the same object.
    An incentives committee has also been appointed by the National Joint Production Council, to consider whether it is practicable to devise a system of payment by results which would be suitable for the normal work carried out by the building industry, as distinct from the wartime building programme for which the special payment by results scheme was designed. This committee has held a number of meetings and interviewed many persons including officers of my Department, but I understand that it is not yet in a position to make recommendations.
    Mr. Marples: When was the committee appointed, and when is it expected that its report will be published?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know exactly, but I think it was about two months ago. I do not know when the report will he ready.
    Mr. Marples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the people on

    435
    that committee have expressed themselves absolutely hostile to payment by results by means of resolutions before they were appointed?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That may be a good reason for putting them on the committee.
    Hon. Members: Oh!

    Builders' Registration Certificates
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Toothasked the Minister of Works how many builders registration certificates have been issued since 1st January, 1946; whether such a certificate is issued to any applicant as a matter of course, or only after inquiry and subject to conditions; and whether he can give particulars of the average number of men employed by those issued with certificates during 1946.
    Mr. Tomlinson: 56,053 registration certificates were issued between 1st January and 3oth September, 1946. Since the 21st March, 1946, no application for a certificate of registration may be refused except in cases where a certificate of registration previously issued has been revoked, or where the applicant has been convicted of illegal building under Defence Regulation 56A, and the court, before which he was convicted, has recommended that the application should be refused. Statistics are not yet available to show the average number of men employed by all firms registered during 1946, but an inquiry made in May this year showed that out of 19,754 men, mainly ex-Servicemen, to whom certificates were issued during the first three months of the year, 15,299 employed no operatives, 4,408 employed under 20 operatives and 47 employed 20 operatives or more.

  PETROL

    Agricultural Tractors
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now dispense with the agricultural application form R. (M.S.) 6, for petrol for tractors and substitute a simple card to be signed certifying that the vehicles and requirements remain the same as for the previous month, in view of the waste of time, paper and money under the present method or, in view of the increased supplies now available, if he will consider dispensing altogether with the form.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As regards the first part of the Question, the substitution of the card suggested by the hon. Member, would not be practicable and would not result in any economy for the reasons given in my reply to his Question on 14th May. With regard to the second part of the Question, adequate supplies of petrol have always been available for agricultural tractors, but while petrol rationing continues I am unable to dispense with a form of application for such supplies.
    Mr. De la Bère: But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if the will on the part of the Government were there to simplify and to lighten the burdens of the farmers, it would be possible? Further is he not aware that that is precisely what the farmers complain about, that so much of their time is taken up in unnecessary and lengthy form filling?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not think it can be said that the Ministry of Fuel and Power adds to their burdens.
    Mr. Boothby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the simple answer to this problem is not to remove the rationing of petrol, and when does he think that will happen?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is experienced enough to know that that Question ought to be put on the Paper.
    Mr. De la B£re: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Rationing (Staff)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent the number of persons engaged in the administration of petrol rationing has increased during the last three months.
    Mr. Shinwell: For the three months ended September, 1946, the difference between the highest and lowest aggregate figure is 67. This covers both headquarters and regional offices, and there is at present a downward trend.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that the present petrol stock positions show that the whole of this control should be done away with?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is another question from the one which is on the Order Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: How much has been saved by this increase of staff?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is the sort of Question which should be put down.
    Mr. Glossop: Will the Minister say whether there is any need at all for increasing the staff to 67?
    Mr. Shinwell: Because there is work to do.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

    Peak Load
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharpasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the estimated peak-load capacity of the electric grid system during the coming winter and the estimated peak-load demand that will be made upon it.
    Mr. Shinwell: The maximum capacity of generating plant operated under the control of the Central Electricity Board is 10,689,000 kilowatts, but deductions must be made for plant being unavailable owing to breakdowns, overhaul, etc. It is estimated, therefore, that not more than 8,738,000 kilowatts can be relied on for this winter. In severe weather it is estimated that the maximum simultaneous demand will be about 10,000,000 kilowatts.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: Can the Minister say whether the present cutting off of electricity supplies is due to shortage of generating plant or to shortage of coal, and if to the former will he ensure that overall priority is given to the Central Electricity Board for the supply of the generating plant which they so urgently require?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am informed by the Central Electricity Board that when occasionally the load has to be shed, it is due to the absence of adequate plant. As regards priority, that is taken into account, but of course there are other priorities to be considered.

    Nationalisation
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power which electricity associations have indicated to him a desire
    438
    to assist in the change-over to nationalisation.
    Mr. Shinwell: The Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association, the Conference of Joint Electricity Authorities and Joint Boards, the Electrical Trades Union and the Electrical Power Engineers Association have indicated their willingness to cooperate in the carrying out of the Government's policy of nationalisation.
    Mr. Palmer: Is it not a fact that the electricity companies alone have refused cooperation in carrying out the decision of the nation to bring electricity under complete public ownership?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not quite clear that they refuse to cooperate; they have said something about it, but it has to be analysed.

    Transmission Poles, Scotland
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what percentage of the electric transmission line poles imported from Germany are being allocated to Scotland.
    Mr. Shinwell: The wooden poles, which are beginning to arrive from Germany, will require seasoning for six months at least before they can be used. No allocation so far has been made to the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Spence: May I ask the Minister for an assurance that when the poles are allocated the needs of rural Scotland will be considered?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, we must take that into account.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many schemes for rural electrification in Scotland, promised several years ago, have been held up, and the excuse given in every case is the lack of these poles?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but they have become scarcer in the last few years.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Coal Board (Salaries)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the salaries to be paid to the chairmen, deputy chairmen and members of divisional Coal Boards.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 8th October to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In order to refresh my memory, can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the full figures are given in that reply or not?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is a long answer but, as I pointed out when I gave the reply, this is a matter of administration which rests with the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give the figures?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what it means.
    Mr. David Eccles: Is the Minister aware that the Lord President of the Council, on Saturday, at Birmingham, said that all appointments in public industries should be made on merit? Can he give an assurance that all these appointments, especially the chairmen of regional boards, have been made strictly on their merits?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, all appointments by the Government are made on merit. I have not read what my right hon. Friend said on Saturday in this respect, but I do know that hon. Members opposite on the Committee stage of the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, declined to allow me to direct the National Coal Board on matters of administration.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to give notice that in view of the absence of a reply, I will endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Mining Subsidence (Committee)
    Mr. Thomas Brownasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to state the names of the personnel of the committee to be set up to consider the effects of mining subsidence, and the terms of reference of that committee.
    Mr. Shinwell: I hope to make an announcement next week.
    Mr. Brown: Arising from that reply, which is vague, when can we expect to have a statement from my right hon. Friend on the promise, made some months
    440
    ago, that he would take the opportunity of appointing this very important com-committee?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is nothing vague about my answer, which is that there is to be an announcement next week. That is quite specific. The fact is that I intended to make an announcement earlier, but had some difficulty about the appointment of a chairman.

    Supplies (Sub-Tenancies)
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brownasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will reconsider his recent coal rationing Order, which denies people who rent rooms the right to be registered, and only allows a reduced extra ration to the landlady, as the proposed scale of half-cwt. per week will cause real hardship.
    Mr. Shinwell: There has been no recent Order. The existing statutory provisions relating to the separate registration of parts of premises have been in force since 1943. I have, however, recently issued revised instructions to local fuel overseers, and I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of a leaflet on the subject of sub-tenancies which will shortly be available at all local fuel offices. The additional quantity of half a cwt. per week is the quantity agreed by local fuel overseers in the Eastern region as a general guide, but this amount can be increased at the discretion of local fuel overseers when special circumstances warrant it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister instruct his regional officers that it will be essential for people in the Eastern counties to have a good increase above what they had before, because they cannot be expected to keep these small houses warm? If the landlady gets only half a cwt. she cannot give it to the tenant.
    Mr. Shinwell: It depends entirely on how many people are living in the house.
    Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister recollect that half a cwt. today is not what half a cwt. was before the war?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I am fully aware of the position, but so is the hon. and gallant Member, who was closely associated, and is still closely associated, with the coal trade.
    Mr. Scollan: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration cases where fathers and mothers have to take in married sons or daughters, thus making practically two families in one house? They do not get any extra ration of coal, and when children come they have to live in a separate part of the house.
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course local fuel overseers always take these matters into consideration.
    Mr. Keeling: Has the lodger any remedy if the landlady refuses to give him a proper share?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is obviously a question for the Attorney-General.

    Production Costs
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the production cost per ton of coal in 1913, 1921 and at the latest available date; and what was the profit or loss per ton, excluding subsidies, for the same dates.
    Mr. Shinwell: The total costs of production per ton of coal disposable commercially in 1913 were 9s. 5d.; in 1921, 31s. 10d., excluding subvention; and in 1945, 35s. 11d.
    Corresponding figures for profit or loss were is. 7½d. profit: 3s. 0½d. loss; and Is. 7d profit, after taking into account payments into the Coal Charges Account amounting to 10d. a ton.
    Sir W. Smithers: Are not these figures a terrible indictment of the results of nationalisation?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member will have noted from the figures that the highest loss sustained was 1921 when it was 3s. 0½d. per ton.

    PARAFFIN SUPPLIES
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the quality of paraffin available for domestic purposes has deteriorated during the past year; and whether he will take steps to improve it.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that the quality of burning oil available for domestic use has slightly deteriorated during the past 12 months. The reason is that there is a general world shortage
    442
    of this product, and we have had to accept a rather lower quality of oil. I am afraid there is little prospect of any immediate improvement in quality.

    NIGHT BAKING
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Labour if the representatives of employers' and workpeople's organisations in the baking industry have yet reported to him any conclusions from their discussions about the abolition of night-baking.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): No, Sir but, I understand, negotiations between the two sides are still proceeding.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (CADETS)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Labour if he intends making it compulsory for young men deferred from full-time military service to join one of the three pre-Service training units, Sea Cadets, Army Cadet Force or Air Training Corps.
    Mr. Isaacs: No. Sir. Even if there were power to do this, I do not think it would be a satisfactory arrangement.
    Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister not look into this situation, and see what alternative service these men who are exempt from military service are to do?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is rather another question, but we feel that if we are going to introduce any form of compulsion into a voluntary service it will spoil the spirit of the service. The hon. Member will remember that the Home Guard was a happier service when there were volunteers, than when all were brought in.

    ARMED FORCES (WAR OFFENCES)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Prime Minister if he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to consider the advisability of granting an amnesty to all members of His Majesty's Forces who are serving sentences for offences committed during the war or who are liable to arrest and trial for such offences.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) on 27th June.

  GERMANY

    Control Commission Staff
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many clerks and typists are now on the pay-roll of the Control Commission, and have not yet proceeded to Germany; when they are likely to go there; and what work they are doing in the meantime.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Of the latest appointments, 765 clerks and 889 typists have not yet gone to Germany; many of these are proceeding this week and most of the remainder are expected to go within a month. Meanwhile, a small number of them work in my London office. The delay is partly due to the need to give instruction to those who are going overseas, and the process of inoculation against disease; partly to a more temporary difficulty of synchronising their despatch with the release of the military personnel whom they are to replace, having regard to the present shortage of accommodation in Germany.
    Mr. Boothby: May I ask what those who are not working in the hon. Member's office have been doing?
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I could not answer that. They are waiting to go to Germany, to be called forward when accommodation is available.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my hon. Friend say whether it is not possible to get an adequate quantity of clerks and typists among Germans in Germany?
    Mr. Hynd: It is possible to get an adequate quantity, but there are certain jobs of work to be done where it is not desirable that Germans should be handling or dealing with the papers. It is for that reason that clerks and typists from this country are in many cases necessary, but, nevertheless, we have stopped recruiting them.

    Ruhr Coalfield
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many miners were employed in the Ruhr coalfield at the end of September, 1946; and how this figure compares with the number employed at the end of June, 1946.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The September figure was 251,600 as compared with 248,200 for June.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend say what steps are being taken still further to increase the labour force?
    Mr. Hynd: A large number of steps, including first of all direction of labour, the priority recruitment of prisoner of war labour for work in the mines, the concentration of building materials for providing houses and repairs to houses in mining areas, priority in the allocation of consumer goods and other incentives to employment.
    Mr. W. Wellsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many tons of hard coal extracted from the Ruhr coalfield were exported during the three months ending 30th September last.
    Mr. J. Hynd: About two and a half million tons.

    Books and Newspapers
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether the arrangements for the supply of books and newspapers through booksellers in this country to the British zone can be extended to permit similar supplies from other countries to be admitted;
    (2) whether he will consider extending the present arrangements to enable books and newspapers to be sent direct by individuals in this country to the British zone.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The present arrangements were only introduced this month, but the possibility of extending the scheme on the lines suggested is already being considered.
    Mr. Hughes: Would my hon. Friend indicate what are the reasons for confining the supply of books from this country to booksellers? What are the difficulties in the way of permitting individuals to send them direct?
    Mr. Hynd: I think there is some misunderstanding. Books are not sent from this country through booksellers, but can only be sent to Germany through the special facilities provided by the "Save Europe Now" organisation. The arrangement with booksellers is for provision of papers and periodicals. The reason it has not been possible to agree to individuals sending newspapers and periodicals is purely a security one.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Trustee Investments
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to amend the Trustee Act so that trustees may have the option of investing trust moneys in equities as well as in Government and other trustee securities.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that no one in his senses would invest his money in a company of which the present Government were the board of directors, would the Chancellor give more latitude and wider freedom of choice to trustees to invest in what they think is a good security?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I would advise all trustees to invest now in 2½ per cent. Treasury Bonds.

    War Damage Payments (Elderly People)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the hardships being undergone by elderly individuals, with low incomes, in consequence of the loss of their cottages, or other small properties, during the war; and, as these people cannot afford to wait indefinitely for war damage recompense, in either cash or rebuilding, if he will reconsider the whole matter and make an early statement.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 10th October to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson).

    Trade Union Subscriptions (Income Tax)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, where
    446
    workmen are compelled to be members of a trade union as a condition of employment, they will be allowed to treat their trade union contributions as a necessary expense for Income Tax purposes.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brown: Is it not utterly monstrous that men should be compelled, as a condition of employment, to subscribe contributions to a trade union, and then should not be allowed to regard that as a necessary expenditure for the purpose of their employment?
    Mr. Dalton: That seems to be rather a wider question than that on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] I was asked a simple question about Income Tax law, and I have answered it.
    Mr. Brown: Might I ask—
    Mr. Speaker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct. The question in the supplementary question is much wider than that on the Order Paper.

    National Trust (Government Contribution)
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet fixed the maximum amount of the Government's contribution to the National Trust jubilee appeal.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, I said that I should be prepared to recommend to the House to make a grant to the National Trust, on a pound for pound basis, and subject to a maximum to be named later, with a view to doubling the proceeds of the Trust's jubilee appeal. I now propose to fix the maximum at £60,000, which is approximately the amount of the public subscriptions so far. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to Parliament in due course. Although further public subscriptions to the appeal will not, therefore, attract the Government grant, the appeal will remain open for some time, and I hope that the public will continue to subscribe generously to this very deserving cause.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What proportion of this Government grant will go to the National Trust in Scotland?
    Mr. Dalton: None, Sir, because they are not issuing an appeal of this character.

    447
    The National Trust of England is issuing this appeal. If the National Trust of Scotland were hereafter to issue an appeal I would be prepared to consider whether to make a comparable grant. So far they have not issued an appeal.

    Travellers' Currency Allowance
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority and for what reason British subjects are prohibited from bringing sterling currency into this country.
    Mr. Dalton: Under Regulation 2B of the Defence (Finance) Regulations. Travellers can bring in £20 in sterling, but not more. Effective exchange control would be impossible, if sterling notes could move freely in and out of the United Kingdom.
    Sir T. Moore: What is the financial or moral objection to British currency, honourably earned, being brought into this country by its earner, who is also its owner?
    Mr. Dalton: It would take a long time to answer that question fully, but I would like to warn the hon. and gallant Member, the House and the public that there are a lot of forged sterling notes circulating on the Continent of Europe, which were put into circulation by our enemies in the course of the war. We must be very careful about these matters. It is not a mere bureaucratic interference with the subject. It is a considered judgment, which would take a considerable time to explain fully.
    Sir T. Moore: The Chancellor has said that a person can bring in £20. Cannot £20 be forged as easily as can £1,400?
    Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to reduce the amount to £10, and so advises me, I will consider it.

    Loans to Czechoslovakia
    Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what loans have been granted to the Czechoslovak Government by His Majesty's Government; and if he will give the details, stating at what rates of interest and repayment terms the loans have been made.
    Mr. Dalton: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    (1) £5 million on 15th August, 1945, for reconstruction purposes. Interest at 2¼ per cent. per annum, commencing on 15th January, 1949. Principal amount of the advances repayable in sterling during the years 1949–1953.
    (2) £6 million under the Czechoslovakia Financial Assistance Act of 1939. Terms of repayment are still under discussion with the Czechoslovak Government.
    (3) £13,843,881 5s. 7d. representing advances made to the Czechoslovak Government during the war for the maintenance of their Armed Forces and their Administration in London. The terms of repayment have not finally been agreed.
    It is, however, my intention not to ask for repayment as regards Nos. 2 and 3 before 1954.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Mechanical Aids
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many type-writers, comptometer adding machines and duplicating machines, respectively, are used in Government Departments.
    Mr. Dalton: Forty-two thousand typewriters, 19,450 adding and calculating machines, of which 450 are comptometers, and 20,300 duplicating machines.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is this not further evidence of the tendency towards more bureaucratic control, and sheer waste of public money?
    Mr. Dalton: We need many typewriters and calculators to answer the hon. Member's Questions.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the Chancellor aware that these machines are also extremeiy necessary for those who have to prepare official returns to His Majesty's Government? Can he not spare some for private business?

    Evacuated Offices
    Mr. Price-Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make an announcement of the date for the return from Llandudno to London of the Principal Probate Registry, the Estate Duty Offices and the Inspector of Taxes staffs still remaining at Llandudno.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the inconvenience and delays caused by the absence of the Estate Duty Office from London, he will arrange for the return of that office to London shortly.
    Mr. Dalton: The Principal Probate Registry returned to London last March. The Estate Duty Office will move to Harrow as soon as the accommodation selected for them is ready. The Departmental Claims Branch is in process of moving from Llandudno to Cardiff.
    Mr. Medlicott: Is the Chancellor aware that a great deal of the work of the Estate Duty Office is normally done "over the counter," and is most unsuitable for correspondence, but that in any case the situation of the office at Harrow will be quite as inconvenient as it has been in North Wales?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I cannot believe that that is so.
    Mr. Price-White: Is the Chancellor aware that the completion of the removal to which he has referred results in the return of Llandudno to normality? Will it spur him in his efforts to know that they are prepared to celebrate this return to normality by an invitation to hold the Labour Party Conference there next year?
    Mr. Dalton: I remember a very good Labour Party Conference at Llandudno many years ago.

    Young Clerical Officers
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what rate of pay is offered to 17 years old boy and girl clerical officers posted away from their homes on first appointment and living in lodgings in London; and how many successful candidates at the 1946 examinations have refused such appointments.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): One hundred and twenty-four pounds per annum for both boys and girls, plus a living-away-from home allowance at the rate of 13s. per week. Sixty-one whose position on the list meant that they had no choice of vacancies apart from London refused appointment, out of 2,502 candidates declared successful.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the exceptionally high cost of accommodation in
    450
    London, does the Chancellor realise that there is a danger that in addition to the competitive tests which these young people have to pass, there is the further test as to whether their parents can afford to subsidise them?
    Mr. Hall: That may be true, but in actual fact this works out at something just over £3 for every boy or girl of this age, and it is thought that, under present circumstances, all things considered, in relation to other wages and salaries, it is not a bad beginning.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of extending hostel accommodation for these boys and girls?

    Inland Revenue (Salaries)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of staff employed in the Inland Revenue Department qualified to draw overtime; what overtime was paid to this staff during the last six months; and what is the average salary of a man aged 21 years in this Department.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Approximately 40,000 on 1st October, 1946. £285,777 was paid in the six months ended 3oth June, 1946. I regret that I cannot furnish an estimate of average salary of particular ages.
    Mr. D. Marshallasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the basic wage in the Inland Revenue Department is calculated at 42 hours a week in London and 44 hours a week outside London.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Differences in the hours of the working week between London and the provinces do not affect the basic rates of pay of members of the same established grade.

  UNIVERSITIES

    Appointments Boards
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many universities and university colleges have so far failed to establish an appointments board; and what are the names of such universities and university colleges.
    Mr. Dalton: I am collecting this information, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Scotland (Refused Entries)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many students who possessed the certificate of fitness for entrance to a Scottish university were refused admission for the session 1946–47; and what percentage does this represent of those who made application for entrance.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am getting this information, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT when ready.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland great hardship is suffered by many students, particularly those from working-class homes, who do not even know that they will be admitted for the session 1947–48; and does his Department intend to exercise some control over universities who benefit greatly from the Exchequer, with a view to seeing that next year emergency measures will be taken which will result in more students being able to take the course?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are always anxious to help as many students as possible to take these courses and enter these universities, but I am afraid the question covers a much wider field than is indicated in the Question on the Order Paper.

PRESS (CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP)
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Haydn Davies: I beg to move,
"That, having regard to the increasing public concern at the growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the Press and with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the Press and the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news, this House considers that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the finance, control, management and ownership of the Press."
I believe it is customary, Sir, for hon. Members taking part in a Debate of this kind to disclose their interests. I can do that very easily. I am not a newspaper proprietor, but I am a working journalist as distinct from those poor unfortunates of no occupation, who, when hauled before the police courts, are always described as "journalists." I believe that a number of hon. Members when they saw yesterday's "Daily Express" thought that I was not going to be here today to move this Motion, because there it was reported, obviously with the intention of conveying the impression that I was running away from it, that I had said with reference to the Motion:
"I am not looking forward to it now with as much pleasure as 1 was a few weeks ago."
That statement is perfectly true but taken out of its context. It so happened that I was addressing a youth parliament and this was a half jocular aside, to show these young people that they were not the only ones who could become nervous. The reason for my nervousness would be obvious to anyone, because in Saturday morning's papers I read that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was to reply to this Debate. The last time he made a speech of any importance ten men were hanged and one committed suicide. I hope to have a little better luck today.
The real issue contained in this Motion is that of the freedom of the Press, and I hope that in all the discussion we shall keep that to the front of our minds. There has been a good deal of ballyhoo in the newspapers ever since this Motion was put down last July Indeed, the best argument I know for a Commission to inquire into the Press has been the way the newspapers have handled this since it first went on the Order Paper. All the big guns were brought out to prove that

453
a Royal Commission was entirely unnecessary. Then, when they discovered that a day had been given for a Debate, the entire tone has changed, and now we are told by the same people that they would welcome a Royal Commission because they have nothing at all to hide. This death-bed repentance is typical of the newspaper proprietors. They realise that if this House gives a free vote today, there is every chance of there being a Commission, and their hope now is to prove to the Government that it is completely unnecessary and that the Government will therefore take no action.
I would like it to be understood that this Debate is entirely non-political. To prove that, Sir, I am wearing a blue shirt and a red tie. One cannot be any more impartial than that. Let me first of all thank all my distinguished colleagues of the Press for the kindly way in which, during the past weeks, they have written this speech for me. I am very loyal to my newspaper colleagues but on this occasion I am sorry to disappoint them. They have been very bad thought readers. I wish to mention some of the things which this Debate is not about. This Motion was not put on the Order Paper at the behest of the Lord President of the Council, nor was it put down with the idea of muzzling the Press. It was not put on the Order Paper to curtail the freedom of the Press; it was not because we want to nationalise the Press so as to have State organs only, nor was it because we want to work for the ideal of one national newspaper. We had that once. The only nationalised newspaper we have ever had in this country was produced by the Tory Party and edited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). We do not want any more of that.
I would like to try to tell the House the origins of this Motion, because it gets rid of nine-tenths of the ballyhoo which hon. Members may have read in the newspapers. I belong to the National Union of Journalists. That organisation is the largest professional organisation in journalism. It will disappoint hon. Members opposite to know that it is a non-political organisation. It has no political fund; it is not affiliated to the Labour Party, and the fact that there are 23 members of that Union in this House merely shows the good sense of the electorate and does not, in any way,
454
reflect the extent of our non-existent political fund. That organisation at its annual conference this year passed a resolution asking for a Royal Commission into the Press. As anyone conversant with trade unions will know, resolutions that reach an annual conference are usually discussed in the 12 months preceding the meeting of that Conference. I can assure this House that this was being discussed in the branches before the last General Election. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the present Government. This Motion would have appeared on the Order Paper irrespective of what party had won the last Election. If journalists had not been Members of this House, doubtless we should have found some other persons interested in this subject who would have sponsored it on our behalf.
It is, therefore, untrue to say that we resent criticism of the Government by the newspapers and therefore want to control them and curtail their freedom. The Motion has nothing at all to do with the so-called sensitiveness of the Front Bench or the prima donna temperament of any politicians. It is based on a resolution passed by journalists because they believe in the freedom of the Press. We claim that, from the inside, we know more about the freedom of the Press than anybody else. For years we have watched this freedom being whittled away. We have watched the destruction of great papers. We have watched the combines come in, buying up and killing independent journals, and we have seen the honourable profession of journalism degraded by high finance and big business. Worst of all, as a result of this, we have watched subservience replace judgment, and we are worried about the position. That is why we are anxious to see freedom once more restored to the Press. I think the best definition of the freedom of the Press which I have ever seen was by Wickham Steed, who wrote:
"The freedom of the Press, that is to say, the absence of arbitrary official restrictions upon the dissemination of news and of comment upon news, is a pledge of public safety. From this, it follows that the measure of freedom which the Press is entitled to enjoy is subject to the welfare of the community as a whole, and cannot be determined solely by the private interests of newspapers or their owners."
That comes from a distinguished journalist and an ex-editor of "The Times," and I

455
would regard that as vital evidence in support of this Motion.
The central issue is this. Can we or can we not have real freedom of the Press in a system of combines and chain newspapers? After all argument has been set aside, this is the central issue, and that is the issue which I invite this House to face. Personally, I do not believe that we can have freedom of the Press and combines and chain newspapers, but it is not my function to say what should be done about the Press. I want a Royal Commission to inquire into it and obtain the facts and, independently, to give their conclusions upon them. I am prepared, as a journalist, to accept the findings of that impartial and independent Commission. We shall certainly be told in the course of the Debate that there is bound to be freedom of the Press, because anyone is free to start a newspaper. I believe that anyone is free to go into the Ritz Hotel, if he has the money with which to pay.
Mr. W. J. Brown: Or to start a trade union?
Mr. Davies: Yes, or to start a trade union, and the hon. Member is an expert in starting trade unions. In the last stage before the war, at least £2 million had to be sunk in a newspaper before it became self-supporting. The "Economist"—I am delighted to see that the Chairman of the "Economist" is in this House today, listening to the Debate—
Hon. Members: Order, order.
Mr. Davies: The "Economist" said:
"There are very few industries which impose an entrance fee as high as this."
That is the comment of the "Economist," upon the last examined figures. In other words, the present owners of newspapers have a virtual monopoly of the field, and we are entitled to ask where, therefore, lies freedom of expression. The only real freedom of the Press today is the freedom of the newspaper proprietors. They have the perfect closed shop, with the highest entrance fee in industry. We believe that the Press is not just something that deals with finance or is a financial instrument. The newspapers of this country, and, indeed, of the world, deal with ideas and ideals, and are, there-
456
fore, something different from ordinary industry. The commodity called a newspaper is not like something which is being sold like sausages, or fish and chips, although, speaking for myself and for millions in the country, there is a strange association of ideas between newspapers and fish and chips. Indeed, I am told reliably that in certain parts of the country people buy newspapers not for their contents but for their capacity to hold vinegar, which reminds me that, on one occasion there was a conference of journalists at one end of a town, while the fish fryers of Great Britain were meeting in conference at the other end of the town, and they sent this telegram to the journalists:
"Fraternal greetings to journalists by the fish fryers of Great Britain. Our work is wrapped up in yours."
We are bound to be concerned with newspaper trends. We cannot put over our case in the newspapers; therefore, we come to this House to tell the country, through this House, precisely what has been happening. I have some figures. which I think would startle the House. They are the figures of what has been happening in the newspaper world in the last 25 years, that is, from 1921 to 1946. In 1921, there were 12 London morning newspapers; now, there are nine; In 1921, there were six London evening newspapers; now, there are three. In 1921, there were 45 morning papers in the provinces; today, there are only 18. In 1921, there were 88 evening papers in the provinces; now, there are 65. That is for England alone. The Scottish position is a little better, and the Welsh position is small, although, at the same time, catastrophic. In other words, in the last 25 years, 47 per cent. of the morning papers have vanished. Nearly half of them have gone, and one quarter of the evening papers published in the country have disappeared from the face of the earth. Is there anyone concerned with the freedom of the Press who can look upon that position and feel happy? If it is so easy to start a newspaper, why do we have all these deaths and not one birth? That is the position which I would like hon. Members to face, particularly those hon. Members who desire to oppose this Motion in the sacred name of the freedom of the Press. I believe that, when Lord Northcliffe bought the "Daily Mail," it cost him less than

457
£1000,000, and that was in the days before trustification, which he himself began a little later. Not long after, the "Daily Tribune" was started and £600,000 was poured into it before the promoters gave up the unequal struggle and stopped.
The freedom of the Press has been overwhelmed, not by bad or unscrupulous journalists, but by the power of high finance. It is a tragedy for us, who have seen fine old newspapers disappear, particularly in the provinces. We are, at the moment, celebrating the centenary of the birth of C. P. Scott, a grand old man whose name will always be honoured in British journalism, and, I think, by journalists throughout the world. People ask me, "Why are we not producing men like C. P. Scott today?" I think the answer is that there are potential C. P. Scotts in every newspaper office; but I wonder if we would be celebrating the centenary of Scott in the same way had he started his life in a combine newspaper office. I claim that journalists cannot do their job of seriously presenting news and views as long as they are at the mercy and domination of high finance, and of groups of newspaper proprietors, whose power allows them to believe that their views are sacrosanct and their politics almost divine. In those circumstances, one cannot expect real journalism. What is wrong is not so much the private ownership of the Press, but the use that is being made of that private ownership in order to pile up dividends. It is claimed, for example, that these big, powerful combines do not influence local opinions—that they are free. But what kind of freedom is it? There were four papers in Sheffield; they buy four and kill two. There were four in Cardiff; they buy four and kill two. I wonder whether the killing of these papers was really done in the interest of the freedom of the Press, in the interest of the people of those towns, or in the interest of that blessed word "efficiency," which means dividends.
I am not an expert on the North of England, but I have been told that one can go from Manchester to Newcastle, stopping at every large town and in each buy a different newspaper with a different title but that, in every case, the news, the leaders, and the features are the same. They are all part of a great chain. If that is to be held up as an example of the freedom of the Press, I must resist
458
it. I can think of many other names that could be applied to it. I believe that in the whole of Devon and Cornwall there are now only two or three independent papers, and that everything else is in the Harmsworth combine. Is that giving freedom to the people of Devon and Cornwall? If one wishes to buy a newspaper with local news, one has no freedom of choice; one must take the only paper available, or else leave it.
The provinces have been the scene of some pretty disgusting battles for newspaper circulation. We have seen one group going in and another group going in; then a great war of circulation and, then, one group withdrawing from one area and leaving it to a different one. It is all done, we are told, in the sacred name of the freedom of the Press. I am very interested in this question of local papers. The other day, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council made a speech in which he attacked what he called the "Kemsley gramophone chain," and he had some very hard things to say about it. Through his newspapers, Lord Kemsley made a considered reply, a reply which he said he was making on behalf of his 9,000,000 readers. The main theme of the Lord President's speech was that all those fine old papers, each with a great individual tradition, were now taking their line from one man in London. Lord Kemsley's reply was intended to prove that that statement was untrue. In the course of it he gave four marvellous examples of the way in which his newspapers are merely "their master's voice." The following is an actual quotation from his reply to the Lord President:
"Before the General Election, I gave instructions to the editors of all my papers to give all Labour candidates fair and liberal representation."—
Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members to discuss a Member of another place?
Mr. Speaker: On a Motion like this it is quite unavoidable, because, after all, the noble Lord is the proprietor of these newspapers.
Mr. Davies: The quotation continues:
"and an opportunity of expressing their views."

459
In other words, that was to be put into the newspapers, not on news value, not in the public interest or on the editors' judgment, but because Lord Kemsley said it had to be put in. This was said in an article purporting to prove that there was never any directive from London. In a later paragraph, Lord Kemsley said:
"I took especial pains to see that this was done in those localities where the Kemsley Press had a monopoly of publicity."
In other words, there is no freedom of the Press in the localities where Lord Kemsley has the monopoly except when he tells his editors that there has to be. Later on, in the same article, still replying to the Lord President's allegation of the "voice from London," he said:
"At the commencement of this Government every newspaper under my direction soft pedalled on Government plans and proceedings and pleaded for the party that was put into power to be given a chance to make good."
Then, last of all, he went on to say:
"But since this Government has done so badly and is now so unpopular, particularly with the housewife …"
the instructions are to go for us. It will be seen that, in an article designed to prove the freedom of the local editors, there is a succession of directives given from Kemsley House. But the worst of all was at the end of that article where Lord Kemsley said that each of his newspapers had a local confine of interest. He said:
"Except for a wide general regard for Conservative interests—the interests I conceive to be the best for the country—"
So this vast combine of chain newspapers which we are told does not take orders from London, has to take them from Lord Kemsley.
It is for this House to decide whether or not that is the best way of producing newspapers, in the best interests of the freedom of the Press. Shortly before the war, there was an expert examination into the Press, the finest ever made, by "Political and Economic Planning." At the end of a very comprehensive survey, they came to the conclusion that it was impossible for any private body, even of experts, to secure all the information upon which to frame a newspaper policy. I reread that report yesterday. It is a most enlightening document, and anyone interested in the Press should certainly read it. I want the House to note that "P.E.P." could not
460
come to any final conclusions, because they could not get the evidence, and I am suggesting that only a Royal Commission, with power to send for persons and papers, could get that evidence. But even with such evidence as they were able to collect, " P.E.P." comes to this conclusion:
"The economic accident which links the function of reporting, interpreting and commenting on news with the running of a large-scale, highly capitalised industry, is having some unfortunate results, and we doubt whether a Press subject to these conditions can fully satisfy democratic needs."
That was not a demand made by Socialists because a Socialist Government was being attacked; it was a demand made by an independent survey, at a time when a Conservative Government was in power. But one would think that this was the first time that anyone had ever attacked the Press Lords. Let me read to the House what I think is the greatest thing ever said about the British Press—and, when I talk about the Press in general, I am very conscious of the fact that there are many honourable exceptions but I can only speak in a general fashion. This is the quotation:
"The papers conducted by Lord Rother-
"The papers conducted by Lord Rother-papers in the ordinary acceptance of the term. They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal wishes, personal likes and personal dislikes of two men. What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehood, misrepresentation, half truths, the alteration of a speaker's meaning by putting sentences apart from their context, suppression and editorial criticism of speeches which are not reported in the paper. What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, but power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."
Hon. Members opposite cheered Mr. Baldwin when he made that statement. I hope when we go to the Division Lobby tonight they will remember the words of their former leader, and how they reacted sensitively under criticism. But we are much more reasonable. We are not denouncing the Press Lords in such language. All we are asking for, in sweet reasonableness, is a Royal Commission.
If I am told that what I want to do is to control, nationalise and clamp down on the Press, let me tell hon. Members opposite that I want more and more newspapers, not fewer. That should appeal to the Conservative Party, because over the weekend they have been proclaiming their new economic policy of democratic capitalism—small ownership widely

461
diffused. So we find the amazing spectacle of a Socialist pleading for a Conservative policy, and a Conservative pleading for a monopolistic policy—all done in the blessed name of freedom. It was once said that newspapers resembled fashionable ladies of the West End in that they are more concerned with their figures than with their morals. Newspaper proprietors are not the only people of whom that can be said. As a journalist, I have often asked myself the famous question put by Pilate. Like him, I have not yet got an answer, but I would like to give the House one example of how difficult it is to establish the truth. Last week there were certain events in Brighton, and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and I went down to give our views upon the happenings there. Not even the most unsuspecting reader reading both our articles would have dreamed that we were discussing the same thing, except that occasionally in both articles the magic letters "T.U.C." appeared. I do not quarrel with that—I am all in favour of individual opinion—but somewhere between us there must lie something called truth. The other day it was announced that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) had resigned from the Liberal Party. I read this in the "Daily Herald," which said:
"His resignation leaves so Liberal M.Ps. in the House."
Five or six minutes later I read in the " Daily Mail":
"The party's strength in the House of Commons is now 11."
I turned to the "News Chronicle", which said:
"Mr. Horabin's resignation reduces the number of Liberal M.Ps. in the House to 10."
I went for comfort to "The Times", where I read:
"The dozen Liberals in the House of Commons have now been reduced to 11."
So we had two newspapers saying 10, and two saying In that dilemma, I did the obvious thing. I went to the newspaper that "beavers" for the truth, and brooks no falsehood, that pillar of truth and veracity the "Daily Express." There I got it:
"His resignation leaves 9."
In other words, you pay your money and take your choice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was right?"]. I do not know.
462
I have been asked to say precisely what we want this Royal Commission to do. I can give the House in precise language, under five headings, exactly what we would like to see the Royal Commission do. We want them to inquire into the ownership, control and financing of national provincial newspapers, news agencies and periodicals; the extent to which the growth of powerful chains of newspapers is creating a monopoly of newspaper ownership; the ability of independent national and local newspapers and periodicals to withstand increased competition from syndicate companies; the influence of financial and advertising interests on the presentation and suppression of news; finally, the distortion and suppression of essential facts in home and foreign news. That is the task that I would like to see the Royal Commission perform. I, therefore, appeal to all hon. Members, irrespective of party, who believe in an educated democracy and an enlightened electorate, to all who believe in liberty of thought, who believe that liberty of thought is more important than dividends, and that freedom of expression is above price, to support this Motion.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies), who has moved this Motion with such skill and knowledge, began his remarks by describing some of the objectives which this proposal and which a Royal Commission ar4 not intended to secure. I would like to make a few further comments on that point, because it is in that respect that the chief criticisms have been made of this Motion and of those who intend to support it. It has been said in many interested quarters that there is an unworthy motive behind this proposal for an inquiry into newspapers. It has been said, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, that the proposal is partly due to the excessive sensitivity of Ministers to attacks from daily newspapers, and it is inferred that there is some project afoot for interfering with the legitimate rights of free expression.
There is no basis whatever for those charges. So far as I know, no member of this Government at any time has ever questioned the right of the newspapers to

463
criticise, to complain and to attack. What has happened is something rather different. The newspapers have attacked members of the Government, and the members of the Government have replied and often replied with interest. The situation seems to me to be much the same as that of the, natives of Papua. The natives of Papua were said by the explorers who first reached that island to be a barbarous race of savages, who, when fired upon, had no scruples about retaliating. I believe that to be the situation of the Government. Apparently a new theory has been invented. The theory is that Press Lords may attack Ministers but Ministers may never attack Press Lords. If Press Lords attack Ministers, they are upholding the indefeasible rights of Englishmen; but if Ministers attack Press Lords, then they, are attempting to introduce some totalitarian scheme into this country. That is not the kind of freedom we on this side of the House support. I think it is merely a further illustration of the fact that, among newspaper proprietors, megalomania is an occupational disease.
With regard to the sensitivity of Ministers, it seems to me this Administration is a considerable improvement on the last Administration. There is a story told of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—I imagine the story is apocryphal, but it is also apposite—that when he was preparing his war against Russia after the 1914–18 war, he was asked what he would do if the newspapers objected to the campaign. His reply was given, it is said, in three words, Churchillian words: "Square or squash." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was not able to carry out that proposal 25 years ago. He waited for 25 years; he became Prime Minister during the war, and then he carried out that policy. One newspaper was squashed, another newspaper was disembowelled, and most of the other newspapers were squared during the war by various means. Still, despite all that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was able to come down to this House during the war and devote large parts of his speeches to denunciation of the crabs and the critics. [An HON, MEMBER: "What about the Lord President"?] I think the Lord President has seen the light. I only hope other hon. Members will follow his
464
example. It only goes to show how a man's character can be changed for the better when he gets into better company.
There is an even simpler way of proving that these charges of wicked designs on the part of the Government and their supporters are untrue. It is not only in this country that there is great concern about monopolistic tendencies in the newspapers. The same concern has arisen, for precisely the same reasons, on the other side of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras described the details of the decline in the number of newspapers in this country since 1921. In the United States, in the past 25 years the total number of newspapers has been halved, and the situation is such that today in the United States there are 10 whole States in which there are no cities with competing newspapers. That is a situation which has arisen for exactly the same reasons that monopolistic tendencies have gone here. Of course, there are people in the United States concerned about civil liberties, just as there are people in this country concerned about civil liberties. Therefore, a book, and a very important book, was published in the United States three or four months ago by a most eminent and Liberal lawyer. In that book he describes precisely the grounds on which a commission should be appointed. This is what he says:
"At long last we are learning that the failure of the Government to act can be as detrimental to the rights secured by the First Amendment as an Act of positive interference. Twenty years ago Justice Stone pointed out in a case in the Supreme Court—involving a law to protect apple trees from a cedar tree germ—Justice Stone pointed out that the failure of the State to take action on behalf of the owners of apple trees would have been tantamount to its taking action on behalf of the owners of cedar trees. The owners of Press, radio and movies favour inaction on the part of the Government, because by inaction, those in the saddle can further act to control the market place. Hence inaction deprives the public of its right to hear, see and read. We need Government offence as well as defence in the pursuit of liberty."
That is not written by some one smarting under any attack from a Tory newspaper. That is written by one of the most eminent Liberal lawyers in the United States. He concludes his book by making a plea for a Congressional inquiry in the United States into this matter, in almost the same terms which we are advancing in this Motion this afternoon.

465
So far from this being any attempt to interfere with the rights of free expression, it is a plan, or an effort to protect the rights of free expression from the ravages of monopoly and financial privilege. Since the Tory Party have always been such champions of freedom—at least, ever since the General Election of 1945—we cordially invite them to come with us into the Lobby this evening. My hon. Friend has already referred to the speeches made throughout the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). The other day the right hon. Gentleman went down to Plymouth. Apparently the Plymouth sea breezes went to his head, because he announced a new policy there. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I give him full credit for his statement. I do not want to do any damage by paying the right hon. Gentleman for Warwick and Leamington any excessive tribute; I do not want to interfere in the delicate negotiations about the leadership of the Conservative Party, which have been proceeding for quite awhile. Speaking for myself—and, of course, I cannot speak for anybody else—I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington is just about the best of the bunch, even though, in the words of Shakespeare,
"there's small choice in rotten apples."
At any rate, this is what the right hon. Gentleman said under the effect of the sea breezes of Plymouth:
"Our ideal is not concentration of ownership, but to spread it over the widest possible field, and the largest possible number of individuals."
Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will come with us into the Lobby this evening, and that others will follow their new leader into the Lobby. I can assure hon. Members on the other side of the House that in the "Aye" Lobby this evening there will be more rejoicing over the one Tory that repenteth, than over the ninety and nine sinners who are quite past redemption. We will welcome him in that Lobby.
I would now like to deal with some of the objections which may be made to this proposal. It may be argued, and has been argued in the newspapers, that there is no danger of monopoly because, in the case of newspapers, the consumer retains
466
a sanction; that the public can take its penny elsewhere, and therefore the whole question may be safely left in the hands of the public. But other private monopolies have grown up without the public having any say in the matter; financial groups have been able to ride roughshod over the will of the public in regard to other matters; therefore, they can do so in respect to newspapers. No one can really imagine it is by the democratic choice of the people of South Wales that they read the "Western Mail" if they want local news. No one can imagine it is by the democratic choice of the people of Plymouth that they can only buy, morning and evening, a Harmsworth paper. No one can imagine it is by the democratic choice of the people of Aberdeen that they have to have their political views censored by Lord Kemsley in London. Therefore, to use the term "democratic choice" in relation to this business, is to deprive the words of all meaning. These decisions, as to which newspapers are to be sustained in different areas, are not made by the people or the public: they are made by the process of financial manipulation. But this argument is still used. It was used in an article on this subject which appeared a few weeks ago in the "Sunday Times", a newspaper owned by Lord Kemsley, and Lord Kemsley's defence—or the defence of Lord Kemsley's editor; it comes to the same thing—was:
"Everywhere the prizes of success will come to those who win the respect and confidence of the reading public."
On that test, the greatest journalist and the most successful proprietor is the person who commands the biggest reading public. Now the person who commands the biggest reading public is that newspaper proprietor, Lord Kemsley, and, therefore, Lord Kemsley's newspaper was paying a touching tribute to Lord Kemsley.
Who is this Lord Kemsley? The public does not know very much about him. They learned a bit more about him the other day, when a speech was made by the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General referred to the "gutter Press," and said Lord Kemsley distorted the news, suppressed the evidence, and used Lord Kemsley's newspapers as a vehicle for expressing the personal political opinions of Lord Kemsley.
Mr. Wilson Harris: Was that the speech for which the Attorney-General subsequently apologised?
Mr. Foot: Yes, the Attorney-General did apologise. He apologised for impugning the professional integrity of Lord Kemsley, if Lord Kemsley thought his professional integrity was impugned. That is what I could not quite understand, because Lord Kemsley's newspapers do distort the news, they do suppress the evidence, they are used as vehicles for the expression of the political opinions of Lord Kemsley. And the word "gutter" is a good old English word which makes its meaning tolerably plain, and, therefore, I cannot understand why the Attorney-General apologised.
If hon. Members ask why I do not say this outside the House of Commons, I would remind them that there are great irregularities in the libel law. There are great defects in the libel law. It is a bad law. I hope it is one of the things this Government will put right. But if any hon. Member on the other side accuses me of cowardice for saying this inside the House of Commons, I would point out that I said it outside this House of Commons two months ago, in a newspaper called the "Tribune," in precisely the words I have used in the House at this present time. If Lord Kemsley wants to take action he can do so. He has not done so yet, and the reason, I would suggest, is that he is afraid too much dirt will come out. If we are to have a Royal Commission, we may as well have a court case as well, if he wants to take action on that subject.
I hope the House will appreciate the point I make. I am not denying the right of Lord Kemsley, if he wishes, to distort the news. I do not think it is possible to devise a law to stop Lord Kemsley from distorting the news which would not also interfere with the legitimate rights of other and reputable newspaper proprietors. But what I do deny is the right of Lord Kemsley to distort the news not only in London but in Aberdeen, Cardiff, Bristol, and other cities.
Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. Is not this, Mr. Speaker, in the nature of a direct personal attack on a Member of another
468
place? Is the hon. Member not going far too wide?
Mr. Speaker: I thought I had given a Ruling. On a Motion of this kind it is quite impossible not to mention the names of proprietors of these papers. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was making a deliberate personal attack. He was pointing out how these newspapers are conducted. It is the conduct of the newspapers he was criticising.
Sir P. Hannon: Further to that point of Order, the hon. Member mentioned the word "dirt" in association with a Member of another place.
Mr. Foot: I am most grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to describe Lord Kemsley's affairs in relation to his public position as a newspaper proprietor. I do not think it is possible for any law to stop Lord Kemsley from distorting the news, but I think it would be possible to have a law which would prevent him from having a chain of newspapers in which he could distort the news. If the news is to be distorted in places like Aberdeen, I should think the people of Aberdeen could find someone to do it for themselves. There is no case whatever on grounds of freedom why chain newspapers should be allowed to exist. These chain newspapers have not been built up by the choice of the public. They have been built up by financial manipulation, and it is successful financial manipulation which has decided how big the leadership of these newspapers shall be. The result is that the editor in Aberdeen has to print the same kind of stuff as the editor of the "Daily Graphic" in London, if, indeed, that newspaper has an editor at all.
Therefore, I say that the main purpose of this Royal Commission should be to inquire into the operation of chain newspapers, and to devise a law to prevent the spreading of these chain newspapers, and to break up the chains that already exist. It is perfectly possible to secure lawyers who will devise such a law, but there are persons who say that the difficulties would be so great in such an enterprise that the present position is not sufficiently dangerous to warrant us starting upon that course. We have to consider not only the present situation, but the future. The present situation is bad enough, but we are not going to stand

469
still where we are. This process is going to go on. There are some people who imagine that there are going to be no further amalgamations—that it is all going to stop exactly as it is. I think that is the position with the "News Chronicle." I hope that we are going to have the support of the Liberal Party in fighting monopolies tonight. But the "News Chronicle" is very tender about this subject. In the last 25 years, this newspaper amalgamated with two other newspapers. That may account for their view. But the process of monopoly is not going to stand still just where it stands today, no matter what the "News Chronicle" or anyone else thinks.
If anybody doubts this, let me take a practical example of what would actually occur in this country in the next 10 years, say, if no positive action were taken following this Royal Commission inquiry. There are a good many people in this House who regard the "Manchester Guardian" as the finest newspaper in this country; I subscribe to that view. The "Manchester Guardian" is financially dependent for its position on its connection with the "Manchester Evening News." In Manchester, the competition to the "Manchester Evening News" is provided by a Kemsley newspaper, and the "Manchester Evening News" is well able to hold its own. But suppose, after all the restrictions are removed from the newspapers, that Lord Beaverbrook were to start an evening newspaper in Manchester, as is quite possible? Suppose then we had a situation in Manchester where the "Manchester Evening News," with a very small accumulation of financial power, had to fight two huge combines, with all the power which they possess from the accumulation of resources all over the country. Who would be likely to win that battle? It is very probable that the "Manchester Evening News" would go down, and if the "Manchester Evening News "went down, then the "Manchester Guardian" too, would go down, and if that were to happen, it would be a tragic day, not only for Manchester, and not only for England.
This process of monopoly is not receding. It is getting worse. During the war, newspapers have made huge profits. They have built up great financial resources. They have undertaken large advertising
470
campaigns. The "Daily Express" has had exhibitions at the Albert Hall, reading rooms where one can read the provincial papers, and a touring "Brains Trust." It is not all being done by this panel of gentlemen whose names I read in the newspaper this morning, in an attempt to raise the cultural standards of the British people. It did not cost the "Daily Express" much, either. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a handsome contributor to all this enterprise. But there has been an enormous accumulation of financial power by these newspapers during the war, and if no action is taken following this Royal Commission inquiry, these financial resources are going to be unloosed on the newspaper market, and the people who will suffer are going to be all those independent newspapers that cannot stand the blast. Therefore, there is no matter of doubt about this question. It is a certainty; the process has been going on steadily for 20 or 30 years, and it will continue to go on unless this House takes action as the protector of freedom and the enemy of monopoly.
But, like my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, I support this proposal not only in the interests of the public but also as a journalist. As a journalist, I think there has been a serious decline in the quality of British journalism in the past 30 years, and I believe it is traceable to one cause. It is due to the decline in the power of the editor, and the encroachment of the authority of the newspaper proprietor. Thirty years ago, many of the great editors of the great dailies were well known people throughout the country. Today, very few of their names are known; in fact, many of them are little more than stooges, cyphers and sycophants. That change reflects something very important; it is not accidental, it is not insignificant. It reflects a great change of power, and so great is the menace that some newspapers—among them the best newspapers in the land—have already recognised that a new form of proprietorship is needed. Therefore, in the case of the "Manchester Guardian," "The Times," the "Yorkshire Post," I believe, the "Economist," and some other papers as well, there is a new system of proprietorship which protects the authority of the editor and prevents the possibility of amalgamation. I think that is an excellent development.

471
It is a development which should be described and inquired into by the Royal Commission to see how it could be encouraged, and I believe that it would be perfectly possible to contrive financial and competitive advantages and inducements which would assist the extension of that very desirable system of ownership of newspapers.
As I say, I speak not only as a member of the public but as a journalist, and journalism has contributed great things to this country. Indeed, there have been times when this House of Commons itself became an instrument of tyranny, and the only bulwark of freedom left was in the hands of journalists, and those writing books and in the Press. There have been great names in British history which have been those of journalists, and in modern times there have been men who have fought to sustain that tradition. Men like C. P. Scott, who has been mentioned, Henry Nevinson, A. G. Gardner, G. K. Chesterton, and Henry Noel Brailsford. Those are the real journalists, the men who maintained the great traditions of British journalism, but they have, in the past 20 or 30 years, been fighting a losing battle against increasing odds. Therefore, it is the business of this House of Commons to come to their support, and I believe that if this House today will vote for this Royal Commission, and if action and legislation can be prepared. following the inquiries of that Royal Commission, this Parliament will have added yet another great service to the eternal cause of English freedom.
4.34 p.m.
Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member who moved this Motion, in his introductory speech, made some complimentary remarks about the lethal quality of my oratory. I assure him, and you, Mr. Speaker, that my only desire in approaching this subject is to destroy pretences and endeavour to strip the matter of unessential concomitants. This Motion makes four assumptions, and it is right that every hon. Member of the House should realise what those assumptions are, before he decides his attitude towards it. The first is that there is a growth in monopolistic tendencies in the control of the Press; the second, that there is an increasing public concern at
472
this; the third, that free expression of opinion through the Press is limited, and the fourth, that the accuracy of the presentation of news is open to challenge. Not a word that we have heard in either of the speeches to which we have just listened, has withdrawn anything from the strength and force of those imputations, and it is those imputations on the Press which this House has to examine today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear"]—before it considers whether a prima facie case has been established, because without a prima facie case the hon. Gentleman who said "Hear, hear," would, I am sure, be the last to suggest that any subject of His Majesty should be harried by any proceedings of any kind.
I noted with great interest that the mover of this Motion condescended to detail about the terms of reference of this Commission. I noted with even greater interest that there was not, as far as I could judge from listening to him, one phrase or one word which could cover, or which mentioned or involved the resolution, of which all of us have heard, of the National Union of Journalists, as to the issue of the closed shop in the profession. That was a matter with which the mover of the Motion was obviously not concerned. Before we consider the two admirable examples of King's evidence as to journalism which the speeches of the mover and seconder have given us, I should like to ask the House to consider the background of Governmental action which we have to this problem, because it is curious, and, of course, deserving of high consideration. On 30th April of this year the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), whose name is appended, I think, to this Motion, asked a Question of the Prime Minister, and, whatever else is clear, it is obvious that it was not the resolution of the National Union of Journalists which has caused the Government to change its view with regard to an inquiry, because the hon. Member for Maldon asked the Prime Minister if he had considered the resolution of the National Union of Journalists urging the setting up of a Royal Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite flatfooted against that. He said:
"I have given careful consideration to this proposal, which, however, I do not see my way to adopt."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 30th April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 29.]

473
That was on 30th April. By 16th July the Lord President of the Council had given utterance to a different point of view. He said, as all the House will remember:
"All great channels for the dissemination of information to the public would, the Government believe, benefit from having their state of health examined by an independent inquiry from time to time, and we do not exclude the Press from that consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1946; Vol. 425, C. 1084.]
On being pressed by my hon. Friends the right hon. Gentleman said that that was an expression of Government policy. In my search for the reason for that change of policy, I cannot help being impressed by the utterance of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President at Lewisham on 9th July, only a week before he gave vent to this change of policy. There he expressed, I do not say in unmeasured terms, but in the terms of strength which we expect from the right hon. Gentleman, his dislike of any Press and any newspaper which criticised the extent of the regimentation and restrictions, and the rushed legislation, which he considered necessary to deal with the difficulties of the country at the time. That was largely directed against the Kemsley Press. Such was its effect that the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), one of his own party, put it in these words, which I am sure will commend themselves to all his fellow Members. He was referring to the right hon. Gentleman when he used these words:
"Why, then, did he drag in the Press? I hope the true answer is not, as his enemies suggest, that Mr. Morrison is hyper-sensitive to Press criticism, and that he is accordingly warning his newspaper critics, after the manner of an unlamented late dictator, that his patience is nearly exhausted. Power corrupts, we know, but we must hope that it is not corrupting our chief London democrat, so that we shall be driven in sorrow to ask him:
Upon what meat does this our Caesar feed That he has grown so great?"
Hon. Members: What is the newspaper?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am quoting from an article which was written by the hon. Member for Shoreditch.
Hon. Members: What is the newspaper?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is a large Conservative newspaper which every week always puts a column at the disposal of a Labour contributor.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it the "Sunday Express"?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Of course.
Mr. Nally: Do not be shy to say so.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Hon. Members will bear in mind the words of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman used the words "Suppressions, misrepresentations and inventions." Two days afterwards, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General used practically the same terms in the same connection. He said:
"They distort the facts; they suppress the news upon which free opinions can be freely formed. They refrain from publishing information which might conflict with their particular opinions."
And so the law was hard on the heels of the prophet. On 11th August, however, these charges disappeared, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman apologised in the most full and complete terms, and made the most full and complete withdrawal. He said, in relation to the words I have quoted—intentionally destroying and suppressing facts: "I can assure you that I did not intend to make any of these imputations upon you. If any words of mine appear to make them, I desire unreservedly to withdraw them." He has repeated that apology he made to Lord Kemsley to Lord Beaverbrook, and, surely, the right hon. Gentleman, the Eminence Rouge of the Labour Party, if I may so term him, does not persist in what his legal Eminence Gris has so fully withdrawn. Of course, I should be the last to depend on any admissions of any of the right hon. Gentleman, because charges easily made and easily withdrawn I suppose can be as easily made again.
I should like to consider the next stage which this matter took, the frontal attack having been hurled back in a cloud of apology. The flank attack is developed by one of those blessed words" monopoly"—the meaning of which it is hoped will never be fully investigated. It is the most effective word when used out of its proper sense. Monopoly, as far as I have understood it, connotes that the choice between alternative sources of supply is denied with the usual results of higher prices. As against that, the P.E.P. survey, which has been mentioned, shows that the choice is exercised everywhere

475
in the morning between a far wider selection of purposes than ever before. It is a cold fact that increased costs allow only the most efficient newspapers to make both ends meet. I should be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that the elimination of the inefficient was monopoly, because I have recollections of the time when the right hon. Gentleman used to pray powerfully that we should be delivered from "private unenterprise." The only limitation of entry is the shortage of paper. It is common knowledge that there is not sufficient paper at the present time for morning and evening papers.
The choice is in the hands of the public, and it is not without interest to look at the papers which are available today. As far as national papers are concerned, following the mover of this Motion, I quote from an article in the "Economist" which deals with this subject. It stated:
"The London morning dailies were divided between seven independent groups representing all shades of opinion."
If one arranges them broadly into supporters of the Government—I always allow the right hon. Gentleman his joke as to the "Daily Worker" being a supporter of himself—we have "The Times," "Daily Herald," "News Chronicle," "Daily Worker" and "Daily Mirror," with a circulation of 7,470,003 for the Government, and if we arrange them broadly into those which are critics, we have the "Daily Express," the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Telegraph" and the "Daily Graphic" with a circulation of 7,655,000. Therefore, as far as the national dailies are concerned. there is equality at the present day. Now I come to the question of the provincial dailies, which was raised by the mover and seconder of the Motion. I made the figure 25. The difference between the mover and myself is that I am grouping Scottish and Welsh papers with provincial papers. There are 25 at the present time, and they include papers such as the "Birmingham Post," the "Yorkshire Post," the "Scotsman," the "Glasgow Herald," the "Manchester Guardian," the "Liverpool Daily Post" and several others. More than half of them—let us get the facts first—are independently controlled, and the remainder are divided between four groups of owners.
476
The hon. Member who seconded the Motion mentioned the town of Aberdeen. I, too, should like to mention that town, because it happens to be the town from which my father came, and a town with which I am extremely familiar. It was rather the burden of the hon. Member's song. The position in Aberdeen is a very good example. It is quite true that the locally produced paper belongs to a group, or chain, but into Aberdeen there go at present no fewer than five other Scottish dailies of varying ownership. There is also a proposal at the moment for two other newspapers to establish production in Scottish cities. They, also, will be able to bring in slightly localised editions, which other newspapers do, and which will find their public there. After all, let us try to get at the problem with which we are dealing. Provincial morning newspapers have a total circulation of under 3,000,000. I am taking only the papers that are sympathetic to Members opposite. The "People" now sell 4,500,000; the "Sunday Pictorial," 2,500,000; "Reynolds News," 630,000, and the "News of the World," which is a non-political paper, has now announced a circulation of 7,500,000. Yet the mover and seconder of the Motion nearly wept tears because there were provincial morning papers with a circulation of under 3,000,000 which dared to take views which were different from that great mass of Sunday newspapers. It does not stop there. "Reynolds News" is not by any means the only flower of the Cooperative movement's slimmer. There are at least eight weeklies and monthlies and, in addition to the "Cooperative Review," there is "The Wheatsheaf," which has a circulation of 1,250,000 per month. The suggestion which is implicit in this attack, that the Left Wing are not represented, is really fallacious and does not accord with the facts.
Again, the mover and seconder mentioned provincial evening newspapers. As I make it, there are 79 evening dailies, taking London and the provinces together, with a circulation of about 9,000,000. These, again, are distributed very widely between independent holders and differing groups. But, apart from that—and neither the mover nor seconder mentioned it—there is in this country an immense number of weekly papers, long established, with, great local bases, and great local support. There are no fewer

477
than 1,260, with an approximate capital structure of £25 million behind them. But, although there are 1,260 papers dealing with every part of the country, they are not sufficiently within the purview of the mover and seconder for them to have mentioned a word about them. In addition, there is a great mass of specialist papers. Let us see how the country is served. There is a separate paper for undertakers, one for pawnbrokers, and one for free thinkers. The bakers, naturally, have 13 papers for themselves, and the engineers 66. You have a great picture of papers provided for all varying opinions and tastes. It is the whole of this structure which this Motion attacks, and asks this House to condemn.
Now let me face up to what the mover and seconder have said, because we want to deal with the facts. The seconder said that he was here to make attacks on the proprietors of the Press. Let us consider one aspect of it, which ought to appeal to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) as one of the best known contributors to the Press. Take Mr. Bartholomew, who is the chairman and principal figure of the papers which are sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman and his friends—the "Daily Mirror" and the "Sunday Pictorial." He is a man who has worked his way up in journalism. Lord Camrose is the same; Lord Kemsley is the same; Lord Beaverbrook is the same, and Sir Walter Layton is the same. It is not without interest, or importance, that you have, in this country, as proprietors, your main figures, people who are trained and have the background of journalism, and not of some extraneous industry from which they have pitch-forked themselves into newspaper control in order to advance a financial interest. The only paper that is outside the control is the "Daily Herald." As is well known Odhams own 51 per cent. of the shares. I do not want to make cheap points about the fact that Mr. Cousins has no journalistic background—I want to get down to something which is more important—but under the articles of association specific and detailed provisions are made in the case of the "Daily Herald" to safeguard, for all time, its political and industrial policy. Its policy and outlook must be that of the Labour and trade union movement. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council that it is a luxury we Conservatives never
478
had when in office, that a movement which constitutes a Government, has a paper of its own which it can control all the time.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman much to complain about regarding the meticulous faithfulness to the Conservative Central Office of the "Daily Telegraph"? Has he much to complain about regarding the faithfulness of the "Morning Post"? Was there not some tie-up with the Conservative Party?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is quite true that our policy was so good that we did not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."1 It is always a sign of a good comment when the right hon. Gentleman gets on to his feet. I have sat in the House long enough to know that a good point has been made if the right hon. Gentleman rises. I want him to remember this: Can anyone really say that there is public concern when the remedy is in the hands of the public to take their pennies or twopences, and buy elsewhere? I submit that the use of the word "monopoly" is an abuse of words in connection with a subject where you have this variety of choice. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so in the kindest and most Pickwickian sense, is a little fond of arrogating to himself the role of Humpty Dumpty. Let me remind him of what Humpty Dumpty said. "When I use a word,"—one can imagine him saying in rather a scornful tone" it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "Which is the master—that's all." Lewis Carroll said that Alice was puzzled. We, on these Benches, are not puzzled a bit. We understand entirely the conception of the use of monopoly as a big stick, which will make a great deal of sound and little sense.
The hon. Gentleman, who has spoken, has mentioned the drawbacks of chain ownership—the fear that when the owner says "Turn," everyone turns, and the fear that the owner's interests may be purely commercial. There is a different kind of "personalism"—to use a modern phrase—when it is applied in the

479
case of chain newspapers and when it is applied—and no one had a greater policy of "personalism" than Mr. C. P. Scott—to one paper. That was a point which the hon. Member who seconded the Motion developed for some time—the extraordinary difference that "personalism" assumes when you apply it to three papers—or six papers—with a daily circulation of so many, and when you apply it to one paper published in three different places, which may have an even greater circulation than the other three. What neither the mover nor the seconder mentioned was the other side of the medal. They never mentioned that these papers were acquired in the open market, that people could have refrained from buying, or, over a long period, could have started, as was done in certain places, in opposition—and the circulation of these papers has in fact increased. Nor did either of them explain how a Royal Commission was going to make it cheaper for anyone to start a paper in opposition to those already existing. They did not mention other matters, which, for example, the President of the Institute of Journalists mentioned in discussing this problem, matters which have been mentioned by many other people and other periodicals who have endeavoured to achieve a slightly more objective approach—that papers are better produced; that they have access to a more complete source of news; that papers which, in the past, could not possibly have done it, have now access to 25 resident and 30 mobile foreign correspondents, and numerous other matters of that kind.
Anyone who knows the organisation of the Press abroad, as well as the Press at home, must realise that in these fields, and in the fields of mechanical equipment, the mere fact of being able to spread overheads must have a result. I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon, who I understand desires an opportunity of intervening in this Debate, will explain this point to me: Why is there this pother or bother—whichever is the more appropriate journalese to describe a sensation—when you have two or three or more papers in a group, and when you have a paper which is published in London, Manchester and Glasgow, and has an enormous circulation of its own? I would like to appreciate why the hon.
480
Members who are putting this Motion make these great distinctions. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General was more sweeping. He attacked every paper that had a large circulation, so long as its views disagreed with his own. That, of course, is a quite understandable point of view, but it is not a point of view that will really carry to its logical conclusions a Motion like the one before the House.
I want to deal, if the House will bear with me, with two other points which have been made: One is the question of free expression of opinion. I suggest that the picture which I have given of the Press is, in itself, sufficient argument for the fact that opinion will be freely held. I would point out in the case of the "Daily Herald," as I have already indicated, and in the case of the "Daily Worker," according to the report which is in all our hands, and in the case of the "Daily Mirror" and "Sunday Pictorial" that, as we know, there are shareholders of many kinds who will ultimately have their say in the conduct and expression of views. If there is ample opportunity for all opinions to be expressed, it would be interesting—and perhaps some hon. Member will explain this curious fact Press—to know why the papers of the Right are most ready and willing to open their columns to Left wing contributors. There are not only the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) and Mr. Nat Gubbins, two famous Left wing figures, but there was a feature in the "Daily Mail" in which, I understand, hon. Members opposite were peculiarly interested. The other day, in the "Sunday Times," a Kemsley paper, there was an article on the Trades Union Congress, not by the hon. Member sitting behind me today, but by Mr. Arthur Pugh, a most distinguished member of the trade union movement. I may be unlucky, but I have never seen in the "Daily Herald" or the "Daily Worker" or the "News Chronicle" any of our Right wing figures being allowed or pressed to express their views. We do not see in the fact that a newspaper of the Left closes not only its editorial but other feature pages to us, a reason for a Royal Commission in order to stop them doing so. What is really wanted, and what is behind this Motion, is not freedom of expression at all; hon. Members want to saddle the country with a number of papers of their own way of thinking.

481
Let us take it, again, on the basis of news and comment; it is suggested, without a word of evidence being produced by either the mover or the seconder of the Motion, that the famous dictum of C. P. Scott that whereas comment is free news is sacred, is being neglected at the present time.
I have waited to hear whether this evidence would be forthcoming. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will be."] I would like to put one or two points to hon. Members, and to make it all the easier for them, because they will be able to answer those points, if they have any material, which I very much doubt. The very growth of circulation has made it much more difficult for any newspaper to "doctor" the news. I am not throwing brickbats or bouquets, but am trying to get at the facts. Hon. Members have been throwing bouquets to themselves and brickbats at the Press, but I would point out to them that when there were newspapers with small circulations, when newspapers hibernated in a locality, it was much more easy to distort the news than it is when one is in the flow of big circulations, competing with other newspapers of large circulation, and all the time with the B.B.C.'s news bulletins functioning at the same time.
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, if not also the hon. Member who moved it, made some rather deprecatory remarks on the position of journalists, and one of the hon. Members mentioned that journalists have come into a state of subservience. I genuinely cannot accept that, even from two distinguished members of the profession. If Lord Kemsley or any other newspaper proprietor were to suggest—there is no evidence that it has been suggested—that news should be "doctored," I do not believe that the run of journalists at the present day would be a party to it. Let hon. Members consider the process of newspaper production. The idea of the newspaper proprietor sitting at the centre of a spider's web, and saying, "Publish this and do not publish that," is really fantastic and far from reality. You would have to take in the news editor, the whole newsroom, the subeditors, and apart from all that, the news comes in so fast—and it has to be tasted by the news editor before it goes into the newspaper—that this idea of the remote control deciding the actual news that will go in is one which, I submit, is too fan-
482
tastic to be pressed. In view of the attack on the profession of journalism which has been contained in the two speeches to which we have listened, I wish to put my view, not in my own words, but in far better words than my own—the words of the hon. Gentleman who is now Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and who was formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. He put the position of the British journalist, as I deem it to be, when he said:
"In matters of personal integrity the British journalist is admittedly above reproach Unlike some of his Continental colleagues, he cannot be bribed directly, and is seldom caught by the indirect bribery of expensive luncheons, flattery, and so on. What he puts into the paper or leaves out is dictated solely by journalistic considerations, of which the greatest is news value, and the sense of what constitutes news is the journalist's greatest gift."
I commend to the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion the somewhat steadier views which were given out from their own Front Bench. Again, I am not concerned, on this question of the news, by the fact, to which the "Spectator" drew attention last week, that one of our Debates was reported in the "Daily Herald" in the proportion of 89 to 11 in favour of the Labour Party, whereas the HANSARD percentage was 55 to 45 against Labour. That, to my mind, is simply not a matter which would justify a Royal Commission, because a Royal Commission would not put things like that right. As was said in the article to which I have referred, no one can impose conditions on a paper in regard to its reporting; this must be left to its conscience, even if it has not got one. In the case of political objectivity—I am sure that, for once, I shall get the assent of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot)—the ordinary view of political objectivity is an accurate account written from our point of view. We shall not really get much further than that, however well we try.
The House has been most kind to a returned wanderer, and I do not want to impose upon that kindness. Our view on these benches on the question of monopolies is that an inquiry into a monopoly or a restrictive practice is a good thing when a prima facie case has been made out for that inquiry. We say that no prima facie case has been made out, and no suggestion or anything within miles

483
of a prima facie case has been made out on this point. It is not enough, in order to get an inquiry in this country—and it should never be enough—merely that certain people have hurled abuse or made allegations, or been thinskinned against hostile comment. But my opposition is based on something other than that. Indubitably, the acceptance of the request for an inquiry will create doubt and suspicions in the minds of the public here at home as to the essential integrity of the Press, and still more it will arouse dangerous suspicions in other countries. The hon. Member for Devonport was not, I am sure, so pleased when the Front Bench, which he follows with so much loyalty and avidity, were twitted the other day with the Attorney-General's remarks about the freedom of the British Press by M. Molotov. That is the way it comes back. A garbled allegation unsupported by evidence returns and bites the appropriate portion of those whom the hon. Gentleman is following.
Although comparisons are odious, it is necessary that we should look abroad. Before the war—and still less now—few countries claimed that their Press was free, or even desired to claim that their Press was free in the sense in which we understand it. In some cases the Press, or part of it, was in Government ownership, under Government control, and subject to Governmental direction. With one possible exception, to which I have referred, this cannot be said of any newspaper in Great Britain. It might be said of certain organs abroad that they were owned by foreign capital and foreign investors. Again, with one possible exception, that cannot be said about any newspaper here. It might be said that industrial interests, directly or surreptitiously, have control of certain newspapers abroad. That cannot be said of any newspaper in Great Britain. It is sad, but true, that over a large area of the world today the freedom of the Press is unknown, and populations are allowed to read only what their Governments determine.
Even if one were to accept—as I do not, for the reasons I have given—all that the hon. Gentleman has said, the British Press shines forth as an example of freedom and independence. The mover and seconder have denied the wish to take a
484
temporary political advantage in endeavouring, by allegations with which I have dealt, to try to shake the faith of the people who can and will pay their money and take their chance in newspapers which attack their policy, party, and Government. I remind them of the words of the old journalists' song:
"The Pope may launch his interdict, The Union its decree, But the bubble is blown, the bubble is pricked, By us and such as we."
When he comes to address the House the right hon. Gentleman can say musically, and indeed correctly, "I'm forever blowing bubbles," and I think he will agree that it is not a bad thing that the more gaseous, even of his bubbles, should occasionally be pricked and come down to earth. To me, as the mover has mentioned, it has been given as to few others to tabulate the rise of totalitarianism. The first and most obvious sign of an authoritarian regime has been intolerance of opposition. Already one has heard two right hon. Gentlemen in that vein; one has referred to opposition as "intimidation," the other as "sabotage," and now it is desired to curb a hostile Press. The best appellation of the Press I have ever found is, "King over all the children of pride," and the destruction which this exhibition of pride anticipates is something more serious than the fall of an administration. It is an attempt to destroy that tolerance of opposition which is the lifeblood of working democracy.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. Gordon-Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) made a very admirable and lawyer-like speech in which, I was interested to notice, he spoke for a great deal of the time of the Press as if it were a commodity on the market like shoes or biscuits. He talked about it being cheaper to spread overheads and so on, which seems to me to miss one of the most important aspects of the subject under discussion, namely, that we are not here dealing with just a commodity but with power—power over people's minds, power over the news without which they cannot form their opinions. I was also struck by the point he made that he could not understand the difference between personalism in a single newspaper and personalism in a large number of news-

485
papers. That seems to me to be exactly the same difference as between a party leader and a dictator, or between a Prime Minister and a dictator. It is a distinction that seems very easy indeed to understand.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House will excuse me one brief personal word, because in speaking here I am in a position which may be thought to be slightly anomalous. I now enjoy—if enjoy is the right word—a position in which I might be thought to have some inkling of what is in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. As everyone knows, he is sitting here impartially, listening to this Debate to make up his mind according to the way it goes. [Laughter.] Hon Gentlemen who laugh have, I think, an exaggerated view of the simplemindedness of my right hon. Friend. In these circumstances, I was in some doubt as to whether I should try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in order to speak in favour of the Motion, as I intend to do. On the other hand, my name has been on the Order Paper ever since the day this Motion was first put down. And I honestly do not know which way the Lord President is going to jump, so I want to add my voice to those which are trying to persuade him to come down in favour of a Royal Commission.
It has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby that our motive in supporting this Motion is fear and dislike of the Press that attacks us, and indeed a very large part of his argument made that assumption. If that assumption is knocked away, a very great deal of his argument falls to the ground, like the bubble he spoke of that is pricked. I agree with him, and it is clear to anyone who looks into the facts, that since circulation was recently freed there has been a much fairer distribution between the papers that, roughly speaking, support the Government, and those which attack them, at any rate amongst the national dailies. No one who goes into the facts could possibly argue that there is a serious disability of the Government in this respect. Then there are the engaging anomalies to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to, such as the presence of Low in the "Evening Standard," which are a great credit to our Press in Britain. There is no question of
486
fearing or disliking attack. On the whole we give as good as we get in the Press. The motives for supporting this Motion are quite different.
They are, first, that we really do want a free Press, and, secondly, that we find as we look at the Press today that the standards of journalism are slipping to the point at which the freedom of the Press is being endangered. I hasten to say that this is not limited to the Press of the Opposition. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are many things throughout the entire popular Press today that are very bad and that disclose a very serious slipping of standards. I think this evil is deeper rooted and wider spread in the Press of the Right, but I certainly do not think it is limited to the Press of the Right. I feel that some of the things the right hon. and learned Gentleman said against the Press of the Left were very good arguments in favour of a Royal Commission, though, of course, speaking to his brief, he had to disclaim it every time he produced a good argument of that sort.
An example of the way in which standards are slipping and endangering the true freedom of the Press is the very gross departure in recent years from that precept which was quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and which will doubtless be mentioned several times again in the course of this Debate. The true quotation is:
"Facts are sacred, comment is free."
I think that is the fundamental distinction between journalism as a profession and journalism as a racket, and we are departing more and more from this basic precept. One has only to open any popular national paper today and he is very lucky if he finds a report that does not contain comment mixed up with news. There has also been the development of the mendacious, misleading headline, as a trick of journalism. There was one the other day which was to this effect: "U.S. food prices drop as control is lifted." That was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, because unless one had facts that were deliberately not disclosed in the story one could not get to the bottom of what was happening.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Could the hon. Member tell the House, in connection with these headlines which give wrong information, how in the world a

487
Royal Commission is going to deal with that?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I will come to that in a moment. I was about to say in connection with this headline that although, of course, the prices had in fact dropped, they had not dropped by as much as they had risen the day before. It was a true statement, but it was deliberately misleading. This departure from the basic precepts of good journalism is a symptom of the very serious increase in the freedom of the Press Lords, and of the decrease in the freedom of the Press. The freedom of the Press is a complex thing. It is certainly much more than the freedom of the proprietor. It involves the freedom of the editor and, in certain respects, of the reporter. It certainly also involves the freedom of the citizen to have a fair and reasonably free choice of papers of different hues and capacities.
There is a lot of evidence of suppression of facts and distortion of facts; worst of all, of journalists being sent out with instructions to find facts to fit a story. They are quite definitely told the story they have to get and they must find facts for it. That is the absolute opposite of all that constitutes decent, good journalism. Many of these things are now being talked about quite openly by those who know. When such things are said about our Press it is high time there was an inquiry into the Press.
Now I come to the point, What can be done by a Royal Commission, given that those allegations are true? For certain things, there are legal remedies. That is one of the reasons why one wants a Royal Commission and to have these matters looked into. There may be legal remedies for some abuses while for others there cannot be legal remedies, because legal remedies would do more harm in the destruction of ordinary liberties. That is not an argument against an inquiry, but seems to me to be one of the strongest arguments in favour of an inquiry. There is only one remedy left, publicity. It is the remedy which the Press uses for all the abuses but its own, and it cannot use it for its own abuses. If we are to use the remedy of publicity, which the Press rightly uses against all other abuses in the country, and use it against the Press itself, that can be done only by some such inquiry as we are now advocating.
488
A fair report upon the health of the Press by an impartial inquiry would be an enormous gain to the public, who should know what is happening. It would be a very fine thing if there were regular inquiries at intervals of five, or 10 years. If it were known that such inquiries were to be held a lot of the abuses would not occur. It would be a serious deterrent if it were known that inevitably there would be a very good chance of the abuses being brought to the public gaze every five, or 10 years, or whatever period of years we decided to take.
On the whole, everyone in this House should be in favour of this inquiry, unless he has a bad conscience and thinks that something has to be hidden. Those who believe that the Press is good and fine and who have heard the arguments and the allegations that have been made and been brought forward by journalists, ought to jump at an inquiry to clear the Press of those very serious allegations. Mud has been thrown, and the mud is sticking. The public, and foreign peoples know just as much today as they will after an inquiry. Those who think that the Press shows symptoms of ill-health think that an overwhelming case exists for an inquiry. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will join in pressing on my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council the virtues and merits of appointing a Royal Commission of this sort.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: It is the custom of this House to give a patient hearing to any Member who claims to have special knowledge on the subject of any Debate. It is with modesty that I make that claim, and I hope that the House will be patient with me. By profession I am a journalist. I am proud of my profession, and deeply proud to have exercised that profession in the British Press. The three speeches we have heard from the other side of the House seemed unworthy of the great traditions of this House. I shall endeavour to be as little controversial as possible in putting the case why I think this House will injure its own dignity far more than it will injure the Press if it agrees to the preposterous proposals now before it.
We have heard explanations of how this proposal did not originate. The Lord

489
President of the Council has been cleared of any charge of ordering his strong-arm squad to put the Motion on the Order Paper. Of course, the Lord President did not do that; he is far too cunning. It is possible for a man in authority to drop a hint in order to let it be known that he would not be displeased if such a thing occurred. I suggest to the House that the Lord President did let it be known and that his boys, being courtiers anxious to please the king and anxious for future favours, duly did what the Lord President of the Council wanted. If I do the Lord President of the Council an injustice no doubt he is quite able to look after himself.
Mr. Paget: This Motion was framed for the National Union of Journalists Conference, before this Government was ever returned. How can it have been inspired by the Lord President of the Council?
Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman is very vehement. He is a lawyer, accustomed to deal with the truth in one form or another. I suggest that the Motion was not framed before the existence of this Government. Is it suggested that, in the Coalition Government days, when most of the Members responsible were not Members of this House, they composed this Motion? I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Paget: Has the hon. Member no understanding of how trade unions work? They pass resolutions, which go to the annual conference of the union for discussion.
Mr. Baxter: Surely this Motion has not been put down at the instance of a trade union? Is this House to believe that its Members put Motions on the Paper which are dictated to them by some trade union leader? If so, it is high time we took action to prevent this House from becoming an ante-room to the Trades Union Congress.
It is much easier for a Government to govern without Press criticism. Hitler and Mussolini did away with Press criticism. A totalitarian mentality such as has exhibited itself today cannot exist without first curbing the liberties of the Press and then making it totally enslaved to the Government. One or two hon. Members opposite have used this argu-
490
ment: If the newspapers have done no wrong and have nothing to conceal, what possible harm can come from the setting up of a Royal Commission?
I would put this point to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon-Walker) who spoke before me. I imagine that he supports that point of view. I will put a purely impersonal supposition. because I do not know anything about his domestic life. Suppose his neighbours said to him, "We are going to set up an inquiry by the community into the private life of your wife. After all, if there is nothing against her what possible harm can there be in holding an inquiry?"
Mr. Gordon-Walker: If there were libels about the private life of my wife, she would have a remedy in the courts. There are libels about the Press, but the remedy of going to the courts is not available. The corresponding remedy would be a Royal Commission.
Mr. Baxter: Yes, but the fact is that all the accusers today have been saying that if there is nothing, and there probably is nothing, then there is probably no harm in this proposal. But the very fact that a Royal Commission is set up to investigate the activities of the Press is, prima facie, a vote of censure on the Press and a definite warning that something is going to be done to it that it will not like. I say, therefore, that argument does not hold water for a moment. Mr. Cummings, a very distinguished journalist, in the "News Chronicle" this morning suggested that perhaps one of the reasons was the jealousy of hon. Members of this House for the Press. I do not know what there is in that. I know that many hon. Members feel that the Press does not give sufficient space to their speeches. I will say to some of the hon. Members of this House, and perhaps quite a number, that one does not become a Pericles merely by becoming a Member of this House. This House itself is significant, but a great many persons are able to become Members of this House, and many times the Press is merciful in omitting some of the speeches made by hon. Members. Maybe the Royal Commission will deal with that question of speeches from men not intended by God and nature to make speeches.
What was the situation when the General Election took place? One of the

491
cases made is the twisting and perversion of news in order to tune in with the political whims and wishes of the proprietor. What did we in the Tory Party have in the way of support? We had the cold embrace of "The Times" with lips like ice. We had in the "Sunday Distemper," the "Observer," Lady Astor's disapproval of our leader. We had Lord Beaverbrook and the "Daily Express" running a private General Election on their own on Empire free trade. Lord Beaverbrook is an Empire man, and he ran a private election on Empire policy in which neither the Government party nor ourselves were mentioned very much. So he was out of it to that extent. The "Daily Mirror," a capitalist organisation, switched over and urged all Jane's fighting men to vote for the Socialists. They did. The "News Chronicle" honourably stood by to pronounce the burial service for the Liberal Party and fought the Liberal cause. Really, what did we have for solid support—[HON. MEMBERS: "All the hoardings and the B.B.C."] We had the hoardings, if you like. But the B.B.C.? That is not our impression. But we had the "Daily Telegraph" and Lord Kemsley's newspapers solidly on our side. What did the Socialists have—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Member for Woodford."] I am talking about the Press. I say there was very little in it; if anything, the Socialist Party had the better of the Press situation.
Since it could not have been the line-up at the Election which brought this demand for an inquiry, what is the next point that has so interested the Lord President's snoopers? Is it the ownership of the Press which is worrying the hon. Gentlemen opposite? We haw heard a good deal about it today. The facts are already known. The Royal Commission does not have to make any inquiries as to who owns what or why. Colonel Astor owns "The Times," Lord and Lady Astor own the "Observer," Lord Camrose owns the "Telegraph," Lord Beaverbrook is the biggest shareholder of his group, and Lord Rothermere is not the biggest shareholder in his group although he has the influences by which he can control it. And so we go through. Then we come to the Government Press. We have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend
492
the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) about the "Daily Herald." The "Daily Herald" is in a very odd position. Its body is owned by a capitalist combine, and its soul by the T.U.C. Therefore we have one unbending supporter of the Government, from whose side this demand has come, a paper owned and directed by the Left and the Right Wing, an autocracy of the Left and a capitalist combine of the Right.
Mr. Driberg: Surely the very fact that the hon. Member is stressing—that there are these Left Wing newspapers, which will, of course, be subject to inquiry by the Royal Commission—is itself a proof that we are not raising this for political reasons?
Mr. Baxter: That is a proof that the hon. Gentleman asserts, but it is interesting that this demand has come entirely from that side of the House, and not from any other party. Therefore we are entitled to suspect that there is a passing political interest in what hon. Members opposite are doing. Take the newspaper in which the hon. Gentleman writes—"Reynolds Newspaper." That is a Sunday newspaper which exists for maintaining the right of the Co-operative societies to an unfair advantage against other trades. Is that why hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking for that inquiry, or is it to investigate the "Daily Worker"—[An HON. MEMBER: "All of them."] In that case, go through with it and give notice now, because I claim that the "Daily Worker" has a perfect right to exist. It stands openly and above board for the glorification of the Soviet and the defamation of British honour, but that is the policy of the Communist Party, and the Communist Party is entitled to its newspapers. I defend the right of the "Daily Worker" against these enemies of newspaper freedom on the Socialist side. I defend the right of the Co-operative societies to continue to fight for the unfair conditions under which they trade. I support the "Daily Herald," although the "Daily Herald" would not report one word of mine if I paid them for it.
Is it possible that it is the closed shop threatened by the National Union of Journalists which is causing this demand for an inquiry? If so I warn them that the Government will be neutral. The Government were neutral on the closed

493
shop the other day, they are neutral today and they will be neutral on that issue. It is said that politics are a dirty business, but no Government in history have washed their hands as often as this Government. Is this demand made because hon. Members want to inquire into the advertising revenue and the influence of advertising upon the editor? I had many years of editorship in Fleet Street. Only once in all those years did an advertiser deliberately try to affect our policy. I was never conscious of an advertiser making any pressure at all, except this once. It was a combine which did very heavy advertising, and in the "Daily Express" we were attacking interests which it regarded as important to itself. They sent me a letter and said that unless the "Daily Express" dropped this campaign they would withdraw all advertising for a period of two years.
We sent back a letter by hand saying, "Unless you withdraw your letter, and apologise for it, we will ban all your advertisements in the 'Daily Express' for 25 years." They apologised, and I believe there is not a newspaper in London which would not take that attitude. I ask the House to believe that it is not true that the advertiser has influence. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] The editor never needs the advertiser. I find on the opposite side of the House such a deep faith in the crookedness of other men, that it is really revolting. The writ of the Pharisee runs through those benches on the other side. Every morning they thank God that they are not as other men, and every night they should apologise to God.
Now I come to the much disputed question of the combines. There is something to be said against combines of any kind, whether they are combines of the Right or of the Left—and, believe me, both exist. I think it would be a very good thing if in every town and every provincial city, newspapers were owned by local investors with local pride. That would be preferable to a combine dictated to, or controlled by, London, but, remember, there is another side to it as well. It is a thing to be balanced rather than to be dialectically decided. If a Royal Commission laid it down that no London newspaper group could invade the provinces, then it is quite possible that a group of men would start a news-
494
paper in a place like Cardiff or Sheffield, knowing that there would be no expert opposition, and so they would make very little attempt to produce a good newspaper, there would be very little talent, the newspaper would be second or third rate, and they would have only one consideration—cutting down expenses to make more money. As against that the combine of various papers, by pooling their expenses, can supply to each paper a much better service of foreign correspondents and so on.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Might I interrupt? This remark has been made twice today, and I am completely impartial on this point, but is it not true to say that the "Manchester Guardian" has a foreign correspondence as good as any of the big combines, although it is a singly-owned paper?
Mr. Baxter: I share the general admiration for the "Manchester Guardian", and I am perfectly certain that if they sent a correspondent, he would be first class. However, I think the "Manchester Guardian", with its limited financial resources, might not be able to cover as many foreign countries as a newspaper like the "Daily Express" or "Daily Mail".
Mr. Wilson Harris: They share it with "The Times".
Mr. Baxter: Then it is a combine, and the argument ceases to exist. In conclusion, I want to put this argument to the House with very great sincerity. One of the things which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby said today was that we should remember how the British Press is regarded abroad, how it is regarded in the Dominions, how it is regarded in the United States of America. All of us in journalism knew what happened before the war in the Paris newspapers, where even the dramatic critics bought the right to criticise so that they could sell their critiques—an idea which we cannot very well incorporate here. Editors were for sale, policies for sale. In my long years in Fleet Street I have never run into corruption of any sort. I can hardly think of any industry or business in the world of which that can be said. In my 30 years there I did not know of a single

495
editor who has retired a rich or wealthy man, and yet an editor of a newspaper has unparalleled opportunities, if he wants to be crooked. There is a pride which extends from the editor and the proprietor down to the rawest reporter. I am very sorry that the gifted and hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) takes so bitter and malignant an attitude towards his own profession. I agree with him about the decline of the editor, but he speaks so bitterly of the newspapers which nurtured him and brought him to his present eminence that I ask him if he has ever seen in any enterprise a head like Lord Beaverbrook—for whom he has no word of gratitude—so enthusiastic about supporting talent, so eager to find new talent, so anxious to give it expression regardless of his own point of view? I ask the hon. Gentleman that question and will willingly give way, if he wants to reply.
Mr. Foot: If I were to describe what went on in the Beaverbrook newspapers, I would have to make another speech, and that would weary the House.
Mr. Baxter: I have given the hon. Gentleman a chance and I think he should have taken advantage of it and should have been more generous. He also mentioned the wickedness of newspapers which publish a sentence or a speech without its context. He was one of the three authors of "Guilty Men" who made a whole book on that—[An HON. MEMBER: "They were all in their context."] Of course he denies it. What else can one do but deny it? However, it is true and I could show him a dozen cases. I know that this Debate has rather unfortunately developed into a clash between the two sides of the House. I am sorry for that, because what are the three pillars on which our society rests? They are Parliament, the courts and the Press.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: What about the Church?
Mr. Baxter: You might include the Church. Well, the four pillars are Parliament, the courts, the Press, and the Church. I am endeavouring to put to the House an important and serious point of view after two incredibly frivolous and unimportant speeches. I am endeavouring to put this question into its proper perspective. It is right that the
496
Press should be criticised; it should be constantly criticised, but when Parliament suddenly says, "We will now institute a Royal Commission of inquiry," I say that you are complaining to the whole world that the Press in this country is no longer to be trusted. I say you are doing infinite harm, and the House tonight should take note of the words uttered, I think, by the hon. Member for Devonport that there have been times in this House, times in the history of this country, when the Government of the day in this House became the oppressors, and the Press were the only champions of liberty. Now this same voice says. "Let us now inquire into this Press which saved you." [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that."] I would say to the House, "Do not be too sure that the day is not now approaching when this House will again be the instrument of tyranny and the Press will be needed to keep your rights." Therefore, in spite of the enthusiasm of those who signed this Motion, I would say, "Think again" and leave it to the Press to take heed of what has been said today, because there are many abuses that the Press would do well to look into. I would say, "Let the Press look after its own affairs." It is sensitive to criticism, as it should be. Let this House not cry shame to the outside world about the most honourable Press in the entire world. I do urge all sections in the House to think twice before they cast this stigma on the great Press of this country.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Driberg: It would take the skill of the dramatic critic of the "Evening Standard" to deal adequately with the serio-comic speech to which we have just listened. However, before coming to other matters, I will try to deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). He complained that there was some division between the two sides of the House on the subject we are debating today—that this had developed during the Debate. I can assure him that from this side there has not been any partisan appeal. I beg him to reconsider the point on which I ventured to interrupt him, because I do not think he answered it effectively. Of course, there are Left wing newspapers, and a number of newspapers which support the Government. They will be included in the scope of the

497
inquiry by the Royal Commission. We do not object to that. If there is anything wrong in the finance or control of "Reynolds News," or the "Daily Worker," I hope it will be brought out. That, in itself, surely does establish the point we have made repeatedly from these benches, that this is not a mere Left-wing, anti-Right-wing Press stunt. Nor, of course, is it as the hon. Member represented it to be, an attack on the Press, or the profession of journalism, as such. On the contrary, we are trying to take a step towards the liberation of the profession of journalism.
Mr. Baxter: May I say then, obviously I had been misled? But, having read the hon. Gentleman's writings, and those of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), which are on the Left wing, I have never yet read a criticism by them of a Left-wing paper. It is only now that they say this. All the criticism has been of the Right.
Mr. Driberg: As a matter of fact, I have frequently criticised the "Daily Herald," and other newspapers of the Left. But it does seem to us who have put our names to the Motion that the gravamen of the charge is against the controllers of the great chains of newspapers of which the hon. Member for Wood Green spoke, such as the Kemsley group. That is why we have concentrated on them in our speeches. We believe they are guilty of the worst of the commercial malpractices to which we have referred and from which, let me repeat, we are trying to liberate the Press, and the profession of journalism.
I did not think that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was quite so effective this afternoon as he must have been at Nuremberg. I am sure that, quite sincerely, we would all wish to congratulate him on the very fine work he did there. But this afternoon I thought that he was both illogical, and a trifle naive, and also that he could not really have listened to the speeches of my two hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Motion; because he, again, fell into the same trap as the hon. Member for Wood Green, representing that this was a Left versus Right partisan affair. He outlined at great length the various newspapers of the Left and of the Right. I
498
agree entirely with his analysis of the national daily newspapers, but I do not agree with his analysis of the Sunday newspapers. I would not describe the "News of the World" as a purely nonpolitical paper. I seem to remember that it took up some attitude at the General Election; but I have not, of course, had time to verify my references. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we are asked to condemn the whole structure of the trade periodicals and so on. Nothing of the kind. No doubt, newspapers and periodicals of every sort will come into the scope of the inquiry, but we do not condemn them all out of hand. We merely say there is a prima facie case for investigation into the finance and control of the Press. It seemed to me that my hon. Friends who opened the Debate overwhelmingly established that prima facie case.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed one or two questions directly to me. One of them, I think, was partly answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon-Walker). He asked what the difference was between a national newspaper with a big circulation printing in London, Manchester, and Glasgow, and a chain of newspapers such as the Kemsley chain, and why, in our view, one was more deplorable than the other. I think the answer is very simple. There is genuine free competition, for instance, between the "Daily Express," the "Daily Mail" and the "News Chronicle." Someone living in a provincial town can buy any one of them he chooses. Where the difference arises is when the Kemsley group—I use that as an example—buys up a local newspaper, suppresses all free competition and wears a mere mask of local interest which disguises the fact that its views are, in fact, dictated from London.
Sir D. Maxwell Fife: Would the hon. Member help me? I would very much like to get this point of view. Can he tell me of any town where that has happened, where there is no competition from the national dailies, or, in Scotland, from the Scottish dailies? If he can I shall be very grateful. In Aberdeen, I believe, the suggestion is completely disproved.
Mr. Driberg: I do not think that is a valid point. I do not regard the national daily newspapers, which carry no local

499
news except when it is of national importance, as being in direct competition with local papers. What we are talking about is the suppression of alternative independent local newspapers, such as was gone into in great detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). Look at South Wales, the North East coast, and all sorts of areas. It is not necessary for me to repeat the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, but I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is not on a valid point there.
My hon. Friend who opened this Debate said that we should declare our interest, and I, for my part, will do so gladly. I am a professional working journalist, and our interest in this Debate is the freedom of the Press. How could it be otherwise? Do hon. Members opposite seriously suggest that half a dozen journalists would put down a Motion on the Order Paper in an attempt to limit the freedom of the Press, and to destroy their own professional freedom? Of course, the idea is absurd. I have worked for 18 years on the London Press, and for 15 years of that time—if I may obtrude a personal note—until three years ago, on the staff of the "Daily Express," and of Lord Beaver-brook, to whom the hon. Member for Wood Green referred. I should like to assure the hon. Member that none of us on this side is moved in any sense by personal animus in this matter. Several of us have had personal quarrels with various newspapers but, for my part, I should like to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Wood Green, and say that personally, although I may deprecate him as a public figure, I do, and always shall, regard Lord Beaverbrook with considerable affection, with great affection and respect—personally. I have found him a very good employer to work for, and a very good employer to be sacked by.
Having said that, I must at once add, in support of this Motion, that it does seem to me, fundamentally, that these newspapers, of which the "Daily Express" is an outstandingly brilliant example, are not properly performing the function which newspapers ought to perform. They are not primarily organs of information and opinion and even entertainment, although they have to throw in
500
incidentally quite a lot of all three. They are primarily commercial properties, just as much so as a big store or a theatre or an hotel. It is because there is that primary fact about them that these tendencies have grown up in recent years, and have taken on a considerable momentum which we hope a Royal Commission will be able to some extent to check, or at any rate to illuminate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, by the way, accused us of misusing the word "monopoly," and he was able, of course, quite easily to show that there is not at present a monopoly in the strict sense of the word. We have not used the word "monopoly." We have referred to "monopolistic tendencies." Surely, the hard figures which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) quoted do show that there is that steady monopolistic tendency. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not really deal with that point at all. He did not answer the figures which were quoted by my hon. Friend.
It is because newspapers of the type we are mainly discussing are primarily commercial properties that we get these influences, such as the influence of the shareholders, the influence of the advertisers, and so on, with which we, who have put down this Motion, are concerned. I say that, despite the very fine imaginative piece in this morning's "Daily Express," written by my old friend and former colleague, Mr. George Malcolm Thomson, who may be described as the keeper of Lord Beaverbrook's Presbyterian conscience, which seemed almost to indicate that it is a loss and a pain for Lord Beaverbrook to run the "Express" at all.
Let me come at once, and quite briefly, to the one aspect of the question with which I should like mainly to deal—that is, the influence of the advertisers, which the hon. Member for Wood Green, as a former editor of many years' service, denies exists, or denies is exercised. I can only say that I was in the same newspaper office with the hon. Member for many of the years of which he was speaking—
Mr. Baxter: I gave the hon. Member his first job.
Mr. Driberg: That is so. I can only testify that, in my own experience as a

501
writer, journalist, and columnist in that newspaper, the influence of the advertisers was exercised constantly throughout that time. They did not usually put it on paper in the crude way which enabled the hon. Member to make the fine show of independence of which he told us. No, it was much more subtle than that. It was sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but always there, and of course the bigger the group of advertisers the more all-pervading it was, and the greater the restriction on the freedom of comment of the individual editor or journalist.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the hon. Member give me an example?
Mr. Driberg: Certainly, I will give the hon. and learned Member three. The first general example I will give is the patent medicine advertisers, who are, collectively, very large advertisers indeed. I am sure the hon. and learned Member will agree that, although there may be one or two honourable and outstanding exceptions, like the incident which the hon. Member for Wood Green quoted, it would be extremely unusual to see, in any big, mass-circulation, national newspaper, an exposure or an examination of the claims of patent medicines by any scientist or doctor of standing. I am aware that the newspapers themselves have taken some steps towards remedying this, and exercise more censorship than they used to over the advertisements of patent medicines. But I still maintain that there is a considerable abuse there, and that no freedom of expression about the claims of that kind of commodity is allowed in any big-circulation newspaper.
Mr. Keeling: Is it not the case that every daily newspaper in this country, before it publishes any patent newspaper advertisement, consults the Advertising Association, which has a special panel which vets all these advertisements on the advice of the medical profession or the Pharmaceutical Society, as the case may be?
Mr. Driberg: I do not know how effective that panel may be, but I still see in popular newspapers daily, all sorts of advertisements which I know cannot be—
Mr. Nally: Will the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) bear in mind that the panel to which he refers, which
502
vets advertisements, pays no attention whatever to the price of the commodity sold in relation to its actual value? All it does is to vet the precise claims made, so that if one is charged 2s. 6d. for something which, in fact, the chemist can sell one for 3d., the Newspaper Proprietors' Association do not trouble about that, and proceed to advertise the commodity.
Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which does reinforce my argument.
Mr. Keeling: I do not think that the hon. Member has dealt with the point. My contention is that the Advertising Association is influenced in its judgment as to whether an advertisement shall be published or not solely by professional advice as to whether the claims that the advertisement puts forward are legitimate or fraudulent.
Mr. Driberg: May I intervene occasionally? I am sure that the factual wording of these advertisements is vetted and is correct, but any hon. Member who is honest and who reads newspaper advertisements knows perfectly well that the skill of the advertiser, the artist, the copywriter, consists in conveying an impression which goes beyond the actual wording of the claim. In addition I believe that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) is valid—that almost all these patent medicines, even where they do what they claim to do, are about three times as expensive as they should be—which is something that the public is entitled to be informed about. The main reason why we are concerned about the freedom of the Press is not that it means freedom for journalists and editors to write what they wish to write; it is much more important than that. It is part of the general civil liberties of the subject. He is entitled to receive true news and fair comment, and we maintain he is not getting a full measure of them.
I put in here one qualification about the advertisers. It is perfectly true that their influence has been considerably lessened during wartime owing to paper rationing, but if large newspapers return again, we can presumably anticipate that the same situation will prevail as prevailed before the war.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not the case that an advertiser advertises in a certain newspaper because he thinks that that newspaper goes into the homes of the people who will, he hopes, purchase his commodity? Surely he does not regard himself as conferring any favour on the newspaper, but as helping himself, if that newspaper circulates in the homes where he hopes to sell his commodity?
Mr. Driberg: The position of the newspaper vis-à-vis the advertiser is really quite different in wartime and in peacetime. In normal peacetime, before the war, I can assure the hon. Member, there was considerable competition amongst newspapers and periodicals to secure the "good advertising accounts." That is the main source of their revenue. In wartime the position is reversed owing to the shortage of paper and the consequent shortage of valuable advertising space. Therefore, advertisers compete with each other for the privilege of appearing in the newspaper advertisement columns. But that is not the normal situation, and it is the normal situation, as I knew it for many years in Fleet Street, to which I am referring.
I promised to give three examples; I have so far given one. The second example I should like to give is the advertising of drink and liquor. I think this may appeal to a number of my hon. Friends on these benches. I am not myself a teetotaller, or an advocate of prohibition, but I must say that, at a time when both the paper and the beer are so scarce, it seems to me to be an anti-social absurdity that so many thousands of acres of paper should be devoted to telling us that "Guinness is good for you," or whatever the eternal truth may be that is proclaimed. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite, if they think about it carefully, will realise that those papers which are so largely subsidised by the brewers' advertisements would think twice, to put it mildly, before indulging in a sustained campaign against the brewers' interests.
My final example is one which has always remained in my mind because it has a comic aspect, and because it serves to illustrate two abuses at once—not merely the influence of the advertisers, but also the complete charlatanism of the newspaper astrologers who, unfortunately,
504
have quite a number of followers among the more superstitious and gullible members of the public. This happened some years ago before the war. I was standing in the office of the features editor of a large capitalist Sunday newspaper. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wood Green can guess which paper I mean. I was reading through the proofs of the next Sunday's page 3 and was glancing at the astrologer's contribution. I noticed that he had, as usual, played fairly safe—at that time—by announcing that there was a considerable risk in flying for the next few weeks. There was a prospect of some air crashes occurring. We were glancing at this when suddenly the advertisement manager came into the room, with a troubled face, and said, " You know, we can't let so-and-so get away with this. We have just got a new series of advertisements from Imperial Airways." That dilemma was solved by a simple procedure. The features editor took the astrologer's article and wrote into it the following words: "The above remarks do not apply to British air-lines, which are astrologically lucky."
I apologise to the House for taking up so much time. I feel that my hon. Friends have made out an overwhelming prima facie case for an inquiry of the kind for which we are asking. I believe such an inquiry would do good even if it did no more than to illuminate what goes on in the finances and control of the Press and to persuade the public, therefore, to read their newspapers more critically and more sceptically.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. Wilson Harris: I ought to begin by disclosing the fact that I am myself a journalist, not on the proprietorial side, except to a quite insignificant degree, but what hon. Members opposite quite properly call a wage-slave, receiving unimpressive emoluments for a great deal of well-intentioned endeavour. But it is not as a journalist that I want to intervene this evening. It matters very little to journalists one way or the other whether a Royal Commission is appointed or not. I intervene simply as a Member of this House sharing with other hon. Members the responsibility for deciding whether the Government should be advised to appoint this Royal Commission or not, for I assume that, on a free vote of the House, the Government will be

505
guided to some extent by the votes in the Division Lobby. That is really not a light responsibility. The appointment of a Royal Commission should not he approached in any spirit of levity. A Royal Commission is an extremely important piece of our constitutional machinery which is only rarely invoked for special purposes. I imagine such Commissions are appointed on an average of not more than one a year. I do not think this Government in the 15 months of their existence have yet appointed such a Commission at all. Therefore, I suggest that we ought to be very clearly convinced of the desirability of this course before we advise the Government that it should be taken. Certainly our decision ought not to rest on any such basis as attacks on particular newspaper proprietors.
The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) reminded me of a not very young lady who, after waiting long for the opportunity, picked up a strawberry at an afternoon party and remarked brightly:
"I come to seize a berry, not to bury a Caesar."
The hon. Member for Devonport has seized a Berry. He has brandished him before the House, squeezed every drop of juice out of him and returned him duly dehydrated to the place from whence he came, to realise once for all that in these days business enterprise is something to be carefully avoided. There was one characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's attack on Lord Kemsley. He accused him of every kind of journalistic crime, of distortion, suppression and misrepresentation, but from first to last I failed to hear one sentence, one word, one syllable, of evidence to support anything he said. Let me say that I have not the honour of knowing Lord Kemsley, and Lord Kemsley has not the honour of knowing me. We were told that Lord Kemsley distorted news at Aberdeen. We were not given a single example of the news which Lord Kemsley distorted. We were told that he was constantly giving this instruction and that instruction to his editors. I should have thought that the hon. Member could have produced one editor who would have told him one piece of instruction which he had received from Lord Kemsley. There was not a word on that subject, not one word. We have no evidence at all. I hold no brief for Lord Kemsley, but what, after all, is his offence? He is a Conservative, and he
506
is the owner of Conservative papers in London and the provinces. Is it really so great a crime that he should expect his provincial editors to take a Conservative view, just as do his London editors? When it comes to an Election, there is not much difference between five or six people chanting in unison, "We want Winston," and one person with a megaphone, shouting, "We want Winston"—particularly when they do not get him in either case.
There is another argument invoked in favour of this course. It has been suggested in print and in conversation, and it came very near to being suggested by the hon Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon-Walker), whose speech, if I may say so, I thought was on a very different level from some made by other hon. Members opposite. It has been suggested that an inquiry of this sort may do some good and will not do any harm. That again is not sufficient ground for appointing a Royal Commission. Neither do I accept the argument by the hon. Member for Smethwick that newspapers ought to welcome this course because, if they are as virtuous as they claim to be, they would be given a clear character. The newspapers in this matter want neither a coat of whitewash nor a white sheet. They will not be greatly moved by either the condonation or the condemnation of a Royal Commission.
There is one very important question which needs to be answered and which I trust the Lord President of the Council will deal with when he gives his reply. Perhaps the Home Secretary, who, I understand, is impersonating him, will pass it on? It is customary for a Royal Commission to be appointed in order to advise the Government of the day with a view to action. The question I want to ask is: Do the Government contemplate action in restriction, or regulation, or regimentation, of the Press, as a result of the findings of the Royal Commission? The hon. Member for Devonport specifically spoke of legislation. The hon. Member for Smethwick spoke of the ends which he suggested might be achieved by legislation. I am bound to say that I regard legislation in regulation of the Press as the first step towards placing the Press on that road which leads to the state in which it finds itself in totalitarian countries, in which it is first organised into corpora-

507
tions, is later put into uniform, and then finds itself the subservient mouthpiece of the Administration.
The real question to be decided is: Are conditions such that the appointment of a Royal Commission is justified, and is there a reasonable prospect that a Royal Commission will yield valuable results? I cannot help thinking that there has been a great deal of exaggeration in regard to the situation as it exists today. We have been told about monopolistic tendencies in the Press. I do not believe—and I am going to quote figures to justify my belief—that any monopolistic tendency exists in what I regard as the essential field of the British Press today. What really matters is what is happening to the eight or nine great national newspapers—those which circulate all over the country. Before the war, they had four-fifths of the circulation of all morning daily newspapers. Today, the provincial papers have had a slightly larger allocation of newsprint, which has altered the proportions a little but, even now, I think we may take it that five-sixths or four-fifths of the newspaper readers of the whole country in the morning, are readers of the London morning papers. These, after all, are the papers of opinion—the evening papers are not that at all to the same degree. There are, of course, Sunday newspapers, but it is the daily drip that counts, and, in any case, the Englishman never believes much of what he hears, or for that matter, reads on Sunday.
In regard to the national papers, the tendency, so far from it being towards monopoly, is definitely against it. The hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) gave figures about the diminution of the London papers. I agree that they did diminish to a small extent in 20 years before the war, largely owing to the voracity—not "veracity"—of the "Daily News," which devoured, first of all, the "Morning Leader," then the "Westminster Gazette" and then the "Daily Chronicle," acquiring in the latter case the paper's name as well as other assets. Apart from that there has been no diminution in the London daily morning papers, in spite of the fact that the "Morning Post" died of its own politics in 1937, and of the mortality of the "Daily Graphic"—though a new
508
"Daily Graphic" sprang up later to take its place. Today no two of these are under the same control. Every one is entirely independent, or a member of a different set of the combines to which reference has been made. These combines are not all nefariously Conservative—not that I mind whether they are or not, for I have no connection with the firm above the Gangway. It is announced only this morning that the Liberal "Westminster Press", which is the property of the Rowntree-Cowdray group, has paid a 20 per cent. dividend instead of one of to per cent. It owns 11 morning papers, seven evening papers and one Sunday paper. In support of the contention that the trend today is away from monopoly, not towards it, let me recall that 25 years ago "The Times" and the "Daily Mail" were under the same control; that is no longer the case today. The "Daily Mail" and "Daily Mirror" were under the same control; that is no longer the case today. The "Daily Telegraph" and "Sunday Times" were under the same control; that is no longer the case today. The whole tendency, so far from it being towards monopoly, is quite definitely and specifically away from it.
But we have heard very little about the actual Motion on the Paper today. To several hon. Members who have supported it it does not seem to count for very much. This Motion, let me recall, expresses:
"public concern at the growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the Press,"
and goes on:
"and with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the Press."
What that means I do not profess to know. I do not know whose opinion is to be expressed, whether the papers shall open their columns to ordinary correspondence from their readers or not or whether it means the opinions of the staff, or what. I certainly do not know what a Royal Commission, or the Government acting upon its advice, can conceivably do about that. Still less do I see how any action of the Government, resulting from the Royal Commission, is going to ensure
"the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news."
There are plenty of misrepresentations in the Press today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred to

509
one flagrant example; there are no worse misrepresentations of the actual situation than some of the Parliamentary reports in the "Daily Herald," but the Government obviously cannot do anything about that. They cannot prescribe the length of the report which the "Daily Herald" is to give OT the allocation of space to different speakers. It manifestly has nothing to do with a Royal Commission.
Then we have been told that there is suppression of news. What nonsense. Of course, there is suppression on a wholesale scale. Hon. Members know as well as I do that every paper has in its office every night ten times as much material as it can get into its pages, and nine-tenths of it has necessarily to be suppressed. It may be that my judgment, or that of other hon. Members, would not coincide with that of the editor as to what should be taken and what left, but it is no use talking about suppression of news and urging that this should be a matter for a Royal Commission. Again, it is said that in any case useful facts about the British Press would be brought to light. That opinion too I beg leave to challenge. I do not believe that a Royal Commission would bring to light anything material which is not available today. There is a very salutary rule governing Questions put down on the Order Paper of this House. An hon. Member is not allowed to put down any Question seeking information which he can get from some other source. How very much stronger is the argument against appointing a Royal Commission for extracting information which hon. Members may extract for themselves if they choose?
Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is the hon. Member aware that the last "P.E.P." report gave facts and figures about the financial control of the Press, but that it is impossible to publish figures showing where the control really lies?
Mr. Harris: I have probably read that admirable report much more carefully than the hon. Member, but the Cohen Report had not then been published and the legislation now promised by the Government was not in prospect. We have this most admirable "P.E.P." report, which practically tells one everything one wants to know about the Press in all its bearings and aspects; we have the "Stock Exchange Year Book" and the "Direc-
510
tory of Directors" and as soon as the Cohen Report regarding company law and the publication of the facts about subsidiaries becomes law, we shall have got everything conceivable in the way of information about the newspaper Press of this country; and it would be a most improper thing to go to the extent of appointing a Royal Commission to acquire information which can quite easily be obtained from other sources. This House is not itself called on to pass judgment on the Press this evening. It is very much in the position of the old grand jury, which no longer exists, charged with reading the indictment and deciding whether there was a case to go to trial or not and returning a true bill or no bill. I urge that in this matter a verdict of "No Bill" should be returned by this House—first of all because such an inquiry is completely unnecessary; not a word has been spoken tonight to prove its necessity. I find it rather remarkable, incidentally, that a Government which refused an inquiry into the B.B.C., which is a direct responsibility of the House, the Government should, in spite of what the Prime Minister said in April contemplate instituting an inquiry into the working of the newspaper Press. As I have said, such an inquiry is unnecessary, and I believe that it would prove futile unless it resulted in legislation, which I think would be reprehensible in the last degree.
It has been suggested that the great remedy would be publicity. How is that to be achieved? What are the instruments of publicity today? Is this House going to say to the newspapers, "We are going to find out all the worst that can be said against you. We are going to set up a Royal Commission to inquire and make a report on your misdemeanours, and shall rely on you to give that report all the publicity possible"? If a Royal Commission is appointed, I am sure that the Press of this country will treat the matter objectively and fairly as, in the main, it treats all matters. To ask it to go further is something which people whose minds are ordered on the basis of reason could hardly suggest. Such an inquiry, moreover, would be not only futile but entirely untimely.
What is the state of the newspaper Press today? What has been its state during the last six years? Some news-

511
papers today have just been enabled to produce a third sheet every other day, But they are not the newspapers we used to know; they are not the normal newspapers of this country. Let us get back to something like normality before we inquire into their virtues or their vices. I hope the House will reject this Motion, finally, because it is mischievous. I believe that hon. Members opposite will admit that we have the best Press in the world or, at any rate, as good as any in the world. Is it necessary to proclaim to the whole world that our Press is guilty of the charges preferred against it today? The unfortunate thing is that hon. Members opposite in an attempt to bolster up their case must try to blacken the Press to the utmost degree possible—and I must admit that their efforts in that direction have been pretty creditable.
I happen to have had a trivial experience of the effect of that process myself. The other day, like other hon. Members, I went down to the German prisoners-of-war camp at Beaconsfield and addressed them on the British Press. I gave a general account of its working and its position, and among the many intelligent questions which I was asked was, "If the British Press is in the state that you describe, why this clamour for an inquiry into it? "That point of view had not escaped this particular class of men and does not escape people of other countries. I repeat that, in my opinion, the proposed inquiry should be resisted because it is unnecessary, because it is futile, untimely and mischievous, and I would, therefore, ask the House to take advantage of the freedom given to it tonight and to vote against this Motion.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Thurtle: I am sorry that the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion were not more specific about what they want done concerning the Press. The only specific proposal which we have had so far is that the chain of provincial newspapers should be dealt with. The House was given an entirely false picture of the position of provincial newspapers. We were led to believe that, until the provincial newspapers were taken over by some of the chain newspapers, the position in the provinces was idealistic. The suggestion was made that the chain newspapers have
512
come along and spoilt the position then prevailing. I know a little about the position of newspapers in the provinces. They were usually owned either by rabid Conservatives or rabid Liberals of a rather narrow minded type, and under such ownership there wa, no likelihood of a broadminded policy being pursued. I suggest that the advent of the chain newspapers in the provinces has certainly not weakened or made that position more unsatisfactory, because it was thoroughly unsatisfactory in the past owing to the attitude of the individual proprietors.
On the question of standing up to strong local interests, which is very important to provincial newspapers, is it suggested that small town proprietors could withstand local pressure? Nothing of the sort. They were in a weak position and were inclined to give way to combined local pressure. So far as that is concerned, I suggest that the chain newspapers are in a much stronger position, both financially and otherwise, to resist the pressure of local interests. I am going to vote against this Motion for exactly the same reason as that given by the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). I do not think there is any real justification for it. The mover of the Motion referred in the most eulogistic terms to the "P.E.P." report on the Press. I wish that all hon. Members who have not read that report would do so, because it is an extraordinarily illuminating document. Until I read that report yesterday, I had an open mind as to whether I would back this Motion or not, but, having read it, I have come to the conclusion that there is no justification for asking for a Royal Commission. I will tell the. House why. This Commission is designed to be a fact finding Commission. The "P.E.P." report is of a most exhaustive characted and its integrity was confirmed by the mover of the Motion. A great many experienced journalists were engaged in its compilation, and it surveyed the whole field of this proposed inquiry, including finance, control, management and ownership. Hon. Members will have some idea of the comprehensive and thorough nature of this report when I tell them that its length exceeds 170,000 words. I suggest that that report has provided us with all the facts that are necessary.
Mr. Haydn Davies: The hon. Gentleman confesses that he only read the report yesterday. The whole fundamental point of the report is that the people who compiled it could not get sufficient facts on which to form a judgment.
Mr. Thurtle: I read the report carefully and did not notice that much stress was laid upon that particular point.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is using the report as the basis of his argument. The introductory chapter of that report reveals the fact that there was insufficient evidence on which to form a judgment.
Mr. Thurtle: Although that fact may appear somewhere in the report, the people responsible for it certainly laid no stress upon it in their recommendations. What they said was that, having acquired the information, they were not in a position to recommend that any Government action should be taken. It is true that the report was made in 1938, but I do not think it can seriously be suggested that the structure of the Press has altered in any important respect since 1938. My considered view is that we already have the facts in that report and, therefore, there is no need further to pursue the question of fact finding. What we have to consider is whether, on the basis of those facts, any action is required. The hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) admitted that this was a very impartial and objective Committee. Their verdict is that there should be no governmental action. They said:
'We axe satisfied that the British Press as it exists today is incomparably superior as a purveyor of information and as an organ of opinion to any other Press in the world."
I hope no one in this House is prepared to dissent from that opinion.
1 would remind the House that there has been no official censorship of the Press in this country since 1695. I observe that the person who attacked John Milton for his plea for the liberty of the Press was successful inasmuch as he was given the office of censor of the Press. I hope there will not be any repetition of that sort of thing in this Parliament. I put it to the Lord President of the Council that it would be a melancholy thing if, in this first Parliament in which there is an effective Socialist majority, we should have a repetition of that reward for advocating the restriction of the freedom of
514
the Press. There was once a leather merchant of Fleet Street, a Mr Praise God Barebones, who gave his name to a Parliament. I would be sorry if the Lord President, because of his apparent terror of the name of Beaverbrook, were to cause this to go down in history as the "Press Gag Parliament."
My name has been mentioned in connection with the "Sunday Express." I make no apology for writing in the "Sunday Express." In doing that I am only following the example of many of my hon. Friends who now sit on the Front Bench and a number of my hon. Friends who sit behind the Front Bench. I am not here to defend Lord Beaverbrook the "Express" newspapers are well able to do that themselves—but I would like to point out that, in my experience, the "Daily Express" and the other "Express" newspapers allow a great deal more liberty to the people who write and draw for them than some of the other newspapers under different control. I do not wish to say unkind things, but I am inclined to think that the editor of the "Daily Herald" would rejoice if he enjoyed as much freedom of expression as do many of the people working in the "Daily Express." Let me quote this as the creed of the "Express" newspapers, my Lord President.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should address me, not the Lord President.
Mr. Thurtle: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking, through you, to direct the attention of the Lord President to these words:
"It must be stated that the columns of the 'Express' newspapers are open to writers and cartoonists of talent whatever their political opinions, that no censorship of their views would ever be contemplated, and that no attempt would be made to place any limitations on the free expression by contributors, and staff of the view points which they hold. Ally other course would be an infringement of the freedom of the Press, which no editorial consideration could justify, and nothing would persuade the 'Express' newspapers to interfere in any way with the work of Low, Strube or Giles or with the contributions of journalists of the Left."
Mr. Driberg: Complete rubbish.
Mr. Thurtle: I think that that is a very fine statement. Let me continue:
"At the same time, while the freedom of individual writers is sustained, the beliefs which the newspapers hold will continue to be given constant expression in the editorial columns."
I am only a journalist in a very modest

515
way, but in my experience that sort of freedom has been allowed to exist, and it is not a bad newspaper creed. If it were to obtain, which I doubt, in papers like the "Daily Herald" and the "Daily Worker" the people working on those newspapers would be a great deal happier.
Mr. Collins: Would it not be a good thing if the Royal Commission were able to investigate what the hon. Gentleman has just alleged?
Mr: Thurtle: It would be if the facts about control and management were not already known, but my point is that those facts are already known and, therefore, it is unnecessary to have this Royal Commission. The report to which I have referred mentioned various possible methods of dealing with the great combines. It spoke of the restriction of circulation. There has been a suggestion that the circulation of newspapers should be restricted to two million. I do not know on what ground this House of Commons could say that a citizen should not be allowed to buy the newspaper he wants because two million other citizens have already decided that they want that particular newspaper. I suggest to the Lord President that if the Government once start denying a man the right to have the newspaper of his choice, they will be getting rather near to compelling a man to have the newspaper they wish him to have. I do not know whether it is within the recollection of the House that before and during the war in Germany, if a man and woman went to the altar to be married one of the conditions on which their marriage was made effective was that they should buy a copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf." I hope the day will not come when one of the conditions on which a man and woman may go to the altar in this country will be a year's subscription to the "Daily Herald." On the question of limiting the number of our newspapers—because that is another proposal which has been made—who is to determine how many newspapers there shall be, whether half a dozen, a dozen or 18 will be sufficient to cover all the varying points of view and interests which exist among our people? I do not think there is any competent individual, or any competent panel of individuals capable of determining that. Therefore, that is no solution.
516
I come to my final point. I do not think this is a question of millionaire finance, or anything of that sort. In the great newspaper world there is a tremendous competitive fight for circulation. Circulation is the key to finance, because circulation is the key to advertising. If a newspaper gets great circulation, it gets great advertising and great income. If circulation is really the test, how are the great circulations to be achieved? They are to be achieved by the degree of judgment displayed by the editors—and the proprietors, if you will—in divining what the people want, and how best the presentation of news and the various other things in the newspaper will appeal to the greatest possible number. If their judgment is good, up goes the circulation; if their judgment in this respect is bad, down goes the circulation.
Major Cecil Poole: How does it stay the same?
Mr. Thurtle: I would suggest that as far as political bias is concerned—and, of course, there is bias in all newspapers—there is a kind of automatic corrective in the question of circulation. If a newspaper—and I do not care which newspaper, or what its political colour—carries the bias too far there is a reaction among its readers, who drop the paper, and the circulation goes down. All newspapers are concerned with circulation, and circulation is the key note of finance—and we have heard a great deal about finance. That is all I wish to say, except to repeat, that I think there is no case for this fact finding Commission because the facts are already known. There has been a lot of talk in general terms, but I have not heard a case, made out. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) suggest that he has suffered any great repression in practising his career as a journalist. I have heard no evidence that journalists have been suffering acutely from the repressive tactics of their employers. Therefore, because there is no ground for this fact finding commission, and because there has been no evidence of any real evil of a serious and urgent character in the newspaper world, I shall vote against this Motion. It is a free vote, and I invite my hon. Friends to think over the issue carefully before they decide to go into the Lobby in support of this Motion. We have heard a lot of libertarian talk, but I would remind this House that many times in the past the

517
vocabulary of liberty has been used in order to take away the freedom of the people.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Norman Smith: I will pass over what is to me the very melancholy spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle)—who apparently since yesterday has managed, not only to prepare a speech with sedulous care, but also to read a report of 170,000 words—expressing his preference for chain newspapers in provincial towns rather than locally owned newspapers. I have prepared no speech at all. I wish to deal with the four points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). He asked for evidence. He said he did not believe there was any such thing as deliberate distortion or suppression. I will give him the evidence. I do not need to go any farther back than this morning's "Daily Express" to find a piece of distortion which could only have been deliberate. I have it in my hand. The victim was the hon. Member for South Nottingham, who is, I admit, a supremely unimportant Member of this House. However, he is a Member of this House, and this is the sort of treatment to which the hon. Member for South Nottingham is exposed by the "Daily Express." Yesterday, I asked a Question about leaflets being circulated to the customers of the West Kent Electric Company along with their quarterly accounts. I quoted the leaflet, and I called it a mendacious statement, which said—in the present tense—that
"under nationalisation the cost of coal is going up and up."
The House will note I used the present tense. Coal is not yet nationalised. What do I find? I find the "Daily Express," merely by the very simple trick of altering the tense from the present to the future, makes it read like this:
"Mr. Norman Smith (Socialist, South Nottingham): 'Under nationalisation the mice of coal will go up,'"
which completely destroyed my point, and robbed it of any value at all. We all know it goes on, and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby cannot tell me he does not know.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave figures. He said, I think, that there were 1,200 local newspapers. I do not complain about the figure; I do not know
518
what the figure is. However, this I do know—and this is the point he ignored—whatever the number is now, it used to be more. There are fewer. Local newspapers are being absorbed by the chains. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for an instance of a town where there is no competition. I will tell him. I do not need to go farther than the town in which I was born and spent my boyhood. In Swindon we had two rival newspaper houses battling with each other every week, bat one gobbled the other up and now there is only one. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Every interruption is taking up more of our time, and we are already getting speeches which average half an hour.
Mr. Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was consumer demand; that the consumer could choose. I see the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) is in his place. I happen to be fascinated by the topic of finance. Whether I understand it or not, I do not know. But I used to be very fond of the "Financial News," and I hated the "Financial Times." Until a few months ago I bought the "Financial News," and read it with my breakfast every morning. Along comes the right hon. Member for Bournemouth and says, "You cannot have it any more. Never mind the consumer demand. I say you are to have the 'Financial Times,' and you have got to have it."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made great play with the apology, which many of us regretted, that was forthcoming recently from the learned Attorney-General. This brings me to a very important matter of which I beg my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to take notice. What went on in the mind of the learned Attorney-General I do not know. This I do know, that I am a working journalist; I have had 30 years in Fleet Street and I know that every journalist lives in daily terror of the law of libel because it is so capricious and in so unsatisfactory a state. There has been no legislation about it since 1889, and we are all at the mercy of special juries. I once had a libel action brought against my proprietors, who had to pay £500 to a Shoreditch chemist who said we had damaged his reputation with an alleged libel. We were able to prove

519
that in the six months following the alleged libel the takings of his chemist's shop had gone up and up, but he got damages out of us.
I know that a speaker can be addressing a meeting and may, when interrupted, let slip a remark which, when he thinks about it in the morning, he knows perfectly well is actionable, and because of this unsatisfactory law of libel he may think it necessary to apologise. Most libel cases are actually settled, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, out of court before the event. I hope, if for no other reason, that we get the Royal Commission so that the law of libel may be amended. I know what I am talking about. I have had a lot of experience. [Laughter.] Yes, I have. I know hon. Members opposite do not like to hear an expert talking that which he knows. I hope, if for no other reason, that this Royal Commission will come about, because I say, in the light of my experience, that this unsatisfactory law of libel militates against the freedom of the Press.
I believe that, in the future, political influence will reside not so much with daily papers as with pictorial magazines and weeklies. That is already the case in the United States of America; and I do hope that the word "Press" in this Motion will be interpreted to cover all publications, magazines as well as daily papers. I hope that that is so. I am going into the Lobby with my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion, and I trust that the party on this side will all of them do so.
7. 11 p.m.
Mr. Max Aitken: I must first let the House know that I am connected with the Press, not only financially, but in an executive capacity, in that I am general manager of the "Sunday Express". I have worked in newspapers for 15 years—except, of course, for the six years of the war when I was away—15 years in which, I think, I have got to know the business pretty well. I have seen the growth of large newspapers; I have seen them grow into very important newspapers; I have seen very important newspapers fall and fail; I have seen combines grow, and I have seen combines fail.
The first thing that I should like to say about the proposed inquiry is that no
520
man knowing anything about newspapers has objection to it on personal grounds. A man whose conscience is clear has no qualms when a policeman comes to his house and asks about a burglary; but when the detectives arrive and start uprooting his house, moving the furniture, pulling up the carpets, questioning his wife, and, perhaps, worse still, being rude to the cook then, I think, he may feel a certain resentment. In short, is this inquiry likely to accomplish anything? The question is interesting on public as well as private grounds. It may be quite a minor thing that newspapers will be put to greater inconvenience by the inquiry. A great deal of time, in my opinion, will be wasted by editors, subeditors and managers giving evidence before the Commission. A very important point is that public money will be spent on it, and that the time of public men and officials will be wasted on it. Is it going to find out anything we do not know already, is it going to provide better and improved conditions in the industry, an industry which already has magnificent conditions and extremely high wages? Or is it simply going to use public funds in order to satisfy the idle curiosity of some of the Members opposite?
There is one reason, it seems to me, for supposing that the inquiry, while it may yield a good deal of entertainment, would not make a serious contribution to national knowledge: the inquiry is based, first of all, on the assumption that the Press is and is becoming increasingly a monopoly. If a monopoly could be reconciled with competition, more violent and aggressive than in any branch of human activity, except, perhaps, that of Back Benchers on the other side of the House trying to get on to their own Front Bench—if that competition can be defined as a monopoly, then, perhaps, the Press could be called monopolistic. It might be reasonable to hold an inquiry into the Press on the grounds of increasing public and private concern at the violence of the competition which threatens the position and even the existence of some worthy newspapers.
I have been looking into figures, as Members on both sides of the House have been, and I have got some up-to-date figures which, I hope, the House will listen to, and in which it will be interested. There are 11 national morning newspapers, including the "Daily Worker" and the "Manchester

521
Guardian "—because, in the newspaper industry, we count the "Manchester Guardian" as a national newspaper—with a sale of 15,000,000 per day. There are 34 provincial morning newspapers with a sale of 3,000,000. There are three London evening newspapers with a sale of 3,350,000. There are 8o provincial evening newspapers with a sale of 7,000,000.
Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the hon. Gentleman forgive me? Did he say 34 provincial morning newspapers?
Mr. Aitken: Yes, there are 34 provincial morning newspapers. There are 80 provincial evening newspapers with a sale of 7,000,000. There are 16 Sunday newspapers, national and provincial, with a sale of 26,000,000. There are 859 provincial weekly newspapers with a sale of 10,500,000; and 560 small, unclassified newspapers with a sale of 1,000,000—a total of 1,563 publications with a total sale of 65,850,000.
Mr. Driberg: May I interrupt? I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's extremely well written speech. Did he hear the figures given by the mover of the Motion, which show that there used to be many more newspapers and that, though there is not a monopoly—nobody said there was there is a monopolistic tendency?
Mr. Aitken: I am giving figures to show there is not even a monopolistic tendency, nor any form of monopoly. An inquiry based on a monopoly would be based, not on distortion of the facts, but on direct contravention of them.
The Motion deals next with the "free expression of opinion." Dealing with that question from the point of view of the group of newspapers with which I am associated, I should like to say that since the Socialist Government came into power the "Daily Express," the "Evening Standard and the "Sunday Express" have published 98 articles by Socialist writers on Socialist ways. I am bound to say that the Socialist Press, the "Daily Herald," "The People" and "Reynolds News" have not published one single article by the Opposition. Many hon. Members opposite say they do not get a fair show in the newspapers in the reports of the Debates. Speaking for my group, I should like to point out to them that, taking the major Debates since they came into power, they have obtained in the "Daily Express",—the "Evening
522
Standard" is published in the afternoons and is too early; and as the House does not sit on Saturdays the "Sunday Express" does not publish Parliamentary reports—the "Daily Express" have published 1,165 column inches of reporting of the Government, whereas the Opposition have received only 582 inches. I think the Socialist Government ought to be very grateful for these' figures.
The next point of the Motion is furtherance of the "greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news." We all agree with that. Every journalist does. I regret the mistake in the "Daily Express" which the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) mentioned. I am sure the "Daily Express" regrets it just as much. Accuracy is what we all strive for.
Mr. Norman Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him?
Earl Winterton: Mr. Speaker, may I call attention to the fact that when an hon. Member rose on this side to put a question, you replied that it would be better if there were no interruptions?
Mr. Speaker: I did make that request, and I make that request again.
Mr. Aitken: Many people, many of them Members of Parliament, often come to me and say, "Did you see that gross piece of misrepresentation or of bad reporting in a certain newspaper?" Someone came to me to say that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) managed to be left out of a report of the rally at the Albert Hall. My reply always is, "Editors and news editors have different values of news." And rightly so—absolutely. Some dramatic critics thought that "Caesar and Cleopatra" was very bad. Other critics thought it was good, but at least they are entitled to their own opinion. Thank God we still have different editors and different views throughout the country, and not a State-appointed editor sitting in Whitehall. As for the advertisers, I can assure the House that I am speaking for all the Press when I say that they have not the slightest influence on the editorial columns of the papers. For why? Because there is double the amount of advertising trying to get into the papers than the newspapers can take. No newspaper has to be influenced by any advertiser.
Mr. Scollan: What about the American films?
Mr. Aitken: As to the control of the Press, I have given the House the number of newspapers, a few of which are controlled by one group or individual, and newspapers obviously give power to the man at the top. But that power can be dissipated overnight. The public can dissipate that power by not buying his newspaper [An HON. MEMBER: "And doing without."] There are plenty of newspapers in the country, as I have illustrated in the figures I have given to the House Some time ago the Government were good enough to give us some more newsprint. The public can buy any newspaper they want, any newspaper at all, and therefore the Government themselves have wiped out a very large part of the monopoly which had been introduced through lack of newsprint during the war years. A newspaper now sells on its merits. There are no circulation inducements at all, no free gifts, no offers of insurance, no Encyclopædia Britannicas to be had for nothing. A newspaper today is a straightforward news sheet, with its opinion put in its opinion column. Newspapers have nothing to hide, they are open to all inquiries and to all commissions, but I would like to say that their war record and their peace record have been examples to the rest of the world in freedom, decency and integrity, and I am proud to be associated with such a fine body of men and women as constitute the British Press.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I also have to inform the House that I am a member of the National Union of Journalists, and a working journalist who has earned his living in Fleet Street. I think that those of us who are in Fleet Street and speak today, although we may claim some knowledge of this subject, must also he rather careful to clear our minus of prejudice. One cannot spend 15 years in Fleet Street without contracting a certain number of sectional and even personal prejudices. Fleet Street also has its own particular sort of cant. There is a great deal of cant, if I may say so, about the freedom of the Press, and there are other sorts. What those of us who are journalists have to do is to clear our minds of all these presuppositions, and try to re-examine what is, after all, a great question of national policy in the dispas-
524
sionate spirit which it deserves. I would like to congratulate the Government, first of all, on their decision to leave this matter to a free vote of the House. That at least has done something to encourage free speech this afternoon, though for myself I am rather sorry that the Debate so far has developed on such party lines, because 1 do not believe that that entirely represents opinion in the country as a whole.
1 would like to say as simply as I can that I myself believe most profoundly in the freedom of the Press, but I also believe in the freedom of the ordinary man to criticise the Press millionaires. The Press lords of this country have been exercising their right of freedom of speech very vigorously for many years past, and, therefore, I think that some us will now be in order today in speaking freely about them. I should like to speak particularly freely about Lord Beaverbrook, who has already been mentioned in several parts of the House. The way these Press lords have conducted their newspapers in the last 20 years is thoroughly germane to this Debate, and, therefore, I want to speak very freely about Lord Beaverbrook. Lord Beaverbrook seems to me—and this my considered opinion—to be a man who, during the last 20 years, has used his papers to frustrate practically every good cause and encourage practically every bad cause. He took a leading part in his newspapers in the movement which effectively defeated and frustrated the League of Nations, and so, in my view, helped to make war certain. But after that, at the time when war was at hand and when war had actually arrived, Lord Beaverbrook and his papers did even greater disservice to this country.
The House will remember how the "Daily Express" told us every day during 1938 that there was going to be no more war That was the time when Dr. Goebbels was trying to lull us all into a false sense of security, and it was the duty of British newspapers to warn this country of the dangers which were coming. But it was not merely in 1938, but right on into 1939 that we were given these optimistic forecasts in the "Daily Express," and since hon Members opposite—the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and the hon Member for Holborn (Mr. Aitken)—have denied that the advertisers have had any considerable influence on the Press, I think I

525
must say one word on that, although I had not so intended. As one who has worked for 12 years in Fleet Street, I must say that it is absolute humbug to say that the advertisers have had no influence. We can have many arguments about this subject—and I agree with some of the things said on the other side of the House—hut that is absolute humbug, and hon. Members opposite who know anything about Fleet Street must know it. There was that pressure at that time, and the point I am making is that Lord Beaverbrook's newspaper carried on this line of propaganda right up to the war and right into the war.
There have been complaints from the other side today that hon. Members on this side who have criticised the Press lords have not given chapter and verse for what they have said. For that reason I would like to read three very short quotations from the "Daily Express" which I have brought here this afternoon. I would like hon. Members to notice very clearly the dates of these quotations. The first is from the "Daily Express" of 18th July 1939. The "Daily Express" told us that day, in a panel, that:
"There was no war last year, and there will be no European war involving Britain this year either."
On 7th August, 1939, it actually said that:
"'Daily Express' reporters in Europe believe that there will be no war his this year."
Even after the war had started, when the submarine campaign had begun and when this country, as we all know, was threatened with the worst peril to its food supplies and its shipping lines that it had ever experienced, this was the sort of thing one could read in the "Daily Express." I quote from the leader of 21st November, 1939, three months after the war had started:
The public should revolt against the food rationing system, that dreadful and terrible iniquity which some of the Ministers want to adopt. There is no necessity for the trouble and expense of rationing merely because there may be a shortage of this or that inessential commodity. It is admitted everywhere now that butter is plentiful, and full supplies are coming in, and the sinking of ships in the North Sea will not interfere with them seriously. The shortage of bacon will only be temporary."
Mr. Boothby: May I ask the hon. Member one question?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Boothby: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is only this. I do not see what the point of this argument is unless the hon. Member wants to control opinion by legislation
Mr. Jay: If the hon. Member will wait five seconds, he will see the point of my quotations. Those quotations have their funny side, but they also have their serious side, and it seems to me that such a degree of frivolity and irresponsibility at such a time amounted to little more than doing Dr. Goebbels' work for him. That, Mr. Speaker, was my calculated opinion of Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers at that time.
Mr. Speaker: I have been in some difficulty during this Debate. It is perfectly obvious that Lord Beaverbrook is associated with the "Daily Express" as Lord Kemsley is with other papers, but I think it is a pity that we should use the names of the noble Lords so often. We can say, the "Daily Express," the "Sunday Times," or whatever it may be, expressed these views, but we are not supposed to attack Members of another place.
Mr. Jay: Those, Mr. Speaker, were the opinions of the "Daily Express." I have already said that they were to me detestable opinions. Nevertheless, I believe, and I say with emphasis, that if those were the opinions of the proprietors or editors of the "Daily Express" they had the right to express them.
Mr. Thurtle: Is the hon. Member aware that when the "Daily Express" said, on 7th August, 1939, that there would be no war in Europe that year, it was quite unaware that the very next day Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany would have signed a pact?
Mr. Jay: It so happens that I have another quotation of 11th August, when it said the same thing, but I did not wish to weary the House by reading too many quotations. It seems to me that whatever we think of these opinions, we must allow that these gentlemen who own newspapers have a right to express them. But I ask hon. Members opposite to think sincerely whether they do not agree that this is by no means the end of the story. We have heard something about certain other newspaper proprietors today who perhaps have not been exercising the right of free-

527
dom of speech quite so long and so loudly, but have been exercising another of the four freedoms of Fleet Street, and that is, the right to buy up hitherto independent rival newspapers and form great financial combines.
Even though we must allow these gentlemen, if they do own their newspapers, to express what opinions they choose, there is another and serious issue before us. It seems to me that the proposer and seconder of this Motion fully made out their case on these grounds. That issue, which is the really serious issue, arises from the fact that newspapers nowadays are not merely a form of writing or expression, but are also an industry, and for that reason we see at work a tendency to amalgamate and combine. It is for precisely the same reason as that which is seen in other industries—the economies which can be effected by large-scale organisation. This tendency is at work not only in this country, but in other countries, and it will continue to be at work.
This tendency had gone so far in this country 20 years ago, that hon. Members will recollect that at the time of the Zinoviev letter election about 90 per cent. of the national daily newspapers were in the hands of a very few proprietors, most of whom held Conservative opinions. Hon. Members opposite will agree with me that experience shows that millionaires tend to have Conservative opinions. Whether we like it or not, there is this persistent tendency, in any political democracy where private enterprise prevails, for the great majority of newspapers to fall into the hands of a very few rich men. I ask hon. Members opposite to take this point seriously. I suggest that it constitutes a serious threat to political democracy. I believed 20 years ago, at the time of the Zinoviev letter, that there was a serious problem arising from that in this country. Perhaps I may say that it was because I felt so strongly about it myself, that I went into the profession of journalism and later joined the "Daily Herald." I felt that the realities of democracy in this country could only be saved by building up serious newspapers which held the alternative point of view. That is the real problem as I see it.
It is a real and serious problem. Nevertheless, the advice I would like to
528
give to the House tonight, very diffidently but earnestly, is that on balance we should do best to leave this matter alone. Hon. Members may ask why I say that. There is a considerable body of middle opinion on this subject. The proposer and seconder fully made out their case for saying that these abuses exist, and I do not think it is any good trying to deny them on the score of advertisements, the provincial Press and many other points. But for three reasons, I suggest that although they do exist, it may be wiser to refrain at this period from an inquiry of this kind.
My first reason is that, as compared with 20 years ago, the situation has improved. At the time of the Zinoviev letter we had something like 90 per cent. of the Press on the Conservative side. At the time of the General Election last summer, from the figures which have been given today, we can see that the figure for the national Press was more like 60 per cent. I agree that the position is not nearly as good if we include the provincial Press, but it has nevertheless substantially changed. Those who went into journalism 20 years ago to try to redress the balance can claim some sort of success for restoring the balance. Some credit should be given, in particular, to the present Foreign Secretary, who, among all his other creative achievements, first conceived the idea of a great popular "Daily Herald" supported by the T.U.C.
I believe that since the days of the Zinoviev letter, and the tricks which the "Daily Mail" used to practise, the British electorate have grown up. The British electorate have grown up partly due to the development of the great popular Left wing newspapers—the "Daily Herald," the "News Chronicle" and the "Daily Mirror" in particular. As a journalist I would say it is very easy for all sorts of people to sneer at popular newspapers, whether they are of the Left or of the Right. There are very great practical difficulties in producing a newspaper which not merely tries to express a serious political message, but also seeks to be read voluntarily by millions of readers. It is very easy to produce a propaganda sheet which no one reads. I suggest that the development of the Left wing newspapers has materially altered the situation. Although I have the greatest sympathy with, and respect for, the arguments put forward, I think that

529
some of the enthusiasts for this inquiry are in danger of falling into the same error which the Leader of the Opposition made in July, 1945—the error of not understanding that the British electorate have grown up.
My second reason is that whatever we do and say, and however innocuous the terms of reference—the ones drawn up by the mover and supporters of the Motion are as good as can be—this inquiry will be misunderstood. It will not merely be misunderstood, but it will, of course, be maliciously misrepresented, and it will not be Members on this side who will maliciously misrepresent it. I am afraid that this will lead us into a long and tedious controversy which may, in the end, do no good to any of us.
My third and last reason is that I cannot persuade myself that an inquiry will produce any very substantially useful results. I fully agree that it will bring a lot of information to light that we have not yet obtained, but I cannot help thinking that the chief result will be that, after a great deal of laborious "muck raking," we shall discover that proprietors of a newspaper, if they hold the majority of the shares, can have the right to appoint an editor, unless there is some arrangement to the contrary. We all know that already. Maybe other facts will be discovered, but I doubt whether they will throw more light on the really essential question before us—whether the present financial control of the Press is interfering with freedom of speech.
The papers for which I happened to work, the "Economist," and the "Daily Herald," have an arrangement by which political control is divorced, by the constitution of the paper, from financial control. That is a very good system and it does not deserve some of the sneers we have heard about it from the other side of the House. While we are on the subject of the "Daily Herald," perhaps I might say that the policy of that paper is not actually controlled by the Government of the day, as has been suggested, but by the Labour Party Conference, which is not absolutely the same thing. But I do not see how we can enforce such an arrangement on proprietors of a paper if they are not prepared to accept it. In any case, it seems that the material facts are well known, and I cannot persuade myself that a high-powered in-
530
vestigation would carry us very much further.
In conclusion, it seems to me that this inquiry is unnecessary, may be injurious, and, I think, will very likely be futile. What we all ought to do is to devote ourselves to building up organs of opinion which support the convictions that we ourselves hold, and, unless the case is absolutely proven, leave the rest alone. The question of the freedom of the Press is so important that I would like to see this country and the Labour Movement not merely right, but also above suspicion. Therefore, I say again, with great diffidence and with great respect for the opinions and arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House, but also with great conviction, that, on balance, I hope we shall leave things alone.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. W. J. Brown: This is a very remarkable day. It is the first day since July of last year, and, indeed, for a good many years before then, that the freely elected representatives of free constituencies of free Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen, are to be left free, by the Government of the day, to vote as they think fit on an important issue coming before this House. Yesterday we were not free; today we are free. Tomorrow freedom will have departed again. And as it departs I imagine that we shall hear its spirit pathetically complaining:
"If I was so soon to be done for, I wonder what I was begun for?"
But, at any rate, for one night we are free to make up our minds, whether we want a Royal Commission on the Press, or whether we do not.
I am bound to say that much of what we have heard during the three or four hours we have debated this matter seems, to me, with the best will in the world, to be a bit beside the point. The dearness of patent medicines is no case for having a Royal Commission into the Press. It may be a case for controlling the price of medicines. It is irrelevant to the issue to argue that we can safely vote for this Motion without fear of curtailing freedom, because journalists would not try to destroy their own liberty. I am quite sure that that is right. I do not think they would try, but I think they might easily succeed in doing so without trying, and without

531
knowing what they were doing. It is also irrelevant to argue that Lord Beaverbrook was wrong in saying, "War will not come this year, or next year." It is obvious that he was wrong in that regard. But he was not alone in being wrong, and the people in this House who thought he was wrong, were those who strongly resisted preparations for the occasion should he be wrong. So, I do not think we shall get very far by going back to what Lord Beaverbrook said, or did not say, in 1936. 1937 or 1938.
Nor do I think that we shall get far by asking what are the prospects for modern, up-to-date C. P. Scotts? One could ask what are the prospects of producing more Lloyd Georges or Churchills, and the answer is: Within the strict confinements of the party system in this House, very few indeed. In the same way as the C. P. Scotts of today will not be allowed to emerge into journalism, equally the Churchills and Lloyd Georges of tomorrow will not be able to get into this House because of the party system.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and Lloyd George emerged through the party system?
Mr. Brown: Yes, but that was before it became an offence for a member of any party to vote against the instructions of his party Whips. It is a matter of history, and I am surprised that it upsets hon. Gentlemen opposite so much. It is a matter of history that the first time in British politics when that rule that a Member should not vote against his party's decision was laid down in the standing orders of any party in Britain was in 1931 I believe that Lloyd George and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) emerged into politics at an earlier date than that. No, the Member who made this point was not complaining about the Press. He was complaining about the drift of events towards totalitarianism, and the difficulty of the survival of the individual, or the emergence of the individual, in something approaching a totalitarian system. The remedy for that is to oppose totalitarianism. The remedy so often propounded by Members on the other side when confronted by a partial monopoly, is that they
532
should overcome it by establishing a complete monopoly. It is true that they have expressly repudiated anything of this nature in connection with this Motion. There is an old French proverb which says: "Ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute"—it is only the first step which counts; the other steps have to follow.
I am going to vote against this Motion [HON. MEMBERS: "You need not have told us."] I am sure that there is some mental concept behind that remark, but I fail to understand what it was. My vote will be cast, not on the narrow issue of whether a Royal Commission would or would not produce more information, or whether a Royal Commission would or would not reveal a little more precisely where financial control exists. My vote is going to be cast on different ground: It is that I would not trust any Government with the first steps towards controlling the Press. I would not trust, above all, a Government of which the present Lord President was a prominent Member. I would like to say a word or two about the Lord President, because of the touchingly naive introductory speech of my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, when he said that this Motion was not the product of the Lord President. He did not need to produce it; they conceived it and brought it to birth, and all he had to do was to nurse the infant and steer it on its upward way. How difficult it is to get a deputation to a Cabinet Minister. Never was there a deputation received with less difficulty and less delay than the deputation from the National Union of Journalists who took along the Motion with which this story began. They were telephonically invited to come along, and, metaphorically speaking, the red carpets were laid out, and the bands were playing to celebrate this great event. Immediately thereafter, the Lord President of the Council came out with a speech in which he approved, in principle, of the idea of a Royal Commission. The Lord President, in this matter, is an extremely dangerous man. An hon. Member quoted a remark of the right hon. Member for Woodford made some 25 years, on how to control the Press in wartime—"Square it, or squash it." In the last war, it was not the right hon. Member for Woodford who did either the squaring or the squashing. It was the Lord President of the Council. It was he who told the "Daily Mirror," during the war, that if it offended again—

533
Lord help it! It was that right hon. Gentleman who did much the same thing to the "Daily Worker." [HON. MEMBERS: "On whose instructions?"] That may be a proper question to ask, but you would not expect me to know the answer because, unhappily for Britain, I was not inside the Cabinet.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: I think it fair to say that my Conservative colleagues and the Lord President were fully responsible for that decision. All the Members of the Cabinet were responsible.
Mr. Brown: That just shows how wise it is for me to have nothing to do with either of them, and to sustain my position as the last surviving defender of English liberty. I fear that this Motion is likely to be passed because the Lord President wants it, and he wants it, in my opinion, because in that conspectus of a permanent Premiership which he nurses at the back of his mind, due to the misguided efforts of some phrenologist in his early youth, a free Press takes no part. Secondly, although the Prime Minister said that he did not want an inquiry into this, the Lord President is committed to it "in principle," which is just about as far as he ever commits himself on anything. Although the official Whips have not been put on tonight's Debate, there has been a substantial amount of activity by the unofficial Whips. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am quite sure that the upshot of this Motion will be very different from what many hon. Members think on the other side.
I am a great admirer of the editor of the "Daily Herald," and I think that the one thing that might be established by this Motion is that, if we had a Royal Commission on the Press, it might deliver the editor of the "Daily Herald" from what must be an intolerable situation day by day. We have heard a lot about editorial freedom. Here we have a case of an editor—a brilliant editor—who, first of all, does not control policy; secondly, does not control what is to be put in or left out; and, thirdly, is not even free to choose his contributors. Otherwise, his liberties are so far unimpaired. The policy of the "Daily Herald" is controlled by the Trades Union Congress—not even by the annual conference of the Labour Party. It is the General Council of the T.U.C. that controls the policy of
534
the "Herald." The poor editor suffers nightly from nightmares in case, unwittingly, he has committed a Right wing or Left wing deviation from the policy of the T.U.C. at any given moment, if whatever it is, it is ascertainable. He is not free to control policy; he is not free to control what goes in or goes out. He is bound to report the speeches of members of the General Council of the T.U.C., however intolerably dull they are. The same remarks go for prominent members of the Labour Party, because the party and Congress are linked together.
As every one of us knows, not only can he not control what is to be put in, but he cannot control what is to be left out. The "black-list" is compiled for him. There are certain people in respect of whom the orders are that they are not to be reported at all. He cannot even control his contributors. This is the way the thing works out: You cannot write for the "Daily Herald" unless you are a member of the Labour Party, if you are at all prominent in politics. That is the reason why the paper is so deadly dull. Its dullness is the despair of half the Labour Party's supporters in the country.
Dr. Morgan: No more dull than some of the hon. Member's articles.
Mr. Brown: Presumably, that is why the "Daily Herald" asked for them! Out of sheer sympathy with a fellow holding down an utterly impossible job, I would, if I could, have an inquiry to deliver the editor of the "Daily Herald" from his present position. Of course, the position of the editor of the "Daily Worker" is even worse, for not only has he got to keep to the party line, but he has to follow it, and it changes with such kaleidoscopic rapidity that the editor of the "Daily Worker" is permanently engaged in chasing his own tail, and never succeeding in catching up. The Co-operative policy which governs the Cooperative Press is much more easy to follow. Dividends, dividends, dividends. It is a clear and easy line to follow. But my heart bleeds for all these fellows, and if I thought an inquiry would deliver them from this intolerable situation, I would vote for an inquiry straight away. But that is not what the outcome of this inquiry would be.
This Motion is not being welcomed by elements within the Government merely in order to have an abstract Debate. It is

535
not welcomed by elements in the Government because they want a Royal Commission to sit for five years and produce nothing. When elements of the Government make it known that they want this Royal Commission, they want it for a purpose, and for a certain end, and in present circumstances that end can be only one end, that is, either a direct curtailment of the liberty of the Press, or an extension of Government control. I am not willing to give that power to this Government. I have seen this Government, in the last few weeks, behave in the most abject and cowardly fashion on an issue involving freedom-the issue of the "closed shop." I was alone when I first raised in the House the issue of the "closed shop," but, believe me, all England will know that it is an issue between now and the next General Election. A Government which, confronted with a situation in which an Act of Parliament, the National Insurance Act, passed only recently, is set on one side by a combination of trade union activity and departmental decision, and then, when questions were asked about it in the House, says that it dare not enforce the "closed shop" or endorse it because of its fear of the powerful trade unions, a Government which has so little regard for freedom that it promptly abdicates when an issue of freedom is brought before it, is not a Government to which I am willing to give any extended powers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Listen to the Tory cheers."] I am told there are loud Tory cheers. The shame of the situation is not that there are loud Tory cheers; the shame is the dull silence on the Labour Benches when a considerable issue of freedom is raised. Consider the situation Here in the police forces of Britain they maintain the "closed shop" against trade unionism. I noticed that my worthy Friend—he will allow me to call him that—the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—
Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of Order, Mr, Speaker. Are we discussing the "closed shop"?
Mr. Brown: I do not intend to carry the point further, Sir, but I respectfully submit that it is pertinent to this Motion to ask whether the circumstances in which it is proposed to set up this Royal Commission are circumstances which ought to lead us towards the Motion or away
536
from it. It is my submission that both the character of the times, and the character of some elements in the Government, are not such as to give me any confidence whatever in the outcome of a Royal Commission on the Press appointed by them. That is an argument which is perfectly relevant.
I will not go into all these questions as to what the P.E.P. inquiry said years ago. It tells us in one place:
"We are satisfied that ow outline of the Press and its problems gives a reasonable general perspective,"
and it held out no hope, in this document, that a wider inquiry would improve that perspective. I am not going to argue about those trivial things, for they are trivial. The real issue is that, of all forms of totalitarianism, the worst kind of totalitarianism is that which touches the expression of opinion and the control of organs of opinion. There is a case for monopoly, and there is a case against it, but there is one thing for which there is no case, and that is any tendency to nationalise the opinion of the country and to suppress freedom of the Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who suggests it?"] I am sure that my worthy Friend on the bench opposite will be the last person in the world to do anything to limit the freedom of the Press. I am sure that is true of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion, and their colleagues who support them. It is no part of my case that they want to impose a monopoly control of opinion, and it I have said one word which suggested that, !et me fully correct any misunderstanding now. What I suggest is something different. I suggest that they wish to embark on a course which, in a given historical situation in Britain, and with a Government of a given character, could produce no other result than restrictions upon the Press tending towards the establishment of control of opinion.
We have some evidence to work op. It is the same Government, with its present hatred of monopoly of the Press, which would not even allow the monopoly of the B.B.C.—a State monopoly of the B.B.C. to which I am unalterably opposed—to be even inquired into a few weeks ago. The Government favour monopoly when they control it. It is only when somebody else has got a hand in it that they get upset about the prospects of its continuance. This issue is

537
a vastly bigger one than a narrow debating discussion on the political advantages and disadvantages of a Royal Commission. It is a much bigger issue than that. It is because I apprehend nothing coming from it but what would tend towards the limitation of freedom, that I shall vote against the Motion in the Division tonight.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Mallalieu: So tar in this Debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have called many of the big names of the profession to which I belong. Some of them, like the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot), are people who have been attached full time to newspapers. Others, like the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), belong to that category to which we in Fleet Street refer rather irreverently as "pin money Percies." Possibly because he has not had a detailed experience, so far as I know, of work on the staff of a London newspaper, the hon. Member for Rugby has seen fit not to give us any new facts or new issues to consider in this Debate, but only to dilate, first of all, on a rather fanciful picture of the constitution of the "Daily Herald" and to state, secondly, the proposition that the present Government are so deceitful and untrustworthy that they cannot be trusted in any way in matters which concern the freedom of the Press. According to the hon. Member for Rugby, the Government are apparently so deceitful and so cunning that they can lay down in advance what the findings of the Royal Commission will be.
Mr. W. J. Brown: No. but they can select the personnel.
Mr. Mallalieu: That seems to me to be one of the most staggering propositions I have ever heard put before the House, but frankly I am not concerned with the fancies of the hon. Member for Rugby. I am not a great name in the professional newspaper world, but I have spent all my working life in it. I am not a great name, as I say, because I have only twice succeeded in having my name attached to an article which I had written—and even then on the second occasion it was knocked out after the first edition. But I have done almost every job that there is to be done in newspaper work—reporting, subediting, writing the captions, and even, on one occasion, editing the paper. I therefore want to say one or two things about this Debate from the point of view of the
538
ordinary newspaper "hack." This at once brings me down from the high realm of politics to one or two very practical points which affect ordinary journalists, and which I would like to see investigated by a Royal Commission. One of them, which has been mentioned already, concerns the law of libel. I believe it would be a very good thing indeed that a Royal Commission should go very thoroughly into the whole question of the law of civil libel. As it stands at the present time, this law is an absolute menace to every newspaperman, whether a proprietor or a reporter, and any experienced newspaper man in this House knows that that is true. If one wants to bring an action against a newspaper and be successful under the present law one does not have to prove that there was any malice on the part of the newspaper or any intention to libel at all; nor does one have to prove that one has suffered damages. All that is necessary is to prove that a libel was in fact committed.
Mr. E. P. Smith: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is there anything in the Motion concerning a Royal Commission on the question of libel?
Mr. Mallalieu: I would submit that in the terms of the Motion, we do talk of matters which have as their object the furtherance of free expression. I do not want to make a debating point of it, but I think the law of libel does interfere with freedom of expression because to a very great extent it puts newspapers, whatever their political colour, into the position where they may be blackmailed. A small slip by a reporter or a sub-editor may constitute a technical libel. At once some shark will get on to that and start the whole processes of the law in order to try to "soak" the newspaper. The fear of that, over and over again, restricts the willingness and ability of newspapermen to express themselves freely.
That is one technical "house" point that I should like to see taken up by a Royal Commission, and there are other technical things which interfere with us in the execution of our duty as journalists. I have noticed a regrettable tendency in this House and elsewhere to suggest now, in contrast to what was suggested after the previous war, that it is better to conduct negotiations in secrecy. The suggestion was made from that Box by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) only a day or

539
two ago, and it is one which has gained favour not merely in this House but throughout the country. Local councils in some areas, for example, are excluding the Press from their proceedings or, if they are not excluding the Press all the time, they are adopting the trick of turning themselves into a committee of the full council so that the Press cannot get in to see what is going on. That is another way in which freedom of expression and of discussion is hindered, and is something which a Royal Commission might look into.
Another of my "house" points is the whole question of the training of journalists. We are a great profession, and yet there is no sort or apprenticeship system at all. You go into a newspaper office and ask for a job. The editor says, "Have you been on a newspaper before? "and when you say "No," you are no good, and you cannot make a start. You can get on to a newspaper only if you have had previous experience. If you have managed to barge your way into a newspaper office and have got a job, temporarily, at any rate, as I did, and as most of us have done, you find that there is no apprenticeship system. I know very well that one of the best ways of learning the technique of journalism is to practise it; but journalism is not only a technique. The sort of people who are teaching the technique, or who were teaching it when I started in journalism, were not always the best people to give the learner something else besides the technique.
I remember the editor of a newspaper on which I once served having a stand-up fight with the chief sub-editor. Halfway through the fight, the chief sub-editor said to the editor: "You are nothing better than Judas Iscariot.' "Judas Iscariot? "repeated the editor. "Boy, get me 'Who's Who'." That sounds incredible, but it illustrates the sort of thing that is likely to happen. We get our training as journalists only from people like that, as a general rule. That is not good. They may be marvellous craftsmen but a junior needs something else besides his technique. I would like to see a Royal Commission going into ways and means of establishing a proper apprenticeship system. I would also like a Royal Commission to go into the question of the setting up of Press Institutes, independent
540
of the newspapers but continually studying the practice of journalism in order to see ways in which journalism might be made better than it is at the present time.
Those are my "house" points. Now I want to go back into the realm of high politics once more. Throughout this Debate—and I have listened to the whole of it-no-one has suggested that the expression of ideas is the right field for monopoly. No-one believes that. Hon. Members are all against monopoly in the expression of ideas. I would put that more positively, by saying that the limits upon the opportunity to express oneself—there are some limits, but I will not go into that matter now—should be very wide indeed, as wide as they can possibly he made. I have never heard anybody suggest that the limits upon the expression of one's ideas are sufficiently wide at the present moment.
We have heard a number of examples tonight of the factors which restrict opportunity for expression. One of them has been the power of the advertisers. When I hear experienced journalists like the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Aitken) seriously tell this House that advertisers exercise no influence on editorial policy, I can only say that they are too innocent to live. I just want to take them out into a wood and cover them with leaves. I have had a long experience in a part of newspaper work where one is especially subject to pressure by advertising interests—on the financial side. I had many years on one paper or another and, without trying to make a debating point or to exaggerate in any way, there was never one week during the time I worked in city offices when in one way or another the pressure of advertisers was not exercised upon me. I will not go into details, but simply say that is my experience, and that is the sort of thing a Royal Commission could very well investigate.
Another hindrance to the full opportunity for freedom of expression is the establishment of chain newspapers. I think that case has been made out, but even if it has not been made out completely, I still think it is a field into which a Royal Commission could very well inquire. It is the same with newspapers which have exceptionally large circulations. The effect of those is that they tend to give over-emphasis to one particular set of ideas. I believe that a

541
prima facie case has been made out in these instances, but many hon. Members opposite who agree that a prima facie case has been made out still ask what on earth a Royal Commission can do about it. I think I know what a Royal Commission could recommend to counteract the growth of chain newspapers and tendencies towards monopoly, and I would like hon. Members to examine my suggestions.
I would like them to look at the idea of limiting the amount of advertising that any one newspaper can carry. That is possibly a solution to the difficulties which we face. They may go further and look at the idea of cutting out advertising altogether. That, again, is a practical proposition for newspapers in certain circumstances. This is the kind of consideration that a Royal Commission should look into. For what purpose? It is not the purpose of nationalisation of the Press. The hon. Member for Rugby, who made a speech so blithely and left the Chamber so sharply, said that this Government was not to be trusted with a Royal Commission, but he was apparently perfectly prepared to trust the existing owners of the Press with the making of ideas in this country. That is what they are doing. We do not want nationalisation, and we do not want what we are getting at the present moment—the mass production of ideas by the machinery of Fleet Street, which come out on the assembly lines all over the country.
What I and so many working journalists would like to get back to is the state of affairs where there are masses of small newspapers. I believe we could make possible the growth of small newspapers once again by a limitation on the amount of advertising that any newspaper can carry. If we got back to the old days of small newspapers set up all over the country, each independently owned and putting forward its own point of view, we should get several things. We should first of all get better newspaper writing. It is very difficult when one is a journalist, whatever one's political views, to find a newspaper where one can work really happily. One can find plenty of papers where there is good pay and some newspapers where there is security if one wants it, though very few journalists do. But it is increasingly difficult to find a newspaper in which one can be really interested and on which one can do a job that one
542
feels is really worth while. If one is a Conservative newspaper man and writing from that point of view, one will not always be prepared to support the Tory slant which Lord Beaverbrook or Lord Rothermere puts on Conservative policy. Then one's only opening may be the "Daily Telegraph." That may already be full up and then one is left to go as a last resort to the "Daily Herald," which is a fate worse than death for a Tory journalist. Socialists would try to get on the "Daily Herald," and if they failed they would have to gravitate to other papers. Their opportunities for expressing themselves and getting a job of work which is really in keeping with their own feelings, political views and philosophy is steadily being diminished. If, however, you had small newspapers set up again all over the country, the opportunities once more would be wide and, because people would be working on papers with which, generally speaking, they were in agreement, you would get far better writing. Perhaps more important even than that—and this is the real crux of the issue, the real reason why professional journalists want this Motion to go through—by getting small papers, each one putting a definite point of view, each one putting their own slant into it, you would get a mass of ideas being put into the common pool, being freely discussed and freely considered, and in that way you would help to lead this country nearer to democracy than it is at the present time.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I have listened to most of this Debate and I think the Motion founders at the beginning. It founders on the rock of monopoly because monopoly means exclusive control with a view to the raising of price; and whatever else may be urged against the British Press, that clearly does not apply. We have not, in fact, far to look to find a case of Press monopoly. We can find it today in Soviet Russia, and I was interested last week to hear the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) explain that in Russia one big newspaper belongs to the Communist Party which represents the people, and one belongs to the Government which belongs to the people. So there you have a virtual Press monopoly of two newspapers of similar ownership respectively called "Truth" and "News." And it has been well said that whereas there is

543
no news in "Truth," there is no truth in "News." That is the position where you have a Press monopoly in Soviet Russia, and I am entirely at one with all those who would deprecate the setting up of any Press monopoly in this country today.
What, of course, we have got—and this is common ground—are large concentrations of newspaper ownership; but these, in my submission, only amount to monopoly if they exercise restrictive practices. I think it is true to say that the newspaper industry retains a keenness of competition which is an example to many other industries in this country, where restrictive practices apply a good deal more closely than in the newspaper industry. My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out some of the advantages that are to be gained from large concentrations of newspaper ownership, and I think it is probably right to say that, by reason of the possibility of syndicated features, and better special correspondents and so forth, on the whole the public as a result get a better product for their money than would otherwise be the case. Of course, 1 freely admit that there are disadvantages to be set against this, the chief one being the possibility of the elimination of the small local independent newspaper. I would deprecate, as much as any other hon. Member, the disappearance of small, independent, local newspapers. However, that is not a tendency which is confined to the newspaper industry; it is a widespread tendency in all sorts of other callings and walks of life; and if the hon. Members who put down this Motion are really consistent, I shall expect a similar Motion from them calling for a Royal Commission to inquire into the extent to which, for instance, the cooperative societies are driving the small local trader out of business. Surely there must be something at the least inconsistent, and at the worst hypocritical, in a point of view which finds the small local newspaper man always so virtuous and the small local builder always so vicious.
It is the background of this Motion which I find disturbing. To use a term which has been in evidence so much today, as a working journalist my self, I am fully prepared to believe that the hon. Members who put down this Motion are disturbed about the industry in which
544
they work. But they have got themselves into bad company. Their spontaneous concern coincides far too conveniently with, the wounded vanity of the Lord President of the Council. Then there is the Attorney—General. They have the disadvantage of his assistance. Now the Attorney-General is in this position—he contracted politics late. And politics are like mumps; if you contract them late, it takes you much worse. While most of us were labouring away in our political parties, the Attorney-General pursued a career at the Bar, apparently untroubled by politics. Now he has come to it late, and is determined to show that he is a politician, and not merely a lawyer. So he made an attack from which were excluded the legal virtues of moderation and accuracy. He has apologised for that attack; but, in my view, it still colours and vitiates this Motion. I consider that it was especially unfortunate that he singled out the Kemsley Press as he did, for this particular attack because, politics apart, I think it would be conceded that the Kemsley Press does appeal to the virtues rather than to the weaknesses of the reading public.
After all, what are the crimes alleged against them? As I see it, the first is that they are a big concern. I put this to the Lord President; he is never wont to disguise his belief that God is on the side of the big battalions. So how can the mere size of a concern be a crime in the case of the Press, but not in the case of the Labour movement? The second is that they are consistently Conservative. This may be a matter of surprise to the more volatile organs of opinion in this country; but it should not be a matter of surprise to hon. Members opposite, because their party organ is also consistent in its politics, although, it is true, it has a different type of consistency—not a consistency of unfettered judgment but of conscripted obligation. But the fact is, they are persistently consistent. I would ask the Lord President to bear in mind that simply to be Conservative is not a crime, except in a one-party State, or with those who wish to bring about the one-party State.
I am opposed to this Motion because I do not believe there is a monopoly in the newspaper industry, and I do not believe that there are restrictive practices such as would call for an inquiry, and because I believe it to be to some extent coloured by

545
political prejudice. But I want to make it clear that in opposing the Motion, I am by no means afraid of a newspaper inquiry. Why should I be? The Conservative Party have no party Press. As far as newspapers are concerned, I am in no position to know which of them would fear an inquiry into the Press. An inquiry into the Press, if set up, would bring out some interesting revelations. It may even, for instance, establish the ownership of the "Daily Mirror"—
Mr. Nally rose—
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am speaking to a time-table—
Mr. Nally: Surely the hon. Gentleman will allow me—[Interruption.]
Mr. Walker-Smith: I think I should be in trouble with you, Mr. Speaker, if I did not get on with my speech.
Such an inquiry would establish some interesting things. It might even establish the ownership of the "Daily Mirror" and the "Sunday Pictorial," those twin paragons of journalistic propriety which, no doubt, the Lord President will set before the House as a model to be followed. But, in my view, even with such interesting revelations before us, we should resist the inquiry for the reasons which appear to be put forward and which, advertently or inadvertently, cloak, or seem to cloak, an attack on the freedom of the Press.
I come to the question of news, which is referred to in the Motion. I think this this has been dealt with most adequately by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). It is quite obvious that mere requirements of space dictate a necessity for compression, or even suppression, and selectivity. As far as I know, news editors are conscientious people. Naturally, different newspapers have a different slant, and people can buy the kind they want. If one wants the sort of news that is in the "Sunday Pictorial" one may get it, or if one wants the kind that is in the "Sunday Times" one may get that.
I pass to the more difficult question of the free expression of opinion. This Motion calls for "the free expression of opinion." It does not call for a balanced expression of opinion, which is practised, in my view, so successfully, by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and which means that if there is a controversial
546
subject, it must be dealt with by people of opposite views, so that out of the clash of opinion truth may come. But nobody has so far urged that newspapers, where there is no monopoly, need achieve a balanced expression of opinion. Indeed, it is clearly not in the minds of hon. Members opposite that they should, because the Left wing Press, after all, does practice the policy of the closed door to Right wing writers. We are not allowed or invited to write in the pages of their newspapers. We are less fortunate than the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) who is in the happy position of being able to draw his spiritual nourishment from the Left, and his financial nourishment from the Right. Even the hon. Member who used to sit on the Liberal Benches wrote in the "Evening Standard" on why he had left the Liberal Party. Whether he was paid in the traditional 30 pieces of silver I am not in a position to say.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: Why has the hon. Member left the "Sunday Express"?
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the Lord President of the Council who, in the nature of things, has far more of the time of this House, no doubt quite rightly, than back benchers, would permit me an uninterrupted moment, I would say that it is right for papers to have policies. It is right that those policies should be put in their leading articles, and not through feature articles written by stooges. I entirely agree with that.
What should be the relationship between the proprietor or editor and a political writer in his paper? That is a difficult question. I do not shirk it. What should that relationship be? Obviously, a political writer should have freedom of expression; but in an organised community there are always some natural restraints on complete freedom. Therefore, I will try to define it more closely, and I will, if I may, do so by parable or analogy. Suppose that in an erratic manifestation of wayward genius a newspaper proprietor engaged Karl Marx as his political writer. Suppose Karl Marx in his political writing reproduced the style and content of "Das Kapital" In that case I would say that the newspaper proprietor or editor would be perfectly entitled to say to Karl Marx that daily iteration of the theory of the

547
material conception of history was wearisome to the reading public. He would be quite entitled to say too, "Your style is too turgid and involved for the reading public." I believe that the proprietor or editor would not only be entitled to say that, but would be obliged to say it to safeguard his circulation and goodwill. But supposing he goes beyond that, and says to the political writer, "I urge upon you such and such a theme against your better judgment" or "I urge you to attack such and such right hon. Gentleman or the other," then, in my view, Karl Marx would not only be justified, but would be morally obliged to say, "I will have neither part nor lot in the thing you seek to do."
Mr. Edward Porter: Did that not happen to the hon. Member with the " Sunday Express"?
Mr. Walker-Smith: We are dealing with the Motion on the Order Paper. What I am proclaiming is not novel doctrine. I do not claim that it is. It would be approved not only by the vast majority of this House but in all enlightened board rooms and editorial offices of Fleet Street and throughout the length and breadth of this country. Because I oppose this Motion I am not, therefore, complacent about the Press.
I want to suggest this line of thought. I do not want to be thought to be lecturing the Press, because nothing is further from my thoughts; but I think perhaps I have some right to express a view if only for the reason that on 10th December last I initiated a discussion in this House and urged a larger allocation of newsprint for the newspapers. In that I was opposed, so far as the national papers were concerned, by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). We repeated our argument again before a wider, if not more distinguished, audience when we had a broadcast debate on this matter. The practical victory was mine, because later these additional supplies were given; but I say now that if the increased space is not wisely and imaginatively used by the Press so as to make us still prouder of the Press than we are today, then I will in retrospect concede the moral victory to the hon. Member for Devonport. With that word of explanation, I would like to reiterate what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr.
548
Mallalieu) has said about the importance of good writing in journalism for its own sake. I believe that perhaps we compare badly with some French newspapers. The literary standard of "Figaro" is unequalled probably by any daily paper of its size in this country today. I want to see the status and prestige of the journalistic calling improved. Disraeli once wrote to Lord Derby referring to a man as
"An Oxford man well acquainted with the Press, but a fine writer and a scholar."
I would like to get rid of that "but" and substitute "and" or, if possible, even "and, of course." I also wish to refer to the discussion of ideas, which has been mentioned. I believe there has been a tendency in the popular Press of this country to stand too pat on the Northcliffe formula. The Northcliffe principle was that the presentation of popular themes was the method to achieve success, and from such themes all serious discussion was necessarily to be excluded. I do not believe that that is true today. I do not believe that any discovery or any revolution is ever final and I think there are new truths to be discovered today. I think, just taking them at random, that the success and popularity in both broadcasting and writing of people like Mr. C. S. Lewis, Mr. Harold Nicolson, Mr. J. B. Priestley, and the late Professor Hilton, proved that that is so, beyond a peradventure—that to be serious it is not necessary to be dull. It is obvious, I think, that there is this wish of the people for serious discussion today. It would be strange if that were not so as we are a people who have passed through struggles and stresses on such an unparalleled scale, and who are now faced with problems of such incomparable complexity.
We are a people whose mind is on the move and I suggest it would be a tragedy if the newspapers were not able to match their pace with that of the people for whom they write. The people do not want ex cathedra dogma or trivialities. They resent being talked down to, they do not want to be talked at; they want to be talked to, or, better still, they want to be talked with. I think there is a great opportunity in the Press today for a reassessment, taking these facts into account, and I do not think it would be commercially unprofitable to them. I say these things because I believe this to

549
be a more constructive approach, than the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper. I believe the price of quality is eternal striving and eternal sensitivity to the half articulated but wholly felt moods of the people. That is the way to lift this problem to the heights from which we can see the vista of the future, instead of depressing it into the dusty and unprofitable arena to which this Motion would consign it. Therefore, I say let this House rise in defence of the freedom of the Press: let the Press rise to the greatness of its own opportunities.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I think that many hon. Members in all parts of the House will find themselves in agreement with much of what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I personally share his view that, perhaps, some of the newspapers are not sufficiently aware of the degree of progress in the education of the people and in the development of their standards of discrimination and judgment, and that they tend to underestimate the level of intelligence which the population generally has reached. When I say that, I do not under-estimate the fact that the popular Press of today is a Press of, on the whole, a better standard, catering for a better degree of education than the same popular Press did 20 or 25 years ago.
I think that progress in that respect has been made, but I still feel that some of the popular newspapers have not kept pace with the standard of intelligence which the general mass of the public have reached in our time. Therefore I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, among the aspirations which animate the newspapers and those responsible for them is that of watching this developing intelligence of the general public, so as to see that the newspapers make a proper degree of progress in accordance with it. But I cannot agree with the hon. Member in the general conclusion to which he has come.
This has been, I think the House will agree, a very excellent Private Members' day. Let it not be said that we never have a Private Members' day, because this has been one, and a very good one, and, I think, a better use of Private Members' time than that which used to take place in the past. It has been a very good Debate from all points of view, what-
550
ever point of view has been taken, and I think it has been a day well spent. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House, whether they agreed with my hon. Friend or not, will accept my view that the speech of the mover of the Motion, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies), was a very able and competent presentation of the case, and reached a very high Parliamentary standard. It was a pleasure to hear him, and I think that everybody thoroughly enjoyed his speech.
The Debate which has followed has also been exceedingly good, commencing, after my hon. Friend, with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), and then the voice of the official Opposition. I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking for his party and was expressing their views about the Motion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rather made a joke at the expense of journalistic hon. Members on this side of the House by suggesting that they had turned King's evidence. The truth is, I think, that what animated hon. Members—those who are journalists themselves—to support the Motion is a very lively concern for the welfare of journalism and newspaper men, and, therefore, it is not a question of their giving evidence against their own profession. It is that they are worried about the standards of journalism, and probably worried about its future, and therefore anxious that everything shall be done to enable the great profession of journalism to be followed with the best principles, on the highest ethical levels and with the best results to the general public.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman chided the Government with having taken a different view since the original statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which he declined the request of the National Union of Journalists that a Royal Commission should be appointed. It is a fair point and, if I may say so, an inevitable one. But the explanation is that the National Union of Journalists passed a resolution at their conference and, after it had been passed—pretty soon after, I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)—I believe it was he—put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asking whether the Government would institute the requested inquiry. It is perfectly true that, at that stage, my right hon. Friend re-

551
turned a negative answer to my hon. Friend. Subsequently, the National Union of Journalists pressed the matter. They asked for a deputation. The deputation was received on behalf of the Government, and we came to the conclusion at that stage, not that they had made out their case, but that they had made out such a strong prima facie case—on which I will give the House some information later—that the Government came to the conclusion that the request for a Royal Commission was, at any rate, worthy of consideration. It was because of that, that I was authorised by my colleagues to announce during the Debate on broadcasting that the Government thought that the request was worthy of consideration, although we had not then come to a conclusion about it.
That is the reason for the development in the Government view from a negative attitude to a willingness to give the matter consideration. The speech which I made at Lewisham had really nothing to do with this matter. It was part of the "come and go" and "knockabout" of public controversy, in which I was having an argument with certain newspapers and they were having an argument with me. I do not see why anybody should be uppish or upset by it, because a good time was had by all of us. It was all thoroughly enjoyable, but had nothing to do with the question of a Royal Commission of inquiry into the Press. Nor was it anything new. I have been fighting newspapers all my life and they have been fighting me all my life. Somebody said that I was annoyed with Lord Beaverbrook for something or other. I am not. As a matter of fact, I have done very well out of Lord Beaverbrook in politics. I believe that he was a material contributor to the winning of the London County Council for Labour, and I am perfectly sure that he and the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) gave us most valuable aid in the Parliamentary election. Indeed, let me say for Lord Beaverbrook that the first time we won a majority on the County Council—and there had been a real stand-up battle between the London Labour Party and his Lordship and his newspapers—he sent round a reporter and asked whether I would like to make any comment about himself and his conduct of the other
552
side's campaign in the election, and what we thought of the result. It is perfectly true that he let me have a column—for which, however, I did not get paid because it was an interview—in which I was free to knock his Lordship about with great vigour, and I did. It is part of the charm of Lord Beaverbrook that he permits that sort of thing. We appreciate David Low and his cartoons. They are a good commercial proposition which, I have no doubt, has something to do with his survival. But we like the way he is allowed to draw funny pictures of the proprietor, now and again, although that, in itself, does not show that the newspapers of Lord Beaverbrook are a virtuous collection of newspapers.
I am not concerned tonight to make an indictment against Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers in particular. I am concerned with certain aspects of the system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the adventure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I suppose that was inevitable, for it was, of course, a piquant event as between lawyers. Personally, one of the most determined decisions which I have ever made is not to get into a libel or a slander action if I can help it.
Mr. W. J. Brown: A very wise move.
Mr. Morrison: I think it is, and I think the hon. Gentleman might do the same. One of the glories of this place is that, subject always to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we are all safe here. I have always been most determined not to get into libel or slander actions, and one of the instructions I gave to the "teeny weeny" staff of the London Labour Party, when we were electioneering and running an eight page paper, was, "Keep clear of libel. Do not run any risk of it. Rather clip your tongue than go too far, because in a libel action or a slander action it is an absolute gamble who is going to win and who is going to lose." Therefore, I do not blame any man who keeps out of it. If my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, faced with this issue, decided to make the appropriate words of apology, which always have to be horribly abject, and which one does not like doing, I do not blame him at all, and I would not blame anybody else. My advice to anyone is, "Keep out of these actions if you

553
can." But I am bound to say that we Ministers—and former Ministers have had the same experience—are often told by the newspapers that we are too thin skinned. Some of them have persuaded themselves that some of my hon. Friends want this Royal Commission simply because they are offended by the opinions of the Conservative Press and its abuse of the Government. Good gracious, it is nothing of the kind. We would not be influenced by a matter of that kind. Nobody sitting on these Benches could have been a Socialist or a Labour politician or a trade union leader for a long time and remain thin skinned about newspaper criticism. We have had too much newspaper criticism to be thin skinned, and even if we had not had criticism from the newspapers to make our skins a bit thicker, we have plenty of criticism from our own people. That really is nonsense.
But when the newspapers have finished falsely accusing Ministers, especially Ministers of the present Government, with being thin skinned, sensitive, resentful of criticism, which I totally repudiate and deny, what happens? When Lord Kemsley is criticised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in language no more violent than that which some of Lord Kemsley's newspapers have applied to us, who gets thin skinned? Instead of his Lordship slamming back in good style and knocking the Attorney-General about, he says, "You keep quiet or a writ for libel is coming in to you, my lad. Stop it, withdraw, apologise. I, the proprietor of goodness knows how many newspapers, will put a writ for libel or slander in against you if you do not stop." Who is thin skinned—the politicians and the Ministers, or the newspaper proprietors? The truth is that one cannot look at a newspaper proprietor twice with a questioning glance without being accused of wanting to interfere with the freedom of the Press. They are the most sensitive, delicate, thin skinned collection of people that I have ever knocked about with, and yet they themselves in their own newspapers say the most dreadful things about us, and we survive.
They knock us about and attack us very bitterly. As a matter of fact, many a Minister, some of them nowadays sitting on the other side of the House, and many of them sitting on this side of the House,
554
could have had what looked like—and I say this subject to what would happen, because it is a gamble—in all probability, a successful libel action. However, it is a tradition among Ministers, somehow, that we do not do it. I think people take liberties now and again. I cannot say we never will take a libel action; and let me say that we reserve the right to do so. I had better say that, otherwise I shall be encouraging these bad habits. However, we very rarely do so. I really think it is too bad, when a newspaper proprietor is in the ring, in the battle, that instead of hitting back at the learned Attorney-General as he could if he wanted—it is a free country and a free Press—he says: "How dare you attack me? I must not be attacked in this way. If you do so, you will get an action for slander." With regard to this incident, which was used inevitably against my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, let me say two things: I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do blame the noble Lord.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: It the right hon. Gentleman received a threat of a libel action on the Ministry of Aircraft Production heading from one of his colleagues, what would he do in those circumstances?
Mr. Morrison: That is very hypothetical. I assure the hon. Gentleman I would still be very, very careful.
We heard a number of other interesting speeches, to which it is not possible for me to refer in detail. I was delighted to hear part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay), and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). I was not surprised at the point of view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shore-ditch because it had been intimated to me in cold print somewhat earlier on. However, I welcomed their contributions. They are perfectly entitled to their points of view. This is a monument to the fact that the Government Whips are off on this occasion, and the House will vote freely about this matter. I was also very interested to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holborn (Mr. Aitken), in which he told us the inside story of the newspapers with which he and, still more, his father, are prominently associated. We were very glad indeed to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

555
The junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) put one question to which I think he would like an answer: If a Royal Commission were appointed, would it be appointed to advise action; and if it did advise action, would the Government propose to accept any advice as to action which the Royal Commission might tender? In the first place, if the Royal Commission is appointed, it will have terms of reference upon which it would be perfectly free to report; and it could make recommendations for action, or, if it thought fit, it need not make recommendations for action. It would do whichever it thought right and wise in the public interest. Clearly, if it did make recommendations for action, it would not be right at this stage to say that the Government would necessarily accept those recommendations. It would be the duty of the Government in this case, as in every other case, seriously to consider any recommendations on their merits and to come to such conclusions as the Government thought wise in the public interest at the time. I am afraid I cannot say any more than that about the point which the hon. Gentleman raised.
The National union at Journalists had, of course, a perfect right to make representations to His Majesty s Government. It is not, I know, the only professional organisation in the journalistic profession; there is the Institute of Journalists as well. But it is the case, according to the Government's information, that the great majority of journalists—and journalists of all ranks—are members of the National Union of Journalists
Mr. Wilson Harris: But surely not the higher ranks of journalists—editors—are members of the National Union of Journalists, not ordinary members?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman, who is an editor himself. may know more about this than I do, but my information is that editors are admitted.
Mr. Harris: Not as ordinary members.
Mr. Morrison: I see; there may be some distinction. Of course, I know it is the usual tendency, when the National Union of Journalists says one thing, for the Institute of Journalists to say something else; and the Institute has said something else, and, apparently, does not agree with the suggestion which has been made by
556
the National Union of Journalists. But they are a responsible and a representative body, and they are certainly not a political body. I should think it would be rather difficult for any trade union representative of journalists to become a political body attached to any particular political party, though they may discuss these things from time to time.
I received the deputation on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the request of the Prime Minister. These men were exceedingly earnest, anxious and sincere men. They were really worried about the standing, status, and the future of their profession. After all, none of us can disregard the totality of the newspaper Press, Press agencies and the periodical Press; we cannot underestimate the nature of that great institution, the powerful part that they play in our national life, and, the even greater part which they perhaps could play in our national life. It is not for nothing that journalists themselves have frequently described the Press as the Fourth Estate; and, indeed, whilst I would not admit for one moment that the newspaper Press is part of the Constitution of the country, the Press as a whole, in its own way, does function as a kind of unofficial part of the British Constitution. They are part of the battle of public controversy and public argument. They are, or they ought to be, the watchdogs of the public interest. They are the most persistent critics of what they consider to be wrong actions on the part of Governments, and I would defend their right to be consistent critics of Governments in their actions; so in our subtle British way the Press of this country is, so to speak, an unofficial part of our Constitution; and the quality, the uprightness, the accuracy, and the moral purpose of the newspaper Press of our land is a matter of great public concern. This is what the National Union of Journalists felt, and I am bound to say that the Government thought, on the importance of the matter, that they were right.
These are among the things they said: They urged that the freedom of the Press, which the Press claimed from the Government of the day quite rightly, ought not to be choked by the concentration of the country's newspapers in the hands of two or three powerful commercial groups. They went on to say that in

557
past days each town or area had its independent newspaper, but that there was a tendency for these independent local daily newspapers and, what is still worse—so they said—local weekly newspapers also, county newspapers—those newspapers that are read from title piece to imprint in the hands of the people—to be gobbled up by combines of one kind or another.
They regarded this as a danger to the functioning of journalism and to the free expression of opinion. I am bound to say that it seems to me a terrible thing that a newspaper with a title like the "Newcastle Journal," or the "Sheffield Independent," or other newspapers with proud provincial titles, printed and published in proud provincial cities—because if there is any place with an independent mind of its own, it is these provincial cities, or the cities of Scotland and Wales as distinct from the Metropolis—should be acquired by a chain. These cities like to have a mind of their own, and mentally to stand upon their own feet, and I do not like to see these newspapers converted into chain newspapers. At any rate, I think it is a matter about which apprehension may rightly be felt.
The journalists went on to ask now much freedom the editor of one of a chain of group newspapers had in the control of his own journal. This is really a vital issue.
Mr W. J. Brown: Certainly, especially on the "Herald"
Mr. H. Morrison. The hon. Gentleman is so vulnerable in his own activities that I think he would be wise to keep quiet. This is a material question. How far are these provincial editors entitled to take their own line, and how far are they directed from London? I do not want to be personal about the Kemsley chain, or Lord Kemsley, who is the principal proprietor. He and I are on speaking terms, as indeed I am with all the other newspaper proprietors. We get on quite well, except when we are scrapping. But when I was at the Home Office—and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was there with me, and used to see the little volume of Press cuttings that came round day by day—I went through those Press cuttings and I was mystified for quite a number of days because I would read a leading
558
article from the "Daily Something" of the North, or Scotland, and several pages further on in the volume of Press cuttings I would read another leading article and then scratch my head and say, "Are you dreaming? You must have mixed the pages up. you have read that article before." I could not make it out. Later on I would find myself reading the same leading article a third time. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is one of the most grave situations in British journalism at the present moment. And then I would read yet another one that was the same. So I made inquiries, and the answer was simple—these were all Kemsley newspapers.
I have been assured by journalists, and I hope the noble Lord will give evidence on this point and produce the records—I hope that he is not stopping the practice too early—that directives come from the back of Gray's Inn Road, in London, to those provincial newspapers, instructing each of the editors on what lines the leading article is to be the next day, and sometimes what the feature article is to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members say, "Why not?" This practice of provincial newspapers having their policy and editorials imposed upon them and directed from London—and I am a Londoner myself—instead of being the product of local thought of the editors in the provincial cities, is a bad thing. It is seriously open to question, to put it mildly, and is a subject which ought to be inquired into. It is one of those matters which affects the dignity of the journalist, and about which the journalist is very much concerned.
The National Union of Journalists also asked how far news was suppressed or manipulated to serve a particular point of view in national or international affairs. Were papers instructed to report prominent men or women or what amount of attention to give them, according to some plan decided in the central office of the group? Finally, they asked whether advertising and financial interests exercised any influence over the editorial content of a paper? I am not giving the answer to these questions tonight. The only real question for the House is this. Is newspaperland—the world of the Press agencies and periodicals—an institution of such public importance that from time to time it should be subjected to an impartial

559
inquiry? On the other hand, is it of such an exceptional character that it should be exempt from any investigation or inquiry? Is journalism a profession for which there must be perfect freedom from any investigation? We have committees on dentists and dentistry, and we have investigations into the position of doctors.
Mr. Boothby: But not of the B.B.C.
Mr. Morrison: That is a foolish one—thank you very much. We have committees on midwives, and on a whole series of things—universities, teachers and so forth.
Mr. W. J. Brown: Not on the closed shop.
Mr. Morrison: It would not be bad if there was an investigation on the closed mouth.
Mr. W. J. Brown: I accept the rebuke of the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him whether it is not still more important that we should prevent anything approaching the closed mind?
Mr. Morrison: No one is more delighted than I that the hon. Member should be conscious of that danger. But to get back to where we were, the question now is whether journalists and newspapers alone are to be outside and above inquiry. Is everyone else to be the subject of inquiry, but not newspapers or journalists? [HON. MEMBERS: Or the B.B.C."] I come now to the B.B.C. I have told the House already that in due course the Government will authorise an inquiry into the B.B.C. From where did the clamour come for an inquiry into this public service, which itself is not allowed to have an opinion at all? It was the newspapers, and yet when it is a question of inquiring into the newspapers, they say, "Oh, yes, for the B.B.0 but not for us." Having listened to the Debate, and having considered the responsible representations which the National Union of Journalists have made, I think that the case for a Royal Commission is made, and it is for the House to vote, and freely to vote, in the way which it thinks is right.
Lord John Hope: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether,' when the original Resolution of the
560
National Union of Journalists was put to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister did not inquire at the time into the reason behind that Resolution.
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. He did not at that time. In any case, they came later with a request for a deputation.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Would the right hon. Gentleman help us about the dates, as it is rather important? Is it correct that the National Union of Journalists came along before the right hon. Gentleman made his pronouncement on i6th July, or is it correct that they came along on 22nd July, after the right hon. Gentleman had given a lead by his pronouncement?
Mr. Morrison: I would not be sure, from memory. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, but I gave no decision on behalf of the Government. All I said on the Debate on broadcasting was that the Government thought the request worthy of consideration. No decision was given. It was after the deputation had been received that we became more convinced that it was worthy of consideration. After having listened to this Debate, we take the view that a case has been made out for an inquiry. That does not commit us to action. We shall see what comes out of it. We believe that an inquiry ought to be held, that evidence should be heard, and that a Royal Commission should make such report and recommendations as they think wise. As one who has dabbled in journalism, I believe that at the end of it all journalism will not be hurt. The freedom of the Press will not be damaged. That is the last thing the Government want to do. We have a healthy mind on that subject. But we believe that an inquiry and investigation will render a service to British journalism, and help it on its onward march to greater and greater heights of public service.
9.22 p.m.
Mr. Maude: I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council say at the end of his speech, rather surprisingly, "We take the view that a case has been made out." Is that the plural of sovereignty, or the editorial we?
Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that when a Minister stands at this Box he is speaking for the Government.
Mr. Maude: It is a little late, perhaps, to put it in that way. I was under the apprehension that the Lord President was to speak for himself; now we understand that that is not so, but that he spoke for the Government. May I put before the House certain reasons which may appeal to Members before voting on this Motion? We have heard a great many journalists today make excellent speeches, including the mover and seconder of the Motion. But have not the journalists taken themselves a little too seriously? Are they not thinking that the British pay far more attention to what they write than, in fact, they really do? May I give an example? Looking up previous Debates on this subject, I came across what, I hope, Members will think is a wise observation. It was made by Sir Martin Conway in 1928, when he said:
"The great nursery of opinion is in the speech of man to man. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1928; Vol. 215, C. 2084.]
I believe that to be true, and that the House will think that the larger newspaper combines have become, the less powerful they have become. I have no interest of any sort in Lord Beaver-brook. Once I had an interview with him in Washington, which was not very comfortable. I do not know Lord Kemsley, and I do not really mind about either. But I believe that as they have become bigger, they have exercised less influence in politics. [Laughter.] No, Members opposite cannot have it both ways. The Lord President said that the Beaverbrook newspapers had helped him tremendously, and you laughed. That is probably true. But they cannot now take it the other way, and say that those papers hurt them very much indeed.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Were you laughing? I heard the hon. and learned Member say, "You laughed."
Mr. Maude: May I refer to the P.E.P. report, which appears to have wisdom in it? In its recommendations, in 1928, it states:
"Any realistic attempt to recommend improvements in the British Press, must clearly grasp the fact that progress depends far more on such intangibles as better education and a heightened sense of responsibility than upon any structural or mechanical changes which can be given effect either by national legislation or by administrative measures of the professional bodies and managements concerned."
562
It states further:
"We are satisfied that the British Press as it exists today is incomparably superior as a vehicle of information and as an organ of opinion to any Press wholly or substantially under Government control in non-democratic countries. ߪ The Press is giving reasonably efficient service. … It is impracticable to contemplate the general publication of newspapers by any agency except large-scale joint-stock companies."
May I turn to the very weak argument of the Lord President of the Council in his desperate attempt to deal with the difficulties of the Attorney-General? The Lord President was speaking truly when he said that he himself kept clear of libel. No doubt he does. I doubt whether he has ever apologised, or any single Member on the Front Bench has ever apologised, in the way that the learned Attorney-General apologised. The point of my observation is only that it is idle to say that one dare not go into the courts. The law of libel is not so stupid, or so bad, that His Majesty's judges are not able to do justice. It is impossible not to realise that it would have been quite futile for Lord Kemsley or anybody else to bother himself with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), when, in fact, the same sort of objectionable statement had been made by the Attorney-General of England who, with all his knowledge of the law, thought fit to make a humble, decent and full apology. It is possible—I quite agree with the hon. Member for Devonport—for news to be distorted. Some years ago, the Prince of Wales went to Yarmouth, and five outstanding skippers of the ships there were presented to him. The telephone went wrong, and the next morning the "Daily Express" reported that "five outstanding" kippers had been presented to him. How difficult it is to please everyone, if you are a reporter. After broadcasting in "The Week in Westminster," when I tried my hardest to be fair, I was a little startled when I got back from the B.B.C. to be congratulated, first of all, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was a little doubtful as to whether I had done right. Almost immediately afterwards, I was congratulated, in the warmest possible terms, by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and, eight days later. Mr. Hannen Swaffer said that he hated the whole thing.
The hon. Member for Devonport drew rather a pathetic picture of the possibility of the decease of the "Manchester

563
Guardian." That sort of evidence is quite hopeless, if it is intended to induce this House to believe that something terrible is going to happen. If the United States of America has had its papers halved, what does it matter? The United States has every conceivable kind of newspaper. If all the 25 journalist Members of this House started their own papers, it would be a very difficult thing, to have to hunt through them all to see their different views. It is really a little exaggerated to complain that there is a monopoly. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has withdrawn that. He says there is no monopoly, but that there is a monopolistic tendency. There may be a tendency of some sort, but the question is whether there is any sign of any danger. May I quote to the House something from "The Times" of 17th August, which seems to be to the point?
"After seeing the American Press, they should thank God for the British Press, declared Mr. Jarman, the acting general secretary, when the National Union of Seamen's Conference in London yesterday rejected, without dissent, an Aberdeen motion to limit the publications for which he should write. He should not, it was contended, write for journals controlled by millionaire Press lords. When the Press was alleged to twist and distort facts to back up the Tory line, Mr. Jarman retorted, 'Twisting round is not all on one side, and I have had no twisting from the millionaire Press. For the help given them during the war and the sympathy behind it, he moved a vote of thanks to the Press by turning down the Aberdeen motion'."—
and they did. I would like to deal with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Maldon. He was challenged—and he was prepared for it, for he had everything ready—to give examples of how the advertisers affected the Press. Let me remind the House what he told us. First of all, there was a complaint about patent medicines. The proper way to control that is not to have a Royal Commission on the Press, with all the waste of time, but to tackle the purveyors of patent medicines, and, if you like, prevent people from selling twopenny-worth of bicarbonate of soda for 5s. But do not have a Royal Commission to inquire into the Press because of patent medicine advertisements. Next, there was drink and liquor. All I have to say about that, as the hon. Member said he is not a teetotaller and then made a joke about "Guinness is good for you," is to
564
ask him what he thinks is good for him, and would he like an advertisement about it? The third example he gave was about astrologists. He told us how the astrologer in his newspaper—I forget what it was, but probably it was a Beaverbrook paper, because it is astonishing how long the old Beaverbrook boys, in spite of their chafing, in spite of what they were going through, in spite of their amazing powers of getting on in the world, stay with Lord Beaverbrook—
Mr. Driberg: We always did our best to be an underground resistance movement.
Mr. Maude: The point about the astrologer was that he said it was going to be dangerous to fly next month, but the newspaper had an advertisement about Imperial Airways coming in, and therefore, a compromise was put in by the editor of the paper saying that the prophecy did not apply to British airlines. All I can say is that, if that is the sort of evidence which the hon. Member for Maldon will give before a Royal Commission—and I suppose it is, because surely this House is just as important—it is simply deplorable. In spite of the prominence of the Lord President of the Council in this matter, this Back Bench Motion, when it comes to be thought about quietly in a few days' time, will result in the hon. Member for Maldon, thinking of astrology, as he will, after this, turning to the hon. Member for Devonport, and saying:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
May we not say that probably the best speech we have heard since we have been together was that made by the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), who drew certain conclusions from what he knew, and gave facts and figures? He stated, first of all, that it was a grave thing to appoint a Royal Commission and that it was a waste of time unless really needed. May I add to that by asking who is going to sit on such a Commission? What great and distinguished men are we to take away from their duties at this time.
After the speeches made against us at Election time one would have hoped that instead of the Labour Party, Members of the Labour Party, or a group of Mem-

565
bers, starting in against something which showed a monopolistic tendency, they would really have started in against a monopoly, not a body which simply showed a monopoly tendency. Again, the hon. Member for Cambridge University pointed out that there was no evidence to support the attack on Lord Kemsley, and also that there was a tendency away from monopoly. Will hon. Members follow me when I remind them that the Mover of this Motion went back to 1921 and stated that between then and now there had been monopolistic tendencies shown? If he had started with the P.E.P. Report in 1938, which seems a fairly reasonable date to start from 17 years later, that Report said:
"It does not, however, appear that this trend is still continuing rapidly, if at all. In 1930 the three dailies of the Harmsworth and Beaverbrook groups accounted for a trifle under 4o per cent. of total morning daily circulation; in 1937 their share was only a fraction above 4o per cent., their combined circulations having expanded only very slightly faster than the circulation of morning dailies as a whole. One large group (the Berry group) was broken up into three parts in 1937."
Mr. H. D. Hughes: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman continues to quote from the P.E.P. Report, would he refer to page 165, which shows the conclusions, where he will find the following words:
"Again, is it desirable that the recent tendency towards fewer and fewer national newspapers, each dominated more and more by the urge for mass circulation, should continue further towards its logical conclusion of a monopoly, or some monopolies perhaps?"
Mr. Maude: I am looking at the P.E.P. Report—no one has ever seen anything that looks less like something else—but the hon. Member's page must be wrong. All I can say is that the words he has quoted are not on page 165.
Mr. Hughes: They are in the left hand column.
Mr. Maude: I am sorry, they are not. May I tell the House, as I have it here, that the journalists are again taking the matter much too seriously? If they refer to the P.E.P. Report, which is a useful thing to do, they will discover what people really take an interest in. For instance, take the national morning papers. Does the House imagine that everybody in the country is looking eagerly to see what hon. Members have said? The most popular things are acci-
566
dents. Next comes the weather, next local events, and then, all in order of importance, crime, divorce, trade union affairs, labour and municipal questions, and personal gossip. They are some of the things readers look for first, and even obituaries come before one reaches Parliamentary reports.
In conclusion, "The Times" itself said something in July of this year which it seems to me I should put before hon. Members who are really trying to be independent about this, and which backs up what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge University:
"Most of the facts relevant to the attack or defence of its conduct as an organ of the body politic are already public property; there was, for instance, an exhaustive report published by P.E.P. just before the war which with little labour could be brought up to date. The facts being ascertained, political action for the reform of the Press is another matter; it would be difficult indeed to frame legislation, with the best intention, that would not strike through the freedom of the Press, at a primary liberty of the people, the right to read what they liked."
May I say this, to the hon. Member for Devonport? He is, I am sure, quite mistaken when he says that we could not frame legislation to prevent any editor from distorting the truth. It is very simple and has been done in the Share-pushing Act which, the hon Member will find, makes it an offence it anybody either recklessly, or knowing the facts are misleading, publishes anything or uses any words or makes representations that are misleading. Indeed, it would be as simple as anything, if we all took leave of our senses, to pass a similar Act to punish editors who put out misleading reports.
I am inclined to think that the hon. Member who referred to the closed shop first, when there was an interchange between the Lord President of the Council and himself, may be right and this proposal is not only for a closed shop, but a closed mouth and a closed mind. It is a bad beginning in attacking monopolies. and I advise the House to reject the Motion.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Webb: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) said he was fighting to retain the independent mind in this matter. I hope to be able to persuade him, and those who think with him, to give this Motion a unanimous

567
vote. I see no reason why there should be any Division in this House upon the terms of the Motion, or upon the proposition that the Motion contains. It has been argued that this is a political matter, and that the Government intend to interfere with the freedom of the Press, because Ministers are annoyed at the way in which their work has been criticised by newspapers. It is difficult to see how that argument can be sustained, alongside the other argument that the whole project is meaningless, cannot produce anything useful, and is likely moreover, to embarrass the Government. Both arguments cannot be sustained together. Those hon. Members who are opposed to the proposal must make up their minds to which argument they adhere.
In fact, neither argument has any substance at all. It is no doubt true that Ministers are annoyed by criticisms of their work. All Ministers and all Governments have been annoyed by criticisms of their work. Earlier in the Debate an hon. Member gave this House evidence of it from the lips of Lord Baldwin. I recollect that in the last Parliament, in the days of the Coalition under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) the right hon. Gentleman was at variance with the Press even more than are the present occupants of the Front Bench The language used by the right hon. Member would make the language used by the Lord President of the Council seem tepid and insipid. I remember, in my capacity as a journalist, having to preside over a function attended by editors and other executives, and at which the right hon. Member for Woodford was to be the principal speaker. There was some difficulty in getting the journalists from the drinking to the other part of the function, and I said to the right hon. Gentleman, "We are rather like a lot of sheep, aren't we?" The right hon. Gentleman stuck out his jaw, glared at everybody and said. "Yes, bloody black sheep"
This is nothing new. There is no new phenomenon about the sensitiveness of Government Front Benches. The most sensitive instrument I know—and I know it from inside and outside—is the Press itself. Every time anybody dares to answer back, it really will not do to denounce that person as one who wants to limit the freedom of the Press. The
568
freedom of the Press is important, but the freedom to answer the Press is no less important. What has been going on in recent months is the kind of thing that has been going on for many years in this country It has nothing at all to do with the proposition in the Motion before the House. The demand for an inquiry would have come before this House whatever Government had been in power and whatever party had been elected at the last Election. It is not a sudden development at all. It has been maturing over many years. I happen to be a member of the Executive Council of the National Union of Journalists and can speak with some authority on the history of this matter. I know it was considered long ago when nobody ever dreamt that there would be a Labour Government in this House at this time. As a member of the Executive Council I recollect that some years ago we were instructed by the members of the Union to prepare a report on our postwar policy. We prepared such a report. We took it to our delegate meeting They threw it out and referred it back on the ground that we had left untouched the basic question of the trend towards monopoly in the industry.
The following year I, myself, was given the job of trying to prepare a new and more acceptable report dealing with the economic trends in the industry. I and those who shared the investigation with me, came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible for us to arrive at any accurate estimate of the economic trends in the industry unless we had available much more information than was then at our disposal. So, the next report was put before the annual delegate meeting with the explanation that if the Union wanted more information about monopolies, some form of wider independent judicial inquiry must be undertaken in order to get that information accurately to assist us. That report went through.
The following year—that is, this year—the Union itself unanimously adopted a motion which requested the Executive Council to approach the Government with a request for the appointment of a Royal Commission. That is the inception of the matter. If the party opposite had been elected to power at the last election, the Motion would have come before them. I am bound to think, knowing their philosophy and point of view, that they would have adopted it and we should have heard

569
none of the things we have heard today about political interference and interfering with the Press.
I must declare that the National Union of Journalists is not a political union. Its members are not all star artists who appear in this House but for the most part the ordinary hard-working journalist whom hon. Members see weekend after weekend reporting their speeches in the provinces. That type of man is on the whole neutral politically. On the whole, he is not inclined to dabble in politics because he feels it is at variance with his job. He is the type of man who has formed this opinion and made this request. He is very apprehensive about his future if something is not done to stop the trend towards monopolies. When next in their constituencies hon. Members opposite should consult that type of man and see what he feels about this proposal, because he really is the National Union of Journalists and it is from him and his colleagues that this proposal has come. He and his colleagues are not concerned with whether or not this Government gets a fair show in the Press They are concerned with tendencies and developments in the industry which in their view and in their experience threaten to destroy the independence and integrity of journalism. They see very grave dangers to the high traditions of their profession in the gradual commercialisation of the Press and the gradual diminution of the small concerns.
All of us as journalists are profoundly concerned about the growing disbelief of the public in newspapers. Hon. Members on all sides are conscious of it. In many respects the public does not believe in newspapers any more. The public sees in the newspapers one morning that Goering has gone boldly to the scaffold, and later they hear that he committed suicide. They see in one newspaper that the Duke of Windsor lost £100,000 worth of jewels, in another newspaper they see it is £50,000 worth and in another £25,000. Only this week they saw two identical photographs in separate newspapers of Pandit Nehru, one covered with bloodstains and the other not, and they ask questions about it. They ask questions about them and there is this growing disbelief in newspapers about which all journalists are really concerned The House cannot lightly dismiss the opinion of men who are in the business and who are, in fact, constructing the newspapers. We are told that the
570
Conservative Party are the sole custodian of the interests of the little man. Well, if they are, they should vote for this Motion tonight, because this Motion is designed to protect the little man in journalism against predatory commercial interests in Fleet Street We are told that the Conservative Party are out to destroy monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) announced that at Blackpool, and I believe that they are. Now here, at least, is an opportunity to investigate an incipient monopoly; here, at least, is an opportunity to investigate a trend which, in our judgment, will end in monopoly unless something is done about it.
It has been argued that there is no need for anxiety because the monopoly has not arrived, but the time to deal with monopolies is when they are developing, not when they have arrived. Once they have arrived, there is only one solution if the public interest is at stake, and that is a solution that hon. Members will not take, that is, to apply to them the principles of Socialism and make them publicly owned undertakings. That is something we cannot do with the Press; we simply cannot have State ownership of newspapers. If ever there were any attractions in that idea, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford destroyed then in 1926 in the "British Gazette." No, I am wholly against the State running newspapers but, if we do not come in a few years' time to something near an absolute monopoly, then we shall seriously have to consider what we shall do about it.
What we are asking is that we should now, in the light of the known facts, try to assess how far this trend will take us, how far it is going, and, if we are satisfied that it is a dangerous trend, try to discover some adequate and some reasonable remedies. No Government can do that. It would be quite improper for the Government itself to interfere with and to examine the work of the Press. A Royal Commission is an ideal instrument for this purpose; it is the most independent and judicial body we have ever had in this country and, having that type of body, completely free from any restraint or duress or interference from the Government, we can have complete confidence that its findings will be honest findings, acceptable findings, judicial findings, findings that may offer us some solution

571
of the problems that are admittedly before us in this great industry.
Hon. Members opposite may agree that that is all very well, but they may then ask, "But are there any tendencies? Is it true that there is this tendency towards monopoly in this industry?" The hon. Member who opened the Debate gave certain figures; no answer has been given to those figures in this Debate, and those figures are very relevant and very important. He has shown that in the last 25 years half the morning papers of this country have vanished and a quarter of the evening papers have vanished. I have not the latest figure for the disappearances in the field of weekly newspapers but they are, as I know quite well, the worst of all. Perhaps the best example known to me is that in my own native city of Lancaster. Some years ago there were two very good independent newspapers in that city, one run by a Conservative family, one by a Liberal family; excellent newspapers, carrying on a tradition, and built into and integrated with the life of the community. A combine from London managed to buy up the Liberal newspaper, and it ran that Liberal newspaper all the time seeking to get control of the Conservative newspaper. Two or three years ago it bought up the Conservative newspaper, not for the purpose of carrying it on, but for the purpose of putting it out of business. All that is left now of that Conservative newspaper is the title on the heading of the Liberal newspaper with which it is now incorporated. The important thing about that is that this city now only has one newspaper, and that newspaper controlled by a chain operated here in Fleet Street in London.
I see it weekly, and rarely do the leading articles deal with local issues. More frequently, the type of leading article is the identical leading article which I see in other parts of the country. Journalists have a vivid recollection of the war to establish a monopoly in Bristol, and the war to establish a monopoly in Newcastle. The technique is well-known. The predatory interest comes along, and tries to do a deal. If the paper on the spot does not come in and play the game, war is declared to bring it to its knees.
Sir Stanley Reed: Will the hon. Member tell us what happened in
572
Bristol? The people did not come whining to the House for a Royal Commission, but protected themselves by organising their own paper, which is a flourishing newspaper to this day.
Mr. Webb: I have no time to develop that, but the hon. Member's intervention rather proves my point. Does the party opposite really think that this is a good thing? Do they feel satisfied that we can sit back and allow this kind of thing to continue without asking about it, without inquiring about it, to try to find out just what it means, and where it is leading us? Journalists are concerned about this matter for wider interests, because monopoly means that they themselves become increasingly subject to interference with their work. I could bring before the House considerable evidence of the kind of directives that are issued from the headquarters of chain newspapers, but I will content myself by quoting one directive sent to a reporter on a Northcliffe newspaper in Newcastle in 1931. It says:
"Every line you write must be aimed at strengthening Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's candidature in Seaham, and increasing his majority. Nothing which can possibly adversely affect Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's candidature is to be allowed."
Other journalists can produce scores and scores of similar directives. We are profoundly concerned about this. If the newspaper world were to remain an open market where there was free competition, this particularly insidious development of personal control and personal interference would, perhaps, on the whole, not be a dangerous thing. But, when we get monopoly, when competition disappears, when there is no really free market among newspapers, then this kind of personal power, this kind of personal dictatorship over the work of journalists becomes absolutely indefensible and dangerous. It is for these reasons that we are asking the House to adopt this Motion, and unanimously declare that it is at least in favour of inquiry and investigation.
There are many proposals which require investigation, and many types of ownership which might be considered. The National Union of Journalists have many proposals to put before a Commission, if it is appointed. We ask the House to look at this matter, not from the point of view of politics, but of public interest, and the welfare of the people of this country. As a journalist I want this

573
Commission, as a citizen I want this Commission, as a Member of Parliament I believe it my duty to vote for this Commission.
9.59 P.m.
Mr. Henry Strauss: May I put one question to the Lord President of the Council
Will the terms of reference be sufficiently wide to take in the question of the closed shop confined to members of the National Union of Journalists?
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 157.

Division No. 288.]

AYES.

10.0 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McEntee, V. La T

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McGhee, H. G.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Ewart, R.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Allighan, Garry

Fairhurst, F.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Alpass, J. H.

Farthing, W. J.

McLeavy, F.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Austin, H. L.

Follick, M.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Awbery, S. S.

Forman, J. C.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Ayles, W. H.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Balfour, A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Barstow, P. G.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Battley, J. R.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mathers, G.

Bechervaise, A. E

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mayhew, C. P

Benson, G.

Gibbins, J.

Medlicott, F.

Berry, H.

Gibson, C. W.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Gilzean, A.

Montague, F.

Bing, G. H. C.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Binns, J.

Gooch, E. G.

Morley, R.

Blyton, W. R.

Goodrich, H. E.

Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mort, D. L.

Bramall, Major E. A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Moyle, A.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Grey, C. F.

Murray, J. D.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Grierson, E.

Nally, W.

Brown, George (Belper)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Guy, W. H.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Buchanan, G.

Hale, Leslie

Noel-Buxton, Lady.

Burke, W. A.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley

Oldfield, W. H.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Byers, Frank

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Orbach, M.

Callaghan, James

Hardy, E. A.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Carmichael, James

Harrison, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Parker, J.

Champion, A. J.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Parkin, B. T.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Cluse, W. S.

Hobson, C. R.

Pearson, A

Cobb, F. A.

Holman, P.

Peart, Capt. T F

Coldrick, W.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Perrins, W.

Collick, P.

Horabin, T. L.

Platts-Mills. J. F. F.

Collins, V. J

Hoy, J

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Colman, Miss G. M

Hubbard, T

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cook, T. F.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Pritt, D. N.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Proctor, W. T.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W)

Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Corlett, Dr. J.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Randall, H. E

Corvedale, Viscount

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Ranger, J.

Cove, W. G.

Irving, W. J.

Rankin, J.

Daggar, G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reeves, J.

Daines, P.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Richards, R.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

John, W.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Robens, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Deer, G.

King, E. M

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Kinley, J.

Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

Diamond, J

Kirby, B. V.

Rogers, G. H R.

Dobbie, W.

Lavers, S.

Sargood, R.

Dodds, N. N.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Scollan, T.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lever, N. H.

Scott-Elliot, W

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Levy, B. W.

Segal, Dr. S.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Shurmer, P.

Edelman, M.

Longden, F.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Lyne, A W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McAdam, W.

Simmons, C. J

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McAllister, G.

Skeffington, A M.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Skinnard, F. W.

Tiffany, S.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Timmons, J.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Titteringlon, M. F.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Tolley, L.

Wilkins, W. A.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Sorensen, R. W.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Soskice, Maj Sir F.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Sparks, J. A.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Stamford, W.

Wadsworth, G.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Stephen, C

Walkden, E.

Williamson, T.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Walker, G. H.

Willis, E.

Stokes, R. R.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Strachey, J.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Wise, Major F. J.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Watkins, T. E.

Woods, G. S.

Swingler S.

Watson, W. M.

Wyatt, W.

Symonds, A. L.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Yates, V. F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Zilliacus, K.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

West, D. G.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Mr. Hadyn Davies and Mr. Foot.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Osborne, C.

Aitken, Hon. Max.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Peake Rt. Hon. O.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Pickthorn, K.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hollis, M. C.

Pitman, I. J.

Barlow, Sir J.

Hope, Lord J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Baxter, A. B.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S. (Southport)

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hurd, A.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry).

Bennett, Sir P.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Prescott, Stanley

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Jay, D. P. T.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bowen, R.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bower, N.

Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hilthead)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Kerr, Sir J. Grail,

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Lang, G.

Ross, Sir R.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Scott, Lord W.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'Id'n)

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Linstead, H. N

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lloyd. Maj. Guv (Renfrew, E.)

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Cole, T. L.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Smithers, Sir W.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Snadden, W. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Spence, H. R.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Davidson, Viscountess

MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

De la Bère, R.

Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

Digby, S. W.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Sutcliffe, H.

Dodds-Parker A. D.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Drayson, G. B.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Taylor, Vioe-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)

Drewe, C.

Maclean, Brig. F. H. R (Lancaster)

Teeling, William

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Duthie, W. S.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Eccles, D. M

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

Eden. Rt. Hon. A.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thurtle, E

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Marples, A. E.

Touche, G. C.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Turton, R. H.

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

Mellor, Sir J

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Gage, C.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

White, Sir D. (Farnham)

Gammans, L. D.

Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Glossop, C. W H.

Naylor, T. E.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gridley, Sir A.

Nicholson, G.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Grimston, R V.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

York, C.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nutting, Anthony

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Harris, H. Wilson

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Mr. J. Maude and Mr. Derek Walker-Smith.

Resolved:
"That, having regard to the increasing public concern at the growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the Press and with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the Press and the greatest
576
practicable accuracy in the presentation of news, this House considers that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the finance, control, management and ownership of the Press."

GREECE (SITUATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Captain Michael Stewart.]
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Dodds: At long last I have got the opportunity of speaking on the subject of Greece, but, unfortunately I have already lost 12 minutes of the time allocated to me. When I visited Greece some months ago, a Right Wing Government had recently taken over command with disastrous results for those who had supported the brave struggle of the Resistance Forces against the Germans and Italians. In the June Debate on foreign affairs I endeavoured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but was unsuccessful. For a purge had taken place in the Greek Church, Army, Civil Service, gendarmerie and armed police.
Since my visit to Greece, conditions have rapidly got worse, and I would like to quote to this House a report of a representative of the Executive Committee of the World Federation of Trade Unions, who reported in Montreal at the I.L.O. Conference following his visit to Athens. This is an extract from his Report:
"The situation is, therefore, as follows. The General Confederation of Labour is dissolved, our comrades have been arrested; there is terrorism, through the destruction of trade union buildings, terrorism through assassination, terrorism through mass imprisonment and terrorism through deportation to the islands. I must add that, according to information coming from persons who are reliable and beyond any suspicion, this situation was created in connection with the plebiscite, which related, not to the type of Government to be established, but solely to the return of the King. All the royalists and all the fascists of Greece wanted the return of the King and for this reason they wanted to suppress all those who might oppose his return by enlightening Greek public opinion."
A few days ago, I met one of the representatives who had been serving with the British Economic Mission. He was in this country for a few days and told me that efforts for the reconstruction of Greece were being completely nullified by the brutality of the gendarmerie, the armed police, and the Monarchists, against the Left Wing elements in Greece.
I should like to have dealt at greater length with the various aspects in Greece, but I will just touch on something which I shall not easily forget. It was in the Hadjicosta Prison in Athens, where there were over 500 Left Wing prisoners. The
578
majority of them had been in prison for 17 months without trial. They had been imprisoned for offences against the Germans and the Italians. Many months after the liberation of Greece they were still prisoners whilst the prison commandant and many of the warders were the same people who had been in the pay and the uniform of the security battalions under the Germans and the Italians. In a women's prison in Salonika, despite the fact that we have a British police mission in Greece, I found diabolical conditions. There were women there with evidence on their bodies of recent and old brutalities. I shall never forget one woman holding a tiny baby. She had commenced labour pains within a few hours of the brutal treatment, and the baby was born long before its time. There was another woman in the courtyard who had been arrested for being in possession of arms. She was in the last stages of tuberculosis, and for three days and nights nad lain out in the open
In the limited time at my disposal I feel that I should concentrate on my own treatment in respect to the Foreign Office of this country In this House, in June, I endeavoured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but was unsuccessful At the end of the second day, when the winding up had commenced from the Opposition, I decided that it was time to look at my correspondence in the Library. As I left this Chamber I spoke to the Minister of State, who was then the Under-Secretary of State, who knew that I had left the Chamber. To my surprise it was brought to my attention the following day that in three columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT there was an account of a personal attack which had been made upon me. I had not spoken in the Debate and had not been informed that my name was going to be introduced as, otherwise, I should have been present. It is the common courtesy of this House to inform an hon. Member in such circumstances. In those three columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, with which I should like to have dealt more fully, there is sufficient evidence to indicate to me, coupled with my experience in Salonika, that the Foreign Office in this country is being misinformed about the true conditions in Greece
The Minister of State began by referring to a letter which I had caused to be published in a Greek newspaper He said that it was published on 5th May, which

579
was a Sunday. To begin with, that was incorrect. He quoted part of the letter, but he left out the most important part. What he did not state was that a report had appeared in a Monarchist newspaper to the effect that, following upon my visit to the Macedonian villages, I had said that these charges of brutality were just the imagination of the Communists. As a result of that misstatement I found it necessary to have it reported in the Press that I had not given that opinion and that, on the contrary, I had seen something to which I referred to as the "law of the jungle." Not being content with that, he goes on to say—and some of the words he used are remarkable:
"However, the hon. Gentleman on his return to Athens made protestations about the subsequent intimidation of some of his girl supporters who had presented him with a nosegay or bouquet on his arrival in Sokhos."
The truth is that no flowers were given to me but a bouquet was given to the secretary of the League for Democracy in Greece, a female by the name of Miss Diana Pym. Later there appear these words:
"The village council from which be came wrote to all the local Press, complaining that the deputation had not met the village authorities, and had refused to meet a deputation of widows of E.L.A.S. victims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1946; Vol. 423 C. 2122-2123.]
Six days previously the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) had asked me for a copy of our report so that it could be shown to the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In that report we gave at length a statement of the discussions and interviews that we had had with those people whom the present Minister of State said we had not seen at all. He preferred to take the report of this newspaper in preference to one of his own colleagues in the Labour Party.
As the time is going on, I would like to read out the following words of the present Minister of State:
"… if I am asked whether it is the Cooperative Member of Dartford or the two Members of the Cooperative who laboured without pay in Greece … I am on the side of the boys without glamour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th lune, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 2125.]
Knowing that many of these things were completely untrue, I endeavoured to get the Minister of State to look into some of these matters because I had evidence
580
that what he had said was a misrepresentation of the truth, but his reply was that he preferred his sources of information to mine. I might mention here that I am a Member of Parliament and what is said against me in this House can have an effect on the constituents who have sent me here. I think with the few minutes left at his disposal the Minister of State should say, in connection with these two Cooperatives who laboured without pay, that he was misinformed in this as he has been misinformed in other matters. I am convinced horn what I have seen in Greece that there is being created in Greece a neo-Fascist State. I am convinced that unless there is a change of policy, we cannot point our fingers at other countries or States and say that they are doing wrong. I believe that in Greece we are "ganging up" with all those elements who are opposed to the democracy in which we believe. We are "ganging up" with those people who have unsavoury records, who had collaborated with the Germans and the Italians, and that those who fought that gallant fight—the resistance fighters—are being persecuted in a country for which they fought so valiantly.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the hon. Member include our very brave Ally, King George of Greece?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not mention the name of the Monarchy of another country.
Mr. Dodds: I close with these words—
Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) had already referred to the King of Greece.
Hon. Members: No, he did not.
Mr. Speaker: I only heard the word "Monarchy." I did not hear the words "King George" mentioned. Perhaps I was deaf; I do not know.
Mr. Dodds: It is news to me that 1 mentioned him. However, in case this should get us involved in an argument, I will leave the matter. I was sent to this House to see that Socialism is applied both at home and abroad. I am convinced that in respect to Greece I can, with every degree of confidence, protest at the policy being followed. I believe that if there

581
was a withdrawal of the British Forces there would be a change in Greece, which would not show itself by British Forces staying in Greece if the present policy is being pursued. L beg the Minister, when he replies, to tell the House that he was misinformed on certain information in connection with that attack, and also to confirm that he did not extend to me those courtesies which every hon. Member expects in this House.
10.26 p.m.
The Minister of State (Mr. Hector McNeil): In so far as I have been discourteous I am most sorry. It is an old story, and I do not disbelieve the hon. Gentleman at all. I am sure he was right. However, if I was coming into this House to sum up in a Debate, in my normal nervous condition, I might be excused for not having noticed the hon. Member leaving. However, I wish to make it very plain that in this one instance to which my hon. Friend has referred I was misinformed. I think it might also be said that as quickly as I knew! had been wrongly informed I did, in a postscript in an official letter on another point, apologise to the hon. Gentleman; and subsequently I wrote a rather full letter explaining that I had been misled, and that I was sorry for any inconvenience I had caused my hon. Friend. I repeat my sorrow upon that point. It is true I had been told, and I assumed, that these two members of the Mission, like most other members of our Mission, were not being paid by this Government. I do not mean in any way to suggest that they had not a perfect right to be paid, nor for a second that they did not do an excellent job. I was wrong in that one allusion which I made. For the rest that I had to say on policy at that time I still have not a word to retract. I hope I did make it plain that I was wrong in suggesting these men were unpaid That I misrepresented my hon. Friend upon that one issue I am most sorry, and I apologise, not only to him but to the rest of the House, for misleading them on that point.
I have not any time to develop my argument, but I do ask the House once
582
more not to confuse slogans and assertions for thinking and for evidence. My hon. Friend quoted the W.F.T.U. representative from Montreal from the I.L.O. Conference. He might also have said—and I did not want to bring this up—that that conference in Montreal endorsed the credentials of the Greek trade unionists who were sent there; I think rather unwisely—but I must not criticise—because I do not think it was a representative Greek delegation. I hope we may repair it and make it more representative, and ensure a normal and reasonable development. However, if an hon. Member comes to this House and quotes from an organisation, and quotes from this conclusion of the conference, I expect him to tell the House what else the conference said upon the same subject. If we are to deal with the trade unions in Greece perhaps I could refer to the report endorsed at Brighton by the T.U.C. of this country, which said:
"The General Council have satisfied themselves that the influence of the British Government is being used in the right way at the present juncture."
I have repeatedly made it quite plain in the House that there is no one-sidedness to this issue; that there is no certainty of being right; that it is an involved, complex and highly poisoned problem, and that all this Government attempts to do is to steer the way with the maximum of justice. Certainly, to suggest for a minute that we are ganging up with any undesirable element will not bear the slightest scrutiny, and the hon. Member offered no evidence on that point, and he should not have made that charge in this House. The Parliamentary delegation that came back gave judgment on the plebiscite, and did not suggest that there was undue partiality. We shall continue mainly to concern ourselves with the proper and extensive interests of the bulk of the Greek population, and we shall not depart from that criterion.
It being Half past Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  New Library, Colchester (Release)
  New Library, Colchester (Release)
  Requisitioned House, Mayfield
  Requisitioned House, Mayfield
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Release)
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Release)
  SMOKE ABATEMENT, LOUTH
  SMOKE ABATEMENT, LOUTH
COAL INDUSTRY
  Pithead Baths
  Pithead Baths
  Dust Suppression
  Dust Suppression
  Change of Merchant
  Change of Merchant
  National Coal Board (Managerial Staff)
  National Coal Board (Managerial Staff)
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
  New Generating Stations
  New Generating Stations
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Professional and Business Appointments
  Professional and Business Appointments
  North Wales
  North Wales
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  NATIONAL SERVICE (PIGMEN AND POULTRYMEN)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (PIGMEN AND POULTRYMEN)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Travellers' Currency Allowance
  Travellers' Currency Allowance
  P.A.Y.E. (Administration)
  P.A.Y.E. (Administration)
  U.N.R.R.A. Funds (Contribution)
  U.N.R.R.A. Funds (Contribution)
  Bonus Share Issue (Ban)
  Bonus Share Issue (Ban)
  Tax Table Forms (Cost)
  Tax Table Forms (Cost)
  E.P.T. (Nationalised Undertakings)
  E.P.T. (Nationalised Undertakings)
  Income Tax (Assessment)
  Income Tax (Assessment)
  TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS
  TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS
SCOTLAND
  Part-time Education
  Part-time Education
  Housing, Edinburgh
  Housing, Edinburgh
  Government Reports
  Government Reports
  Probation Homes
  Probation Homes
  School Accommodation, Glasgow
  School Accommodation, Glasgow
  Schoolchildren, Aberdeen
  Schoolchildren, Aberdeen
  Students (Refused Entries)
  Students (Refused Entries)
BRITISH ARMY
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Muar Camp, Malaya
  Muar Camp, Malaya
  Senior Training Corps
  Senior Training Corps
  Release Deferment
  Release Deferment
  Recruiting Appeal, B.A.O.R.
  Recruiting Appeal, B.A.O.R.
  Malaya
  Malaya
  Far East (Leave)
  Far East (Leave)
  Requisitioned Land, Hove
  Requisitioned Land, Hove
  Civilian Staff, Colchester
  Civilian Staff, Colchester
  Captured Enemy Weapons
  Captured Enemy Weapons
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Gun Site, Gunnersbury
  Gun Site, Gunnersbury
  Ex-ranker Officers (Pensions)
  Ex-ranker Officers (Pensions)
  War Medal
  War Medal
  Compassionate Release
  Compassionate Release
  Married Quarters (Overseas)
  Married Quarters (Overseas)
  Regulars (Forfeited Service)
  Regulars (Forfeited Service)
  Occupied Mental Hospitals
  Occupied Mental Hospitals
  Netley Hospital
  Netley Hospital
  A.T.S. Quarters, Leicester
  A.T.S. Quarters, Leicester
POLISH FORCES
  Camps
  Camps
  Screening
  Screening
  Emigration
  Emigration
  SERVICEMEN (GERMAN WOMEN)
  SERVICEMEN (GERMAN WOMEN)
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Labour Hire (Receipts)
  Labour Hire (Receipts)
  Young Prisoners
  Young Prisoners
  MOTOR LICENCES
  MOTOR LICENCES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE STAFF (RECRUITMENT)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE STAFF (RECRUITMENT)
  SPECIAL TRAINS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  SPECIAL TRAINS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Surplus Furniture, Penrhos
  Surplus Furniture, Penrhos
  Service Doctors, Aden
  Service Doctors, Aden
  Middle East (Civilian Staffs)
  Middle East (Civilian Staffs)
  Polish Volunteers
  Polish Volunteers
  DOMESTIC FUEL APPLIANCES
  DOMESTIC FUEL APPLIANCES
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Streptomycin
  Streptomycin
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES
  GLUE SUPPLIES
  GLUE SUPPLIES
  SEYCHELLES (CIVIL SERVICE CONDITIONS)
  SEYCHELLES (CIVIL SERVICE CONDITIONS)
  EAST AFRICA (PETROL RATIONING)
  EAST AFRICA (PETROL RATIONING)
  HONG KONG (AIRFIELD FACILITIES)
  HONG KONG (AIRFIELD FACILITIES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Control Office, Northern Ireland (Appointment)
  Control Office, Northern Ireland (Appointment)
  Catering Licence, Hexham
  Catering Licence, Hexham
  LETTER POST (REVENUE)
  LETTER POST (REVENUE)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF LUCAN on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (CITY OF CANTERBURY ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF MIDDLESBROUGH ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF WISBECH ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC ENERGY BILL.
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve into itself Committee.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General powers of Minister]:
LORD CHERWELL: Your Lordships may remember that in the Second Reading debate I mentioned my anxiety because there did not seem to be any provision in the Bill to enable the Minister to cut through red tape which sometimes makes research and development extremely difficult. I said that I hoped it might be possible to break away from the usual Treasury procedure in some respects. In the first place, of course, this applies to priorities. I know that atomic energy has a very high priority but I know also how easy it is to have these priorities overridden by some sudden emergency, and I trust that at any rate in things concerning research, some instructions may be given that this priority is not to be overridden.
I also mentioned the difficulties about finance. I said that in research and development where you could not foresee what would be necessary it was impossible to put down a clear-cut programme, and I hoped that it might be possible to enable the heads of the Research Department to proceed in comparatively minor matters without first having to get Treasury approval. Those I think are administrative matters which can be carried out without any need to put anything into the Bill. The most difficult point I mentioned was that of recruitment, on which I urged that it should be possible for men with special qualifications to be given appointments without necessarily putting them through the normal Civil Service procedure. I understand that that is controlled by an Order in Council and I very much hope that it may be possible to get round it in some way. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was kind enough to meet this point very sympathetically and hoped that he would be able to give an assurance that

813
would satisfy the anxiety I felt. I beg to ask the noble Viscount whether he can now give that assurance.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I am very glad to be able to respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, and I must thank him, too, for the helpful way in which he has put his considerations before us. The matter has been carefully gone into by the Civil Service Commissioners and the Treasury and I think I can fully meet the noble Lord on both his points. It is recognized, of course, that those who could be employed on this highly technical and highly skilled work are very few in number and that the ordinary conditions could not be applied. So far as remuneration is concerned, there again you have to recognize the facts of the case, to treat the men fairly, to make it worth their while, and to give them adequate security. Both those things are recognized and I would like to assure the noble Lord that they will be acted upon in substance and in spirit.
With regard to the question of recruitment, as the noble Lord said, these things are prescribed by an Order in Council of 1920, but there is a clause, Clause 10, which enables the Civil Service Commissioners, in appropriate cases, to dispense with the usual procedure of examination, and so forth, and it has been agreed with them and with the Treasury that this procedure will be applied in these cases. I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that the clause which gives this power to make these exceptions will be applied fully, and a detailed procedure has been worked out which will enable the Minister to make appointments, with the approval of the Commissioners, without any fear of the delays or technicalities to which the noble Lord referred.
LORD CHERWELL: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. So far as recruitment goes I am sure that will meet the case. May I also hope that the point about priority will receive consideration as well as the question of freeing heads of Departments, so far as possible in regard to some small expenditure, from getting prior Treasury approval?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The assurance I gave on the special characteristics was meant to apply to that class of case.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Restriction on disclosure of information relating to plant.
11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any, person who without the consent of the Minister communicates to any other person any document, drawing, photograph, plan, model or other information whatsoever which to his knowledge describes, represents or illustrates—

(a) any existing or proposed plant used or proposed to be used for the purpose of producing or using atomic energy;

(b) the purpose or method of operation of any such existing or proposed plant; or

(c) any process operated or proposed to be operated in any such existing or proposed plant;

shall be guilty of an offence under this Act;
Provided that it shall not be such an offence to communicate information with respect to any plant of a type in use for purposes other than the production or use of atomic energy, unless the information discloses that plant of that type is used or proposed to be used for the production or use of atomic energy.
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (1)—namely, after "person", where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "except an authorized person"; and, at the end of the subsection, to insert:
"In this subsection 'authorized person' means, in relation to information on any subject to which this subsection applies, a person to whom, by virtue of a general authority granted by the Minister, information on that subject may be communicated."
The noble Viscount said: The Amendments which are down in my name are drafted to give effect to the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, that we would deal with these matters. As the noble Lord pointed out on the Second Reading, the Bill as it is drawn might conceivably be held to, shall we say, veto discussion and frank talk between men who are employed in the same department or under the same conditions. The noble Lord suggested that it clearly would not be intended to apply in circumstances of that kind, and that men who were approved for that service and had been engaged for that service would clearly be able to confer with one another about their various problems.
I propose to meet that by putting in these two Amendments. If noble Lords

815
will look at the top of page 8 they will see that we propose there to insert after "person" the words "except an authorized person". That means that "person" does not include a person who is employed by the Ministry, who is, by that fact, an authorized person. Later on, at the end of line 16, we propose to insert:
"In this subsection 'authorized person' means, in relation to information on any subject to which this subsection applies, a person to whom, by virtue of a general authority granted by the Minister, information on that subject may be communicated."
I think if we have an insertion of the words "authorized person" at the beginning, and then this definition in amplification of the meaning of the expression, they will fully meet the noble Lord's point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line after ("person") insert ("except an, authorized person").—(Viscount Addison.)
LORD CHERWELL: I thank the noble Viscount for his statement. It may be that it could have been done without, but I think this Amendment will make it quite clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, at end insert:
("In this subsection 'authorized person' means, in relation to information on any subject to which this subsection applies, a person to whom, by virtue of a general authority granted by the Minister, information on that subject may be communicated.")—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
2.41 p.m.
Clause 12 [Special provisions as to inventions]:
LORD CHERWELL: There is a certain difficulty of interpretation in regard to Clause 12 which I hope the noble Viscount may be able to clear up. Clause 12, as your Lordships know, relates to the patenting of inventions, the remuneration to be given to patentees, and the treatment to be accorded to applications for patents. In the first instance, the application goes from the Comotroller-General to the Minister, and until the Minister takes some further step the Comptroller
816
General stops all normal action on the patent. The clause says that the Minister shall forthwith consider the patent application and if the invention appears to be important for defence, then the patent does not proceed any further and the applicant is entitled to receive reasonable expenses. If it is not important for defence, the application takes its normal course; the patent goes forward and the applicant is entitled to sell it or to make use of it in the ordinary way.
It seems to me that there are difficulties in saying that the applicant shall only be liable to receive reasonable expenses or compensation for his work, because in very many cases the inventions will be useful both for war purposes and for industrial purposes. To take the simplest case, a man might invent an improved method of separating isotopes. That would, of course, be extremely valuable for industrial purposes and also for war purposes and, quite properly, the Minister would prevent any publication of such an invention. If the Minister used the invention he would presumably pay the inventor in the ordinary way, but although it might be a good invention the Minister might be already using some even better method. Therefore he might not wish to use this one and would not have to make arrangements to reimburse the inventor as he would do in the normal course. It seems to me that if in those circumstances an inventor is to receive only his reasonable expenses and some sort of compensation—the clause says that if possible it shall be related to the amount of work he has put into it—that will tend to discourage inventors, and might even lead to unpatriotic people going abroad where they could dispose of their inventions to very great advantage.
Of course, I do not ask that inventors should receive excessive sums—the sort of sums they could no doubt obtain from foreign Governments—but I hope it may be possible for the noble Viscount to give an assurance that it is intended to treat them reasonably generously; that they are not merely to get their expenses refunded but that they will receive some reasonable reward, having regard to the value of the invention, even though it may not have been used. It would be impossible to lay down exact rules for estimating value and so on, but as the Bill reads it looks as though a man might merely get his expenses refunded and have his work

817
assessed at a very small amount, probably something equivalent to his salary for a year or part of a year. We want the best weapons for the Armed Forces and also the best methods for industry. Therefore everybody wants to encourage inventors, and I think that if the noble Viscount could give some assurance that it is intended to treat inventors generously it might be very valuable.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: As in the other cases, we spent a considerable time going into this with the Ministry and with the Treasury. I think I can quite properly give the noble Lord an assurance on the lines he seeks. Of course, it is quite evident that where an invention is of such a character that it should not be revealed, but is one which may be valuable for purposes other than defence, the Minister must take it in hand, but also treat the inventor fairly. It is very desirable that the procedure should not be such as to discourage bona-fide workers from doing their best to develop new ideas. It would be contrary to the national interest in every sense if action of that kind were taken. The Minister has to be very careful to safeguard necessary secrecy in the national interest, and to see at the same time that he does not lay himself open to being unduly, shall be say, made use of. Those things have to be guarded against, but I can assure the noble Lord that the intention is to treat inventors quite fairly in cases of this kind where an invention is suppressed, and not to regard it simply from the point of view of out-of-pocket expenses, although they must necessarily be refunded.
I am authorized to give the noble Lord an assurance in quite definite terms. In order that there may be no misunderstanding about it I think I had better read it. The assurance which I may give is that although, in the nature of the case, a wide measure of discretion as to the amount of the compensation has had to be left to the Minister, it is the intention to operate the subsection so as to be fair to inventors and not to discourage them from working in this field. That is quite a wide undertaking, and I think it is as far as we can go. The meaning of it is clear, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.
LORD CHERWELL: I thank the noble Viscount. I think that is quite satisfac-
818
tory. Obviously it is in the Minister's own interest to treat inventors fairly and generously.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with in pursuance of the Resolution of October 17:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

COINAGE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walkden.)
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, when this Bill was presented to the House for Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, he was good enough to make reference to myself in very pleasant terms, for which I thank him very much. I should also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of those who have been interested in the benefits to the Irish Volunteers, of offering any thanks to the Government as a whole, and particularly to the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs for his sympathetic attitude towards the whole matter.
I hope I shall not be considered ungrateful or ungenerous if I call the attention of the Government to one very small matter which I would urge them

819
to introduce into the Bill in order to consider whether it would not round off their generous action and remove all grounds for complaint or feelings of injustice. I have in my hand a small book entitled "Release and Resettlement," a copy of which was given to men on their release from the Services. Many clauses of this' book obviously cannot apply to those ex-Service men who went back to their homes in Ireland. For instance, you cannot give training for special subjects if you have not got the schools on the spot wherein to do it.
There is, however, one point I would like the Government to reconsider. I may not be entirely in order in mentioning this at the present time, but I do hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments. On page 33 there is a chapter headed "Resettlement Grants," and it begins like this:
"The Government have prepared a scheme, to come into operation after the end of the war in Europe, which will assist those who left businesses of their own for service in the Forces and need help to get going again. The scheme also applies, with certain conditions noted below, to those disabled by war service who were not previously in business."
At the head of the chapter there is a picture of a nice little shop with the name "John Smith" over it. It has empty shelves in its windows, but in large letters right across are the words "Re-opening next week." The inference to be drawn is obvious: that Private John Smith, on getting back to his home town, will be able, with the assistance of resettlement grants, to reopen his little business and restock his shop. All I am asking is that Private Patrick Murphy, who came voluntarily from his country to help John Smith, should also be allowed to open his little business again when he gets back to his home town.
Some time ago I brought before the House the case of a man who applied to me from Cork for help. He had sold his cart and horse in September, 1939, left his wife and six children, and had gone up to Belfast to enlist. He was six years away and when he went back he applied for help. He received a very cold, official letter telling him he was not eligible as he lived in Southern Ireland. That case was looked into by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Help Society. They found
820
the case to be perfectly genuine, and they are helping him now. Very shortly after this there appeared in the Daily Telegraph a letter from their correspondent in Palestine describing the Resettlement Scheme working in that country, and we were told that if a Palestinian, Arab or Jew, came back from Service with the Forces he could apply and get, if he proved his case to be a genuine one, an ass, a mule or a camel.
Comparison is said to be odious, so I will not make one at this stage. I can only suggest that the reason why the men in Southern Ireland were cut out was that it was considered that it might be difficult to dispense the benefits, and that a certain amount of defrauding of the Exchequer would take place. That is not the case. Last month I visited the British Legion and the Help Society headquarters in Cork. They are dealing with large numbers of these cases, and they told me that they would be only too glad to give all the help in their power to go into the various claims. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the executive committee of the Help Society where several of these cases came up. Some of them were extraordinarily worthy cases which these societies would help, but they cannot go on helping these men because their means are limited. I suggest that perhaps the Government might reconsider this matter and round off their generous attitude. Again, I would like to thank them very much for what they have done and, if I may presume to say so, congratulate them on their policy towards our sister island.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for his tribute to our work. We have worked in accord with him in getting these new regulations through, and I would like to thank him for his help. With regard to the other point, I have not seen a copy of the leaflet to which he referred, but of course I will make inquiries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingiy: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

NURSES AMENDMENT REGULATIONS.
2.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR rose to move to resolve, That the Regulations dated July 17, 1946, made under the Nurses Act, 1943, a copy of which Regulations was presented on July 22, be annulled. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper. The point dealt with in the Resolution may appear to be small as it affects a relatively small number of people, but I suggest to your Lordships that it is a point of real substance and one which I feel your Lordships, as a revising Chamber, would wish to consider.
I should like first of all to tell your Lordships about the various items of legislation which have led up to the present position. Your Lordships will remember that in 1943 we passed the Nurses Act, an Act which is intended to improve the conditions and safeguard the conditions of the nursing profession, their enrolment, the training, the administration, the rules and so on. In that Act, which was intended to protect the nursing profession and the public from unqualified nurses, and also from people who might come forward with intent to deceive, Section 6 (1) (b) was put in whereby
"the Minister may by regulations authorize the use, either generally or by specified classes of persons or in specified circumstances, of specified names or titles containing the word nurse…."
Now that clause was inserted with the intention, obviously, that, given a suitable case, it should be utilized. One of the main objects of the Act is to protect those who are duly qualified who wish to employ the title "nurse." The next step took place on May 31, 1945, when the then Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland brought out regulations under the Act. In these regulations there is one, No. 2 (1) (m) whereby authority to use the term "nurse" in connexion with other words was given to the Christian Science nurses. During the last year that has been the law of the land.
I have been asked to say a word about the sort of training which these ladies get. The duly qualified Christian Science nurse is trained in the following: Bed-making, bed-bathing, lifting and turning patient in bed, general care of patient,
822
making bed with patient in it, turning and changing mattress with patient in bed, bed comforts, invalid cookery, bandaging and dressing, first aid in emergencies, communicable diseases and last services. In addition they receive lectures which deal with the ethics and the religious aspect of their work. As regards their standard of education, the student nurses take examinations both written and oral and an educational standard equivalent to that of the school certificate is required. This training takes five years, and the greater part of it is given in institutions. That is to say these nurses have received a full five-years training. I would hike to point out to your Lordships that where they differ from ordinary medical nurses is that they are not taught the medical side of nursing, but apart from that, on the general hygienic side the training which they get is not dissimilar.
The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland on July 17 this year, published orders whereby this exemption was cancelled. Now I do not want to ask your Lordships to express an opinion either on the methods or the merits of Christian Science treatment and medical treatment. That point does not arise at all. You are not asked to express an opinion on methods or merits, but merely on the question of administering an Act. Christian Science treatment is not illegal; it is recognized by the Public Health Act, 1936. There are numerous orders, but I will refer to only one now. During the last war, the Air Ministry in a pamphlet dated April 5, 1941, dealt with the Christian Science personnel in the W.A.A.F., and it was set out quite clearly there that with regard to the medical aspect of this religion the Service medical authorities did not object in cases of illness if Christian Science personnel asked to be visited by a Christian Science practitioner. Numerous orders as well as Acts of Parliament have recognized this as being a legal form of treatment.
To-day, I am fist of all going to move the annulment of these regulations, but before sitting down I hope to submit to your Lordships an Amendment, or an alternative, which I trust may meet with your Lordships' approval. I am going to do so and to urge that you accept this compromise.

823
I think that if we do not repeal this regulation we shall have a law which will be exceedingly difficult to enforce, and I am all opposed to having laws which cannot be enforced. We are also going to have a regulation which will undoubtedly savour of persecution and intolerance. It is very desirable not to have such a regulation. It has been suggested that the titles of these ladies, these Christian Science nurses, should be changed to "aids" or "helpers," and a precedent is quoted from the Nursing Homes Registration Act. When the Nursing Homes Registration Bill was before Parliament it was recognized that it was unfair to expect Christian Science institutions to carry out the medical conditions and provisions of that measure, and that it would be essentially fair to exclude them from the operation of these clauses. But Parliament in excluding these institutions required that they should be called "houses" and not "nursing homes." It has been suggested that on that precedent your Lordships ought to insist that Christian Science nurses should be called something else—"aids" "helpers" or something like that.
The cases are not analogous. First, although with respect to the Nursing Homes Act the Christian Scientists did not agree with the provision they did not raise any opposition, because there was nothing in the Church Manual, that is to say their Church Constitution, which specified the designation which ought to be given to an institution. Where nurses are concerned it is different. There is a specific by-law which lays it down that Christian Science nurses shall be called "Christian Science nurses." That is to say it is not subject to amendment within the Christian Science Constitution. I venture to suggest that it would be confusing if every country were to insist that a different designation should be given either to the nurse or the practitioner or the actual place of worship—for some country might say: "These places ought not to be called churches, they should be called halls; those who give treatment ought not to be called practitioners 'but healers'". It would, I suggest, be exceedingly and quite unnecessarily confusing if the Christian Science Church had to have a different designation for its nurses, its healers and its places of worship in different countries.
I have here a copy of the Christian Science Journal which is published in America. It is the official publication which circulates all over the world, and in this journal there are contained the addresses of churches in this country and in every country, the addresses and the names of practitioners who are registered there and qualified nurses. That is an official publication, and it contains only the names of duly qualified nurses or practitioners. I suggest that it would lead to quite unnecessary confusion if each country were to require a different name or designation or title for those who were engaged in treating disease. I hasten to emphasize that I am not asking your Lordships to express any opinion on the merit or value of this form of treatment, but I would merely explain that it is different, and that it is not illegal.
What is one of the great dangers that faces this country to-day? Surely, it is laxity in religion. Are you to say that you are going to fine or imprison women who devote their lives to nursing the sick, because they use the title which is laid down in the Constitution, in the Rules of their Church? I venture to suggest that that would not be a fair or wise regulation to pass. Then we are asked, what guarantee is there that if any particular lady takes this title she is, in fact, qualified? We are asked, how can the Minister know that ladies calling themselves Christian Science nurses are qualified? Exactly the same question arose when we were dealing with nursing homes. After the Nursing Homes Registration Act was passed, the Minister of Health wrote a letter, on May 22, 1928, which I will paraphrase. He wrote that it was recognized that it was possible for him to know from a responsible person representing the Christian Science Board of Directors whether a given house was recognized by that Board as a Christian Science house; that is to say, whether it was qualified for exemption. The letter further stated that the Minister did not himself assume any responsibility for any institution, but would grant exemption without further inquiry when he was satisfied that the institution was recognized by the Board of Directors. Exactly the same position would arise in this case. The Minister would recognize that it is possible for a Board of Directors to nominate a person, representing the Board, who will ask for the exemption

825
only of an institution or of individuals who are duly qualified.
Now, my Lords, during the last year, Christian Science nurses have had full freedom to use this title. They could advertise in the general Press as Christian Science nurses. They could have cards; they could have name plates. In view of the fact that the Minister of Health proposes to withdraw the permission which has been given, I have been authorized to submit a compromise to your Lordships. It was set out in a letter to The Times of October 22. In this compromise the Christian Scientists do not object to any regulation which would make it illegal for Christian Science nurses to advertise by name-plate, or in the Press, or in any general publication. That is to say, the privilege to do this could be withdrawn. All they ask is that a regulation should be made permitting duly qualified Christian Science nurses to use that title in official Christian Science publications, or in the records of their Church. I venture to suggest that that is a reasonable compromise. What would be the effect? Those members of the public who wanted treatment by medical nurses could get it; those members of the public who wanted treatment by Christian Science nurses could get it. There could be no confusion. Nobody could employ a nurse representing either form of treatment without being aware of the fact.
I hope that members of this great and honourable profession, the medical profession—the medical nurses and the doctors—will not refuse to give fair treatment to another set of people who are equally honest, equally consecrated, and also engaged in treating disease. I have suggested a compromise to your Lordships. If the Government, if your Lordships' House, were to accept this, how could we deal with the regulations? The regulation cannot be amended, and your Lordships will notice that I am asking that it be annulled. There are two courses open. One would be for the Government to accept in principle the compromise which I have been asked to submit to your Lordships and to the Government—by withdrawing the present regulations and, as soon as possible, introducing an amended regulation which would not give a general authority to advertise everywhere, but would restrict the use of the title to the official Christian Science public- 826
cations. The other alternative would be to pass this regulation, and for the Government, later on, to introduce an amending regulation. I submit that this latter would be less desirable, because until the amending order was passed the Christian Science nurses would be liable to a fine or imprisonment if they used that title.
In another place, when this matter was being debated, the particular compromise which I am now suggesting was not discussed. It was not rejected there. This question is not a Party question. It does not come into Party politics. I suggest to your Lordships that it is essentially the sort of point which an amending Chamber, such as your Lordships' House is, ought to deal with, and I hope very much that it will commend itself to your Lordships. The numbers affected are not very large, but I suggest that the principle at stake is very substantial and important. Great Britain has.prided herself on fair play, on liberty of conscience, on treating all sections of the community alike. In this country, too, we are reluctant to pass laws which it is difficult to enforce, or which savour of intolerance. It is inconceivable that the whole machinery of the law should be set into motion to put in prison a lady who has done five years training, who is consecrating her life to nursing the sick, and who is duly qualified, just because she insists on taking the designation which her Church Rules tells her she ought to take. It is inconceivable that in 1946 we should do that. The responsibility rests upon Parliament as a whole. I appeal to your Lordships, with your tradition of tolerance, with your insistence that you only pass reasonable laws, to support and accept what I venture to suggest is a very reasonable compromise.
Moved to resolve, That the Regulations dated 17th July, 1946, made under the Nurses Act, 1943, a copy of which Regulations was presented on the 22nd July, be annulled.—(Viscount Astor.)
3.19 p.m.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, may I say a few words on this point? I think that we are all sympathetic with the noble Viscount in standing up for the rights and privileges of women who constitute themselves nurses within a particular religious denomination. The noble Viscount said that this is not a matter of Party politics, but I suggest that it is very much a matter of public polity. For some time we have

827
been trying, and not unsuccessfully, to raise the status of the nurses in this country. They are members of a very honourable profession, rendering great service to the public and private health of the nation. We have certain statutory recognition of two types of nurses. There is the assistant nurse, who has a special role, entitled "assistant nurse." There is the State registered nurse. We have no other category. We are now asked to recognize another category, and we are assured that this category will only advertise itself to the public—for whose security we stand—through the medium of particular journals.
We are led to believe that those journals will only be read by members of this particular body. Surely it is a vital point whether or not those journals are in fact confined to the particular Church which goes by this name of Christian Science, or whether in actual fact they are journals which circulate amongst the public at large. If we could accept an assurance—I do not think we can—that those journals in which the Christian Science nurse advertises herself as a nurse, were confined to this particular religious body, there might perhaps be some sympathy for the noble Viscount's Motion, but I think it is common knowledge that the circulation of at least one of those Christian Science journals is very large and universal, and on that ground I do not think the safeguard for the nursing profession is at all adequate. Therefore I hope that this Motion will not receive your Lordships' support.
3.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, now that His Majesty's Government and your Lordships have had an opportunity of very fully hearing the case regarding the use of the term "Christian Science nurse" as explained by the noble Viscount who moved to resolve that these regulations should be annulled, I am hoping that perhaps your Lordships will appreciate the need at this time, in the common cause of justice, and I might also add, in the interests of common sense, to allow these Nurses Amendment Regulations for Scotland and England to be annulled.
I am intervening in this debate as an ordinary member of your Lordships' House, but I cannot deny the fact that for
828
a long time I have been an adherent of this religion and I have received a great deal of benefit from it. As the noble Viscount said, we are not here to discuss the merits or the methods of Christian Science. That is a matter for another time and another place. But I suggest that we are here to decide upon a matter of principle. There certainly is a principle at stake in this case and a religious one at that. It is from that angle that I should like, if your Lordships will allow me, to say a very few words. You have heard completely explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the past history of what has happened in Parliament with regard to this matter and I do not propose to repeat it.
But if I may be allowed to do so, I should like to emphasize two or three points. Firstly, it is, I think, fully appreciated by everyone, and certainly by those of the Christian Science movement, that medical nurses are fully entitled to protection, as is also the public from any intention to deceive. I should have thought it was patently obvious, if you make it so clear what your nurses are, by having the prefix "Christian Science" in front of their names, that there could be no intention to deceive, or, if there was an intention to deceive, it could not possibly succeed because one would know perfectly well what one was getting by the very words in front of their name.
But there are two very strong reasons put forward by the Christian Scientists to explain why they are unable to forgo, or do not desire to be forced to forgo, the title of "Christian Science nurse." The first is that nursing the sick is an integral part of the religious activities of this Church. Secondly, that the name or title "Christian Science nurse" appears in the by-laws of the Church Manual dealing with nursing. This Manual is the Constitution of their Church. This Church has branch churches and societies all over the world. Therefore it is patently obvious that it would be quite impossible to alter that Manual or Constitution. As has been stated, this religion and its form of treatment has been lawful in this country for some considerable time and is recognized by Statutes and Administrative Orders and both in another place and in this House. As has been said, these nurses go through

829
a period of, I think it is, five years' training. They are certificated only after a long consecrated training.
On the other hand, in order to meet the objections, of the Medical Nurses Association, a compromise has been offered and, in my humble opinion, a considerable one at that. It has been offered that the Christian Science nurses should forgo the privilege hitherto granted of advertising publicly in the Press, or by name-plate, and that they should confine themselves to registration or advertising in their own particular publications, literature which is actually published in the United States and not in this country at all. The point was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, when he asked: Could it be said that this literature was not circulated freely amongst other people? He spoke of a journal. There are three publications. One is the Christian Science Journal, which is entirely composed of Christian Science literature and articles dealing with the Christian Science faith. At the end of those there are certain advertisements of those who are known as "practitioners" and also of "Christian Science nurses." There is the Christian Science Sentinel., and, besides the Christian Science Sentinel, there is an international paper called, the Christian Science Monitor which I presume is the paper to which the noble Lord was referring. As your Lordships will know, the Monitor is a paper of such substance and repute that, apart from anything connected with religion, it is considered to be one of the leading international newspapers in the world, and it has an extremely large circulation. But I would hesitate to agree that, because Christian Science nurses advertise in that paper, it is necessarily going to make it difficult for the medical nurses to be protected.
Like the noble Viscount, I cannot believe that any Government, let alone a Labour Government which, like the whole country and ourselves, put freedom in the forefront of their policy, are going to make themselves responsible for what will amount, I would say, to intolerance at least, though I would put it nearer the word Mark once used, "persecution," if under the amended regulations these nurses will be liable to a fine if they practice their faith according to the Constitution of their Church, a Church which has been legally recognized in this
830
country for some considerable time. In this country we have always believed in freedom in the way in which we wish to approach our God. We do so in the way which helps us most. We have always resisted anyone who has tried to prevent our dealing with these matters in our own way, provided we are hurting no one else. In all humble sincerity, my counsel, for what it is worth—probably very little—would be to leave well alone.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it was not my purpose to address your Lordships on this matter, but, having heard the noble Lord who has just spoken say he has seen much good done by Christian Science, I think I am entitled to say that I have seen much harm done by it He also stressed that this clause was a question of persecution. I am concerned with protecting the public and protecting the great body of nurses. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, has told your Lordships, that nurses deserve in every way the protection we can offer. We should do all we can to raise their status, to improve it, and to safeguard it, and I strongly urge your Lordships to resist any proposal to annul these regulations.
3.32 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I suppose, as we are all giving a declaration of faith, I may say at once that I am an anti-Christian Scientist. At the same time I should like to say to your Lordships that I think there is some real substance in the Motion the noble Viscount has put before you this afternoon, and for this reason. In the regulations paragraphs (a) to (p) all seek to prevent anybody holding herself out to the public for what she is not. In certain circumstances she can hold herself out as a student nurse, a pupil assistant nurse, a maternity nurse, a registered nurse, or a trained nurse, and so on. Now that is very proper. In the regulation that is before your Lordships this afternoon, however, an attempt is being made to prevent somebody from holding herself out to the public for what she is. That is a point on which your Lordships should at least reflect before you come to a decision.
One cannot, after all, impound every word in the English language and prescribe by regulation that it can be used only in certain sections. "Nurse" is one of the oldest of words, so let me take

831
a more modern word—"accountant." There are any number of people who describe themselves as accountants, and some of them I have known could not even write an account of income and expenditure correctly. I am satisfied that a great deal of money is lost by innocent and ignorant persons in this country through going to people who describe themselves as accountants to get their affairs audited. Yet it has never been suggested that nobody can use the word "accountant" except a chartered accountant or an incorporated accountant, even though such a restriction would protect the public. Unless His Majesty's Government are prepared to go the whole hog and give the people that protection as well as this, I really think it might be wise to make some concession to the noble Viscount who moved the Motion.
3.34 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments with great regret as I have a complete appreciation of the earnestness with which my two noble friends have put forward this Motion. I would like to inform the House, however, that in the two and a half years in which I was chairman of an inter-departmental committee on the subject of dentistry, this question did arise. The question was whether one was entitled to describe the ladies as dental nurses, and we came to the conclusion, after many discussions on the subject, that we could not so describe them. I think the word "nurse" does convey to all of us a certain meaning, and I am afraid it is certainly not the one my two noble friends have put forward. We know perfectly well, in our own minds, that if you send for a nurse it conveys to one something that is of the greatest possible importance. We in this House and Members in another place probably would be all right, but there are many people in the country who are not so familiar with all these questions as we are. I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully before adopting the suggestion made by my two noble friends.
3.36 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I would like to support this Motion, and with your Lordships' approval I will for one moment refer to the debate which took place in another place on this very subject. In my view the debate that took
832
place then was much too long, with the consequent result that a large number of irrelevancies were introduced which did no good to anybody but did a great deal of harm to a large number. In a debate on this kind of subject, it is, to my way of thinking, more than ever important and essential that the subject be approached dispassionately, without bias and with as open a mind as possible, because, although on the face of it it is entirely a question of nomenclature, without a great deal of care it is too easy to introduce into the debate questions of religion which must always be difficult and may easily and unnecessarily wound the susceptibilities of a great number of individuals. It is, therefore, pertinent to to-day's discussion in this House to consider why the irrelevancies arose elsewhere. I have considered this point and I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that the irrelevancies were introduced as a result possibly of a subconscious fear that any mention of Christian Science might introduce prejudice.
If we are to solve these problems in your Lordships' House to-day it is quite essential that all suggestions of fear or prejudice should be at all costs avoided. The subject must be approached absolutely clearly with an open mind. What is this problem? We have a medical nursing profession seeking to safeguard its status from, shall we say, charlatans or other individuals who style themselves nurses but who are not properly qualified or trained. That is a perfectly reasonable desire—the desire of one honourable profession to safeguard its members. On the other hand, we have the Christian Science nurses and they are, I submit, an equally honourable profession also, having undergone five years of training before they are qualified, whose members are similarly endeavouring to safeguard their position. There are the two groups of individuals each trying to safeguard their members' status. As the noble Viscount who raised this Motion has already mentioned, the 1943 Act permits certain use of the term "nurse" in certain circumstances. It might be of interest to your Lordships to know that it permits the use of the word "nurse" in the case of a children's nurse. The 1945 regulations made under that Act also admit the use of the word "nurse," in some grouping or other, to various other categories of individuals.

833
It has been argued that the title of "Christian Science nurse" is so distinctive as to guard against any possible public misconception as to what they are. I, for my part, entirely support that view. I do not see how there can be any misconception. However, if His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept this point of view, I still cannot think it is beyond the wit of man to devise some compromise that will enable us this afternoon in your Lordships' House to solve this problem. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion has already suggested a compromise, and it is one that I would whole-heartedly support. I do not wish to keep your Lordships over long, but I would just like to repeat it in my own words. I would like to put it in this way. If the Minister insists on retaining the 1946 regulations, the regulations which prohibit the use of the term "Christian Science nurse," perhaps he would undertake to introduce a specific reference in some new regulation so that, first of all, in so far as the profession of Christian Science nurses is referred to in the books of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and in so far as individuals are described in the various manuals and journals published and printed, not in this country but in the United States of America, there shall be no interference with the distribution of those publications in this country and, secondly, that the individuals themselves shall not lay themselves open to prosecution for having their names published in those papers. I believe that an assurance to be followed up by a regulation on those limes would meet the case and both sides could go away feeling satisfied. As the noble Viscount who moved this Motion has already said, such a compromise would, I believe, meet the wishes of the Christian Science Church in this country.
In suggesting that I appreciate that it is not an inconsiderable concession on the part of the Christian Science Church, and I believe that it is only asking on the part of the medical nurses for a very small concession to come so far to meet us. I am fully convinced that unless something on these lines is done, unless some concession is made to the Christian Science nursing profession, the motives of His Majesty's Government, however impartial and sincere they really are—and I myself am fully convinced that they are impartial and sincere—will be
834
misconstrued not only in this country but also in the United States of America, on the Continent, and elsewhere. There will be suggestions of prejudice and intolerance which, in my view, would both be unfair to His Majesty's Government and would do injustice to the good name that this country has always had for freedom of thought and worship.
3.44 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who moved this Motion said very truly that it is not a question of Party politics. I do not speak as a member of a Party; I speak only for myself and as a member of your Lordships' House. I intervene because I feel very strongly that this is a question of principle which is at issue on this Motion to-day. I am a very recent member of your Lordships' House, but in the short time in which I have had the privilege of being here I have learnt to respect your Lordships' judgment very deeply, particularly on a question of this kind, and it will be a matter of great interest to me to see how your Lordships decide upon this question this afternoon.
I only wish to make my own contribution as best I can, and I do feel very strongly about it. Nobody could go further than I do with the noble Lord, Lord Horder, in his desire to protect the nursing sisterhood in this country.
LORD HORDER: No. I said, "to protect the public."
LORD ALTRINCHAM: To protect the public. I entirely accept the correction. On second thoughts I do not think it is a correction, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord. You are protecting the nursing sisterhood when you are protecting the public. You are protecting the nursing sisterhood against competitors who may deceive the public by appearing to have qualifications which they have not. That is the object. My own feeling is that nothing we can do is more worthy of doing than to establish the position of that trained profession in this country and to increase its appeal, for it is greatly in need of recruitment at the present time. No one feels that more strongly than I do. However, I do not believe that any profession gains by intolerance. I think one has to be perfectly clear about this. There is a great deal of intolerance about at the present time;

835
closed shops are being heard of in every quarter, and I do not think these are of real assistance to the organizations or professions which insist upon them. They are the sign of a temper in the modern world which is a dangerous temper and a temper very unlike that which we ought to cultivate in this country, where we have a great tradition of tolerance, where as a matter of fact a conscientious person of whatever type, a man with religious convictions however peculiar, has a protection and respect which he receives nowhere else in the world.
The first question is this. Is it possible that the compromise which has been suggested is such that the public can in any way be deceived? The proposal is that the title of "Christian Science nurse" shall be used only in the Christian Science journals. I understand that is what my noble friend proposed. There are three such journals published in the United States of America, the Christian Science Journal, which is a purely religious and technical journal, the Christian Science Sentinel, which I understand is also technical, and the Christian Science Monitor, which, owing to its excellence and impartiality, has a world-wide circulation well outside the Christian Science field. It is only the publication of the Christian Science Monitor which can possibly mislead anybody. I do not think anybody who is not a Christian Scientist would take the other publications.
Is it seriously contended that a member of the general public who happens to get into his or her hands a copy of the Christian Science Monitor and see nurses advertised as Christian Science nurses is going to be led to believe that they are any other than what they say they are—namely, Christian Science nurses? I cannot believe it is necessary to inflict that disability upon those who are, trained in nursing which is recognized by their own religion in order to protect trained medical nursing sisters. It seems to me that we must guard against creating an offence which everybody will regard as against common sense if it occurs. Apparently it will be a serious offence if anybody whose name appears in the register in one of the three Christian Science journals should come to this country. Anybody whose name appears in those journals coming to this country
836
will have committed an offence. I cannot believe that that is a reasonable proposition. Here are nurses in the United States of America who are registered in conformity with the laws of the United States of America who, if they come to this country, are guilty of this offence because their names appear in that register and are advertised in these Christian Science journals. I cannot believe that that is a proper thing and I, for my part, very strongly support this Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said that Christian Science had done great harm. I do not speak as a Christian Scientist—I am a member of the Church of England—but I am bound to say that I have seen much good done by Christian Science as I have also seen some harm done. On the whole I have seen more good than harm done. In any case, this is a recognized religion. It is not for us to discuss the merits of Christian Science; it is for us simply to discuss fairness and tolerance towards what is a recognized faith in this country.
Finally, as to the question of the use of the word "nurse," that word is a very old and a very broad noun in the English language. Are we now going to be told that children's nurses are not to call themselves nurses? If they are not to be called "nurses," what are they to be called? Am I not to have a nursery in my house without getting a certificate from the Minister of Health? Is this where we are getting to? Is the shop to be closed to that extent? All this business about words is really only a cover for a form of professional intolerance which I do not believe accords in the least with the spirit of the nursing system in this country, and which can only do it harm. I therefore beg His Majesty's Government to accept this compromise.
3.52 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I intervene for a moment, largely for the reason that I take a slightly different view of the matter from that taken by my noble friend who has just addressed you. I do not believe that all that is said will happen if this regulation continues to be a regulation will really happen at all. First of all, let me disabuse the mind of my noble friend who has just sat down in regard to the children's nurse in the nursery. In the Statute—and a regula-

837
tion cannot upset a Statute—it is provided that
"… nothing in this subsection"—
that is, the subsection under which this regulation is made—
"shall prevent a children's nurse from taking or using the name or title of nurse, unless the circumstances in which, or the words or letters in combination with which, the name or title is taken or used are such as to suggest that he is something other than a children's nurse."
The "he" sounds rather odd to me, but the Interpretation Act, of course, provides that "he" may also mean "she."
LORD ALTRINCHAM: If my noble friend will allow me to say so, I was well aware of the passage which he has just read to the House, but one of the noble Lords who addressed the House on this subject said it was important that there should be no use of the word "nurse" outside the properly trained medical nursing system.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I beg my noble friend's pardon, but I thought it was just as well to make it clear that this did not affect the position of the children's nurse. It is worth while to see also what this section of the 1943 Act does. It says:
"As from such date as the Minister may by order direct, any person who, not being a duly registered nurse under the principal Act"—
that is the 1919 Act—
"or a duly enrolled assistant nurse, takes or uses the name or title of nurse, either alone or in combination with any other words or letters, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine …"
It is not the case, as one noble Lord said, that sentence of imprisonment can be imposed. Later on, in paragraph (c), of Section 6, subsection (1), it is said:
"a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection by reason only that, without objection by him, other persons use the word nurse in addressing or referring to him."
Let us take the case of the Christian Science Monitor, which publishes something about somebody who is called a Christian Science nurse. Let us take, first of all, an American subject. The Christian Science Monitor publishes that and the person to whom it refers takes no objection to it, but because of this proviso in subsection (c) that person is not liable to be prosecuted. Nor do I believe that you could bring home to any
838
British subject who was described as a Christian Science nurse in a paper published abroad that an offence under this section had been committed. Therefore, whether or not the Government accept the compromise suggested, I believe it will be quite all right for a Christian Science nurse still to be so described in newspapers published abroad. I do not see that there is any way in which you could bring home an offence to them.
On the general subject, what was this Act of 1943 intended to do? Under the Act of 1919 it was made illegal to call yourself a registered nurse if you were not a registered nurse; but the phrase "registered nurse" was too long, and an attempt was made by the 1943 Act to give some definite status to a person who was called a nurse. I think it was right to do that then: and I think it is right to insist upon doing it at a time when there is the greatest difficulty, as most noble Lords—or at any rate all those associated with hospitals—will know, in getting a sufficiency of properly trained nurses for our hospitals. The more you do to raise the status of the nursing profession, the more likely you are to get the recruits who are necessary for the hospitals of this country.
I think nobody will disagree with the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion when he says that this is a matter into which he thinks this House may wish to go. It is, if I may say so, a very right and proper matter for this House to go into; but it is one thing for this House to go into the subject and another thing to take the view that it should go into the Lobby in support of the noble Viscount. I am not in a position—why should I be?—to advise any noble Lord as to what he should do. This is a matter which cuts across Party politics, but as my noble friend has spoken from these Benches, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say—and I know this for a fact—that had my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition been in the House this afternoon, he would have advised that it would be unwise to defeat the Government on this particular issue.
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and very sincere discussion, and I propose now to state the views of the Government upon this matter. In the first place, I should

839
say that on a Motion of this kind, under the proceedings of Parliament, a compromise is not possible. Your Lordships have either to vote for it, or against it. That is the way in which these orders are dealt with in Parliament. If the regulations were annulled, then it would be possible for the Minister or the Department to bring forward modified regulations, but your Lordships cannot amend them. So far, therefore, as the regulations are concerned, you must either approve them or disapprove them. Therefore I am afraid that on those grounds there is no possibility of meeting the noble Viscount's suggestions.
Moreover, I share the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. It does not appear to me to be a compromise at all, even if we could apply it, to do something or other which would affect something that was printed in a newspaper in the United States. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the point at issue. We are not considering that. We cannot control what they print in the newspapers in the United States, and I am quite sure nobody on either side of the House would be rash enough to suggest such an undertaking, so we can rule that out. That is not a compromise at all; it is just impracticable, that is all. It will not work. Let me say again that it is not a question of religious controversy, or the interfering or seeking to interfere with anyone's convictions at all. Neither of those considerations comes into the matter. The thing which really matters is: how are we to act with regard to the promotion and safe-guarding of the interests of the profession of nursing? That is really what we have to decide.
As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, the Act of 1943 was passed because after the Nurses Registration Act, which I myself passed through Parliament early in 1919, there were difficulties which arose, and consequently this excellent Bill of 1943 was passed to regularize and improve the position, as was only right. The idea was that gradually we were emerging, shall I say, from the period of our history in which Mrs. Gamp was recognized as a nurse. Gradually the profession has become one in which a standard of training is required, a standard of certification is required, and the Nurses
840
Registration Act was to set up a register of those who were so qualified. The whole effort has been gradually to raise the standard of the profession of nursing.
The noble Lord said that Christian Science nurses were not taught the medical side of nursing—I took down his words. Well, I am not concerned with what they are taught other than that, and it is entirely for those who have this faith to decide what they would wish them to be taught. But here we are concerned with establishing and trying to enhance the profession of nursing, which is something ancillary to and a part of medical treatment. That is what we are driving at all the time. Therefore, from our point of view, the noble Lord undermines his own case when he insists that these ladies do not receive medical training. It only goes to show that if we agree that people should describe themselves as nurses who have not had a medical training, we should to that extent be leading the people to think that they are qualified persons so far as medical training is concerned. They are not qualified persons, and in that sense we are not doing good to the nursing profession.
I would like your Lordships to get, shall we say, some sense of proportion in this matter. I have here a document which tells me about it, and it says that there are understood to be seventy Christian Science nurses in this country. Some were originally hospital trained and were converted to Christian Science; twenty-seven of the seventy have received their diplomas in the United States, and the others are not accounted for. Let us not get the thing out of proportion. It is not a large number of people with whom we are concerned. But of course, as the noble Viscount quite properly said, it is not a question of numbers but a question of principle, and you are not entitled to treat people hardly even though there may be few of them. That is perfectly right, and I entirely support that. On the discussion in another place when it was proposed to annul the Regulation it was defeated by 245 votes to 43, so that the proposal received very little support. The fact is that in our view it is not right that any particular set of people who are not nurses, whatever may be their personal religious convictions, which have nothing whatever to do with the issue, should describe themselves as nurses.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: They are not nurses; they describe themselves as Christian Science nurses, which is a very different thing.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, it is not. That is my point. It is misleading the people to think it is something identical—
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: No, my Lords, that is not true.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I listened to him with much patience and I did not interrupt him, and I must ask him to do the same for me. The connotation of the word "nurse," as we are trying to build up the standard of training and the quality of the profession, indicates somebody who has had a proper training as a nurse to help in a hospital. In our view it is not in the interests of nursing that other persons, whatever may be their religious denomination, should describe themselves as nurses, because if we accept this with regard to Christian Science nurses we cannot stop there. I do not see why you should not have Salvation Army nurses, who are just as much entitled to describe themselves as nurses and advertise themselves as nurses, or Presbyterian or Anglican nurses, and so on. You do not refer to Christian Science doctors or Methodist doctors. Doctors have a medical qualification and that is the thing which is the test of their being entered on the Medical Register, and the same applies to nurses.
I am sorry to say that with the greatest possible good will to try and meet the noble Viscount we cannot possibly agree to his suggestion. We want to advance the reputation of the profession of nurses. Call it a "closed shop" if you like, I do not mind. The medical register is a "closed shop." I am a member of that profession myself, and I should be the first to protest against anybody coming into that profession calling himself properly trained who had not been properly trained. It is a "closed shop" and so it ought to be. It is a closed shop in the interests of the community. That is why Parliament made it a "closed shop," and there is nothing to be ashamed of in that. If they had not made it a "closed shop," we very soon should have, and that applies to any profession in which, in the interests of the public,
842
it is deemed that a certain training should be required. That is really the root of the whole matter. I am sorry that we cannot make an exception, but in our view this regulation should be supported, and I hope that the House will support it.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: May I ask the noble Viscount one point. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, as I understood him, attached importance to the fact that under this regulation the name of a Christian Science nurse could not be entered in the Christian Science Monitor. I understood him to say that it would be an offence for the name to appear. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said it was not an offence under this regulation, so apparently Lord Horder's argument falls to the ground. May I know which of those two arguments is in fact sound?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That question would be more properly addressed to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. We cannot prevent anybody printing something in a United States paper. We cannot be responsible for that. What we are responsible for is what British citizens do in this country.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If a Christian Science nurse, resident in this country and practising here, were to pay for the insertion of an advertisement in the Christian Science Monitor, which circulates in this country, would that be an offence or not?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is a question of which I should require notice.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: May I ask the question of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): You may ask the question, but, not having heard the argument, I am much too wise to answer.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I deal with one or two of the points which have been raised, more particularly as I think that some of the arguments which have been used are based on misunderstanding? The particular point which we have had before us just now is, I think, going to be a point of very real substance. Are these ladies, whatever they may be—English, Scottish, Welsh, but, at any rate, all British—who are nursing in this country, going to be fined and, if they do not pay the fine, put in

843
prison, because they advertise their names and addresses in the Christian Science Journal, which is an official publication? It seems to me that that is a point of real substance.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: They are called upon to obey the law, like the rest of us.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I merely wanted to put the question because some of the speakers, judging by their remarks, seem to think that we were dealing with allusions to nurses in the Christian Science Monitor, which is a daily paper. Such allusions would not be a crime, I agree. But if duly qualified nurses, who have been trained and are practising here, think it necessary to carry out the rules and regulations of their Church and advertise in their own official publication, then I venture to suggest that it is a very serious step to make them liable to fine and imprisonment for obeying the rules and regulations of their Church.
That is one point which I wish to put before your Lordships. Another arises in this way. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said that if you allow the designation "Christian Science nurse," you might just as well have a "Salvation Army nurse" or a "Presbyterian nurse." Now there are two forms of treatment. This is not the occasion to go into the matter in detail, but I think I can summarize it by saying that one form, the Christian Science treatment, depends entirely upon prayer and does not include the use of medicine. Christian Science treatment is entirely spiritual
treatment; it does not use drugs and medicine. With regard to "Salvation Army nurses" or "Presbyterian nurses," the form of treatment which they would be helping to administer does not exclude the use of drugs, so that their case is entirely different. If later on some other set of people came forward and were able to make out as good a case, it might well be that you would wish to make an exception in their case.
But I do want to point out the fundamental difference between healing which depends entirely on spiritual methods, healing by prayer, and healing by the use of physic and medicine. I repeat that Christian Science treatment is not illegal. It is not proposed to pass a law to prohibit lectures on Christian Science or to prohibit worship in Christian Science churches. I can understand, though it would be unwise, that you try to pass a law to make this entirely illegal, but I cannot understand the logic of passing a regulation which is merely going to make it difficult for people belonging to a particular denomination to carry out the rules and regulations of their own Church whilst it is not illegal in this country. I feel that this is not a question of numbers; it is not a question whether the number is seventy more or less; it is a question of principle. I hope, therefore, that enough of your Lordships will support us in the Division.
On Ouestion, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS.

Airlie, E. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Harris, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Altrincham, L.

Rochdale, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Saltoun, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

Brentford, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Faringdon, I.

Salisbury, M.

Samuel, V.

Gifford, L.

Simon, V.

Hatherton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Wimborne, V.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Hindlip, L.

Inchcape, E.

Aberdare, L.

Holden, L.

Lucan, E.

Addington, L.

Horder, L.

Manvers, E.

Chatfield, L.

Inman, L.

Munster, E.

Cherwell, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Yarborough, E.

Darwen, L.

Llewellin, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Addison, V.

Derwent, L.

Marley, L.

Morrison, L.

Queenborough, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mottistone, L.

Quibell, L.

Terrington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Raglan, L.

Teviot, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Waleran, L.

Pakenham, L.

Rea, L.

Walkden, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Rochester, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Resolution disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, in the circumstances I do not propose to move
846
the Resolution in my name relating to the Nurses (Scotland) Amendment Regulations.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past four O'clock.