Sitting of 14 December 1949

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

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 29)
Return ordered,

"Respecting application of Standing Order No. 29 (Closure of Debate) during Sessions 1948 and 1948–49, (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure moved, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when moved

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

1

2

3

4

5

Date when Closure moved, and by whom

Question before Committee when moved

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against"

—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
Return ordered,
"of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Sessions 1948 and 1948–49.
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Sessions 1948 and 1948–49 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9
Return ordered,
"of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Sessions 1948 and 1948–49."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. ']
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Sessions 1948 and 1948–49, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to Committees on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; and the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS
Return ordered,
"of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Sessions 1948 and 1948–49-showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;

2635

(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC (PETITIONS)
Return ordered,
"of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Sessions 1948 and 1948–49, with the total number of signatures in those Sessions."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES
Return ordered,
"of the number of Select Committees appointed in Sessions 1948 and 1948–49, the Chairman's Panel and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Return ordered,
"of (1) the days on which the House sat in Sessions 1948 and 1948–49 stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of Business; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES
Return ordered,
"for Sessions 1948 and 1948–49 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing
2636
Committees, the number of Estimates considered by the Scottish Standing Committee, the number of days on which each Committee sat and the titles of all Bills and Estimates considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, the number of Members present on each of those days and, in the case of the Estimates, the number of days on which they were considered and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GERMANY

    Heligoland (Petition)
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no reply has been sent to the petition of the Aldermen of Heligoland, handed into the British High Commission of Control in Berlin on 10th June, 1947; and whether arrangements can now be made for the return to their island, after eight years of enforced exile, of the Frisian natives, who were British subjects up to 9th August, 1890, and who are now suffering distress on the Continent of Europe.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The British authorities in Germany are unable to trace the petition referred to. Many representations of German opinion on this subject have been received during the past four years. As regards the future policy of His Majesty's Government towards Heligoland, I have nothing to add at present to the statement by my right hon. Friend on 29th June.
    Professor Savory: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the unanimous resolution of the Federal Parliament at Bonn requesting the British Government to restore these unfortunate people to their mother country?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am aware of many expressions of German opinion on this subject. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend to this Question.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will a statement be made about this matter at a relatively early date?
    Mr. Mayhew: I will consider that suggestion.
    Sir Ronald Ross: What is the object now of keeping Heligoland? I thought that the bombing experiments had finished and that there was no further use for it.
    Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add.

    British Policy (Statement)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the purpose of Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick's recent official visit to Dusseldorf; and what was the nature of his address to Ruhr industrialists and bankers on 7th December.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the purpose of Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick's official meeting with Ruhr industrialists and bankers on 7th December; and what was the outcome of the meeting.
    Mr. Mayhew: The purpose of Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick's visit was to discuss with the United Kingdom High Commissioner some problems connected with United Kingdom responsibilities in Germany. An announcement to this effect was made from the High Commissioner's Office on 28th November. He took the opportunity to accept an invitation to attend a dinner and to give a statement of British policy towards Germany. I hope that the outcome was a better understanding of British policy.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the Press statements that this official met 22 industrialists, bankers, steel magnates and so on, but did not take the opportunity to meet the trade union leaders and the Socialists?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have no doubt that he did meet a number of industrialists and bankers in the course of his visit and I think that the address he gave was entirely appropriate to that audience. As to whether he saw trade unionists or not, I should need notice of that question.
    Mr. Chamberlain: In view of the very doubtful history of the Ruhr industrialists and bankers in the last 25 years and the very natural nervousness of the German
    2638
    workers, is it really desirable that a high official of the Foreign Office should have private meetings of this kind with them?
    Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps this kind of person will gain most from that kind of talk.
    Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those of us who know his official have every confidence that he did a great deal of good in this talk?
    Mr. Mayhew: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Scollan: In view of the fact that so far this House has not been informed of the policy towards Germany, how is it that Sir Ivone is able to go and discuss policy with industrialists in Germany?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can my hon. Friend ensure that this speech is given to as many audiences as possible in the same terms as on that occasion?
    Mr. Mayhew: I think it has had wide publicity.

    Affiliation Proceedings
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent improvements have taken place in Germany in respect of paternity allegations against British subjects, both military and civil; whether the women involved can now take action before a competent court; and to what extent illegitimate children of British fathers and German mothers are now the responsibility of the German authorities.
    Mr. Mayhew: It is now open to the German courts to hear affiliation proceedings brought against British subjects who are in Germany in a private capacity; it is not, however, at present possible for a German woman to bring proceedings against a member of the Forces or of the Control Commission. As regards my hon. Friend's last point, illegitimate children of German women, being of German nationality, are a German responsibility.
    Mr. Sorensen: But does my hon. Friend realise that we have a certain moral responsibility as well and, seeing that the matter has been brought up several times in the last two years, cannot he take some steps towards recognising and implementing the responsibility of British fathers in this respect?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is under consideration whether certain cases of this kind can be considered by Control Commission courts. I would, however, point out that my hon. Friend is asking something for German women which was not granted to British women in similar circumstances during the war.
    Mr. Sorensen: Are not the circumstances really quite different?

    Dismantling Programme
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the technical problems resulting from the recent changes in the dismantling programme are under urgent review; whether the dismantled equipment still lying in the premises of steel plants is to be removed; and what decision the Security Board has reached in regard to those recently spared synthetic oil plants which, if turned over to peaceful production can, by reason of the processes employed, be very quickly reconverted for war purposes.
    Mr. Mayhew: In accordance with the Petersburg Agreement, equipment at the plants concerned which had been dismantled by 24th November will be removed. The only technical problem resulting from this decision which has come to our notice is at the August Thyssen Works at Hamborn, and experts are now examining the problem there. The Military Security Board has not been required to take any decision regarding the synthetic oil plants in consequence of the recent Agreement. The position at these plants is as stated in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 30th November, and it will be the Security Board's responsibility to ensure that no prohibited items are produced.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Has there not been a great deal too much delay in dealing with all these problems of dismantling and, as a result of that delay, is my hon. Friend aware that a real opportunity is being provided to the Germans to agitate and indulge in propaganda of a most undesirable nature?
    Mr. Mayhew: I should have thought that quite recently we had made very great progress in clearing up the whole matter.

  CHINA (OFFICIAL RELATIONS)
  Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an undertaking not to recognise the Communist Government in China until he has a reasonable assurance that British diplomatic and consular officials there will be treated with respect.
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir; in international practice the proper treatment of diplomatic and consular officials should be automatic. To ask for assurances on this point might imply that this was not the case.
  Mr. Maclean: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the treatment accorded by the Chinese authorities to American consular and diplomatic representatives in China is far from re-assuring, and will he not wait until there is some indication that the Chinese are prepared to behave normally in this way before precipitating recognition?
  Mr. Mayhew: I welcome the news that Mr. Ward and his staff have been released. If their detention had been continued it would have been a very grave matter. As far as our own people are concerned, their official status is not, of course, recognised, but as individuals they have been treated properly.
  Mr. Sorensen: Could the Communists of China be directed to turn to South Africa for guidance?
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Americans never adopted a normal attitude towards the Chinese but that the Chinese are determined that the Americans shall?
  Mr. John Paton: Will my hon. Friend resist any temptation to further delay in this matter, in which there has been too much delay already?

  ATOMIC PRODUCTION (TALKS)
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the recent talks in Washington with regard to a partnership between Great Britain, the United States of America and Canada on atomic production.
  Mr. Mayhew: 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 King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) on 23rd November. The second stage of these exploratory talks began on 28th November and is not yet concluded.

  KENYA (ROAD CONSTRUCTION)
  Mr. Enrollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will apply for American aid for the carrying out in Kenya of a highway needs survey.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Arrangements have been made to draw up a comprehensive road programme which it is considered can be carried out by the specially qualified organisation now being formed by the Kenya Government for the purpose. American aid is to be sought for road building and maintenance equipment.
  Mr. Enrollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the speech made by the Governor of Kenya at the annual dinner of the East African Association of Engineers in Nairobi on 3rd November, 1949, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to road construction in Kenya.
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. The Governor made no statement of policy in this speech.
  Mr. Enroll: As the Governor advocated the prohibition of the manufacture of any vehicles capable of travelling at more than 15 miles an hour and advocated the prohibition of vehicles which make it necessary to build good roads, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to repudiate this reactionary point of view?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I do not think the Governor was expressing a point of view, or making a statement of policy. He spoke entirely in jocular vein and what he said should not be taken seriously.

  HONG KONG

    Legislative Council
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard
    2642
    to the provision of a municipal council or for elected representatives to the Legislative Council of the Colony of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Creech Jones: While I am anxious to reach a decision as early as possible, I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I made to the hon. Member's Question on 16th November.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as long ago as June he expressed the hope that he might reach a decision on this matter? Does he not think it really necessary to have some form of democratic legislature, municipal or otherwise, in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, but making constitutions is not too easy or fast a procedure.

    Airport, Deepwater Bay
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if work has commenced on the new airfield at Deepwater Bay, in the new territory of Hong Kong; and what progress has been made.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Government of Hong Kong have agreed that the Air Ministry should undertake the survey and design of the new airport and supervise its construction. An Air Ministry engineer has paid a preliminary visit to the site and arrangements are now being completed for the despatch of the full survey equipment and staff in January.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply is most unsatisfactory? This matter has been discussed for the last three years. Does he further realise that the air traffic through Hong Kong is the third highest in the world in respect of any airport, and could earn valuable dollars? Will he do what he can to expedite this work?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is quite true that the airfield is of comparable size to London Airport, but the problem is one of great complexity as problems of security and defence are involved, and also questions of finance. There are other problems all of which have had to be settled before much progress could be made, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the wheels are now going round.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would not the Secretary of State seriously consider having discussions with the Chinese Liberation Government about the work going on there in view of the fact that the new airfield will become their property?

  MALTA (FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC AID)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum has been given, or promised, to Malta by Britain since the war; what proportion of the money has been used, up to date, to promote economic self-sufficiency in the island; and what proportion has been spent on recurrent routine expenditure and consumption goods.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As the House is aware, I am arranging for the publication of a paper on the recent discussions with the Malta Government about financial and economic assistance. The paper will be published shortly and I hope that the information contained in it will answer the hon. Member's queries.

  GAMBIA (POULTRY PROJECT)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the total sum which has now been advanced to the Colonial Development Corporation for the poultry project in the Gambia.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The advances approved total £810,000.
  Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the British housewife may expect to see some dividend in eggs and poultry for this £800,000 investment?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am rather hopeful that something will happen next year.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Administration (U.N.O. Vote)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the British delegation to the General Assembly voted against the principle of equal education for children of all races in non-self-governing territories.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The vote was not cast against the principle of equal education as such. It was cast because a vote in favour would have implied an admission that the United Nations has a locus standi for interfering in our Colonial administration in a way which the United Nations Charter does not in fact support.
    Mr. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that a British representative at the United Nations stated that it was the policy of the United Kingdom to provide equal education in all non-self-governing territories and, in view of the fact that only votes and resolutions, and not the speeches and meetings that lie behind them get attention in the Press, will he publish a full statement of all our votes on questions at recent meetings of the General Assembly?
    Mr. Gallacher: It is not what is said, but what is done.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have promised a full statement to be published in the form of a White Paper. On every occasion when a vote of this kind is taken the position of His Majesty's Government is stated and it was so on this occasion.
    Mr. Piratin: If it is the policy of the Government to secure equal education for children of all races, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that is so in all Colonial countries?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

    Food Subsidies
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what food subsidies were paid, or promised, to Colonies in 1949–50 at the expense of the British taxpayer.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Twenty-eight thousand pounds has been paid to the Turks and Caicos Islands to meet the cost of food subsidies incurred during 1947–48 and 1948–49. No other food subsidies have been paid or promised at the expense of the British taxpayer.
    Mr. Reid: Do I understand that the Vote which was in the Estimates is not going to be expended on these items? Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is a very dangerous practice for the British taxpayer to give foodstuffs to Colonies? If they need assistance and must get it, surely it should be done in some other way?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, but only in the Turks Islands is this subsidy now paid. In other cases where assistance is required it is given through the grants-in-aid.
    Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that within the Colonies themselves everything is being done to develop the food resources which exist there to a large extent?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is quite a different question, but the answer is in the affirmative.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (MINING POLICY)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what agreement with the copper mining companies and the British South Africa Company has been arrived at by the Government of Northern Rhodesia for the prospecting of coal measures in the Protectorate; and what is to be the eventual ownership of any coal mines developed.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The parties to this agreement have agreed to spend between them up to £100,000 on these investigations. Eventual ownership of any coal mines developed would be for negotiation between those parties.
  Mr. Skinnard: Does my right hon. Friend mean that there is a possibility of final agreement as to ownership being opposed in principle in his statement on mining policy?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, the statement on mining policy was primarily concerned with the ownership of royalties and there has been a settlement in this case on that particular matter.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS

    Constitutional Reform
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the wider terms of reference now to be given to the Constitutional Reform Committee of the Leeward Islands cover the examination of the possibility of a fully-elected Legislative Council and election of some members from that body to the Executive Council.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is not proposed to give wider terms of reference to the Committee.

    Deportation
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons the legislation for the deportation of politically undesirable persons has been introduced in the Leeward Islands; and what right of appeal is to be available to deportees.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No such legislation has been introduced in the Leeward Islands.
    Mr. Skinnard: Has such legislation actually been drafted and discussed in the Executive Council?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware that anything of that kind has developed there.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what date he has instructed the Governor of British Honduras to submit his proposals for relieving the one official who fulfils the functions of import and price controller, co-operative officer and development officer; and if he will take steps to hasten a decision.
  Mr. Creech Jones: A separate controller of imports has now been appointed, and I have agreed in principle to the appointment of a co-operative and social welfare officer.
  Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend recall that this matter has been outstanding for a period of upwards of two years and is he satisfied that necessary changes are taking place so that essential Colonial development will not be held up by trying to give too many jobs to one man to do?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, I have already announced that in principle this decision has been taken

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Local Defence Forces
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state those British Colonies in Africa in which no local defence forces have been raised.
    Mr. Creech Jones: All British Colonial Territories in Africa have local defence forces, except Zanzibar.

    Exports
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the export of coconuts, pineapples and other fruits, palm oil and kernels from West African Colonies is now increasing and is not subject to any restriction; and what action has been taken to secure improvement in quality and packing.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The answer to the first part of the Question is broadly in the affirmative. Exports of palm oil and kernels are centralised through statutory marketing boards. Action is being taken where necessary to improve the quality of produce exported.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would my right hon. Friend answer the middle portion of my Question? Are there any restrictions about the export of these foodstuffs?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware of any. It is all done through the marketing boards.
    Dr. Segal: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to give special encouragement to co-operative marketing of these products?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is already given. Trading procedure is that cooperatives now function through the marketing board which was set up by the Governor.
    Mr. Collins: Does that mean that these commodities are imported under open general licence, and, if so, can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department can give any assistance to intending importers?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should like to have notice of that question because there are so many reservations in regard to these trade matters.

  JAMAICA (EX-SERVICE MEN)
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give any further
  2648
  information as to the position with regard to the grievances of ex-Service men in Jamaica; and whether any fresh steps have been taken to redress these grievances.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As a result of the Debate in the House of the 20th July, I asked the Governor to let me have a report on the complaints of ex-Service men in Jamaica and a statement of the policy of his Government in this matter. I shall communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as soon as I have received the Governor's reply.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not rather a long time to wait for a reply on a matter of this kind?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Governor to give most sympathetic consideration to the representations that have been made.
  Mr. Driberg: Since my right hon. Friend has said that he took this action as a result of a Debate in this House, could he cause the contents of his communication to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) to be communicated to the House as a whole, either through the OFFICIAL REPORT, or otherwise?
  Mr. Creech Jones: If a Question is put down, I will endeavour to supply the answer.

  NIGERIA (CONSTITUTION)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in respect of the conferences, now proceeding, regarding the future Nigerian constitution; and when these deliberations are likely to be concluded.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The reports of the regional conferences have been published. The drafting committee has considered these reports, and drawn up a statement to be laid before the general conference, which consists of 53 African unofficials under the chairmanship of the Attorney-General and will meet in January. It is hoped that the conclusions reached by the General Conference will be available for debate in the Legislative Council in March of next year.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is there any sign of a falling away of support for these conferences by any section which was originally incorporated in them?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Ihave had no report to that effect.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Prize Money (Distribution)
    Mr. George Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the provisions of the Prize Act, 1948, will be fully implemented and the funds finally distributed.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) on 9th November, the distribution of prize money to serving officers and men is complete. It is hoped to complete payment to ex-Service officers and men by the end of April, 1950. As the House is aware, the Royal Air Force Prize Fund is being distributed to charitable and other organisations for the benefit of present and past members of the Royal Air Force and their dependants. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Air, informs me that it is hoped to make the major distribution in the near future, but that it is intended to hold a reserve to meet future claims. I understand it is not possible to give a definite date by which the final distribution will have been made.
    Mr. Ward: Is it not true that this matter has been on the agenda of the Air Council for the last 18 months and has not yet been reached?
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member will have to put down a Question about that matter to the Secretary of State for Air.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that he told me a few months ago that the maximum delay in paying prize money would be in the neighbourhood of five months. Under the terms of the answer he has now given, it may well be that ex-Service personnel will have to wait for nearly a year?
    Mr. Dugdale: Payments are being made fairly rapidly, but as I have said they are completed so far as the actual serving personnel are concerned.

    Mine Clearance, 1918–19 (Clasp)
    Brigadier Petoasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether approval for the issue of a clasp, mine clearance, 1918–19, will now be given to officers and men who are eligible in view of the fact that the Naval General Service Medal, 1915, was not awarded for post-Armistice mine clearance service after 1918, and that the Naval General Service Medal is being awarded to those who carried out mine clearance service after the 1939–45 war.
    Mr. Dugdale: Mine clearance between 1918 and 1919 was qualifying service for the British War Medal. It is not intended to recommend that a special clasp to the Naval General Service Medal (1915) should be instituted to recognise such service.
    Brigadier Peto: Is it not a fact that such a clasp was designed and was withheld on account of cost?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.

    Warship Repairs, Hull
    Commander Purseyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what Admiralty contracts for warship repairs have been placed this year with Hull ship-repairing firms; what is their cost; and whether, in view of the unemployment among local ship-repair workers, he will consider placing further contracts with Hull firms.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Repairs to two warships have been undertaken during the present calendar year by ship-repairing firms in Hull, at a total cost of about £48,000. The claims of Hull will continue to be taken into consideration, along with those of other ship-repairing areas, when any further work of this kind is available.
    Commander Pursey: As Hull has no building facilities, and employment is entirely dependent on repair work, will the Civil Lord consider further contracts for Hull firms when possible?
    Mr. Edwards: I have just stated that Hull will be taken into consideration together with other ship-repairing areas.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the Civil Lord remember that Hull is not the only ship-repairing area, and should not the main consideration be one of price?
    Mr. Edwards: I am quite aware of the fact that Hull is not the only such area.

    Church Attendance
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the proportion of men in the Royal Navy available to attend divine worship each Sunday who do so; and what has been the trend in numbers since compulsory church attendance was abandoned.
    Mr. Dugdale: Detailed figures of church attendance are not available but 15 per cent. is thought to be a reasonable estimate. When compulsory church parades were abandoned there was at first a very sharp decline in the attendance but there has been a marked improvement during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend aware that only a very small proportion of shore based officers ever attempt to set an example to their men in the matter of attending to their religious duties? Is that not a matter into which he could cause some investigation to be made?
    Mr. Dugdale: I would not support the statement made by my hon. Friend. In any case it is a matter for the individual's conscience and not for the Admiralty.

    Religious Instruction
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty for what reason training establishments have been omitted from the arrangement to hold chaplain's hours in all naval ships and some shore bases.
    Mr. Dugdale: Boys', artificers' and other initial training establishments are omitted from the arrangement because they already have other facilities for religious instruction. In technical training establishments syllabuses are so tightly compressed that time for chaplains' hours could not be made available without increasing training periods.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend say what are the religious facilities he has mentioned?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. As regards new entry training establishments there is religious instruction of one hour weekly on a compulsory basis for personnel under the age of 18 but on a voluntary basis in the case of those over that age. The instruction is given by the chaplain of the appropriate denomination.

    Commando Operations (Claims)
    Mr. Medlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many claims have been received up to 13th December via the War Office from farmers in the South Devon area for loss of cattle and sheep killed by Marine Commandos operating from the Plymouth Command.
    Mr. W. Edwards: None, Sir.
    Mr. Medland: Is my hon. Friend aware that as usual the Admiralty is entirely wrong? Is he aware that on Saturday last a representative of these people visited the War Office, which deals with these claims for the Admiralty, and presented claims for 23 cattle and 101 sheep? If he is not so aware, I would say that this information has been sent to him in a letter, a copy of which I have here and which I shall be glad to let him see.
    Mr. Edwards: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have not received any letter or copy of a letter in connection with this large number of animals in respect of which a claim is being made. I can also assure him that no claims have been received via the War Office.

    Re-engagement
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been reached with regard to paying a gratuity to those who sign on again after 12 years' service, as opposed to those who do not, as is the present practice.
    Mr. Dugdale: Various alternatives for encouraging a greater number of men to re-engage on completing their first continuous service engagement are still under consideration. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 19th October, an announcement will be made as soon as decisions are taken.
    Commander Noble: Can the Minister answer the point raised in the Question

    2653
    categorically, "Yes," or "No"? It does seem ridiculous that the Navy should be suffering for an arrangement which, although it suits the other two Services, is not suitable for the Navy?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The present position is that in fact gratuities are paid when the men leave, but we are considering this question, along with others, with a view to seeing what can be done in order to encourage men to stay in.
    Sir R. Ross: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is a vital question as regards the Navy but not with regard to either the Army or the Air Force? It is not a question to be solved on the principle of uniformity between the Services.
    Mr. Dugdale: We are fully alive to the importance of the question.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any improvement with regard to the question of re-engagement in general since he reported to the House last March that only a quarter of those eligible were in fact re-engaging?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot say that the position is altogether satisfactory, but I have no detailed figures before me. If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will give him the actual figures.

  TELEVISION

    Economy Measures
    Mr. Enrollasked the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to announce whether the television transmitter programme will escape economy cuts.
    Mr. Symondsasked the Postmaster-General if he can now indicate the effects of the recent capital cuts on the programme for the extension of television.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): The extension to Holme Moss is not affected by the cuts in capital expenditure made so far, but I cannot give any assurance as regards expenditure in later years on the remainder of the plan.
    Mr. Erroll: When can we have an assurance that there will in fact be no further cuts?
    Mr. Hobson: As soon as the extensions in capital costs have been decided.
    Colonel Hutchison: That being so, can the hon. Gentleman say when we may hope to be able to get the precise date of the programme which was announced at Radio Olympia by the Lord President of the Council some time ago?
    Mr. Hobson: No,Sir.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this statement further postpones the setting up of television in Scotland?
    Mr. Hobson: I cannot say.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Does this mean that the station at Holme Moss will not be open at the end of 1951?
    Mr. Hobson: The hon. and gallant Member has not listened to my reply to the Question.
    Mr. Collins: Could my hon. Friend state when he would be in a position to make any statement, not merely about Scotland or any specific station but about the whole future programme?
    Mr. Hobson: That will depend on the programme.
    Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of this matter in connection with the export trade?
    Mr. Hobson: I do not think the export trade is at all affected by the programme.

    Sutton Coldfield (Range)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General what effect the increased output and range of the television transmitter at Sutton Coldfield will have on the location of other stations and the expansion programme of television broadcasts.
    Mr. Hobson: None, Sir. The power of the B.B.C.'s television transmitter at Sutton Coldfield has not been increased and it is expected to meet the requirements for which it was designed as part of the expansion programme.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: How can the hon. Gentleman make that statement when the transmitter is known to be giving clear pictures 50 miles beyond what was estimated? Surely, if this is the case it must

    2655
    make a difference to future expansion, and would he tell us something more about it?
    Mr. Hobson: The hon. and gallant Member may be aware of the fact that the transmissions from Alexandra Palace have been received in South Africa, but we should not say that South Africa can receive British television programmes.
    Mr. Enroll: Will the Minister consider stepping up the power of this transmitter so that Manchester and district may benefit immediately?
    Mr. Hobson: No, Sir. I do not think it is only the power of the transmitter which affects the radius within which signals can be received.

  BATTERSEA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
  Mrs. Ganleyasked the Postmaster-General how soon the Battersea area can hope for improved telephone service.
  Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend regrets that the service given by the Battersea exchange has not been so good as he would wish. I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being vigorously pursued and we hope for a steady improvement.

  ARMED FORCES

    Defence Expenditure (Savings)
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Defence whether he can now say how the saving of £12,500,000 on Defence expenditure in this financial year will be made.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The contribution of the Service Departments to the £12.5 million will be about £2 million for the Admiralty, £5.5 million for the War Office and £5 million for the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Can my right hon. Friend say that there will in fact be any saving at all when all the Supplementary Estimates are taken into consideration?
    Mr. Alexander: That remains to be seen when we see the Supplementary Estimates.
    Commander Noble: Will the Minister be able to give the House details of those figures for each of the Services?
    Mr. Alexander: I think that at a later stage that may be possible. I can say now that they will be mainly in respect of a reduction in respect of the somewhat lower uniformed strength; some reduction in the provisions for civilians; and in the provision for works and stores.
    Earl Winterton: Even though this information may be confidential and cannot be given to the House, has it at least been communicated to the Services, because at a time when they are engaged in weapon improvement and increasing barrack accommodation, it is very important that they should know the details?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Scollan: Can the Minister give the House an assurance in regard to this £5 million for the Army and the Air Force, that it will not be a case of cutting out something that is afterwards found to be required, and then bringing in a Supplementary Estimate to get it?
    Mr. Alexander: These are genuine savings on a programme which otherwise would have to be paid for.

    Atomic Bombs (Documents)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Defence if he will have published together all the documents issued since 1945 dealing with the atomic bomb; what is the present position of this country in regard to the use of atomic bombs; and what further action it is intended to take.
    Mr. Alexander: The only such document published by His Majesty's Government is the Report of the British Mission to Japan on "The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki," issued in 1946. A number of documents have been published by the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and are available in the Library of the House. The policy of His Majesty's Government has been in consistent support of the efforts being made in the United Nations to secure, under proper safeguards, the prohibition of the use of the atomic weapon.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister accept the statement that agreement was almost reached among the big Powers concerned a few weeks ago, and if so, is it intended to take the initiative and to ensure that every possible step is taken to reach agreement?
    Mr. Alexander: I should say that whoever made that statement could not have read very closely the debates which took place. I would ask my hon. Friend to take the opportunity to read the speeches, both of the Soviet delegate and of the Minister of State.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the document of the Atomic Energy Commission, which is in the Library and to which he has referred, it is stated very definitely that the only defence against the atomic bomb is dispersal? Is he considering plans to defend us by dispersing London and Glasgow?
    Mr. Alexander: I am sure that all the necessary steps which can possibly be taken with regard to the defence of the country are being taken.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Arising out of the answer to the first supplementary question, does my right hon. Friend say that the only attempts made to reach agreement between the Powers on this issue are those contained in the speeches to which he has referred?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. I referred to the whole of the discussions in the Atomic Energy Commission, which have been going on for several years, and which have been open to the public, and reports of which are in the Library. We have at all times endeavoured to secure the prohibition of the weapon under proper safeguards.
    Mr. Silverman: Does that mean that the only attempts to reach agreement are those to which the public had access? Have there been no private attempts to reach agreement?
    Mr. Alexander: I think the proper way to deal with this matter is through the organisation set up by all the nations of the world, without whose complete collaboration agreement in the matter would not be secured.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it the intention of the Government to consider the advisability of taking the initiative in this matter
    2658
    in order to make another attempt to try to reach agreement?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not think that this country has anything for which to apologise in the matter of the initiative it has taken to endeavour to secure the prohibition of this weapon.

    Personnel (Political Activities)
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Minister of Defence (1) whether he will propose an amendment to King's Regulations to ensure that National Service men shall have the same rights as other citizens to participate in political activities whilst dressed in civilian clothes;
    (2) whether, pending the dissolution and during the General Election, members of His Majesty's Forces will be allowed to participate in electioneering and to make political speeches in public when wearing civilian clothes.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Defence whether he will allow other ranks in all the Services to participate fully in electoral activities, including the right to speak from public platforms.
    Mr. Alexander: As I said in reply to Questions last week, the Government consider that the time has now come to revert to normal peace-time practice as regards political activities by members of the Forces. So far as Parliamentary candidature is concerned, however, because some members of the Forces have already entered into commitments, the present wartime rules governing those who are actually candidates for Parliament will be continued until after the General Election.
    Subject to this exception the normal rules with regard to political activities will apply during the General Election. This means that Service men who are not candidates will not be able to make speeches or in any way associate actively in party affairs, but they can of course freely attend political meetings when off duty, whether in uniform or not, and ask questions at such meetings. This applies to all officers and men in the Forces, including National Service men.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend really think that regulations applicable to the Regular Army of before the war

    2659
    should apply to National Service men today? Does not he further consider that the kind of regulations applicable to the higher civil servants, about participation in political activities, are not really wholly applicable, at any rate to the junior ranks in the Armed Forces today, Regular or otherwise?
    Mr. Alexander: We are satisfied after considering every aspect of the matter that, now the Services in general have reverted to fairly normal strength, it is essential to endeavour to keep politics out of the Armed Services.
    Mr. Gallacher: If high ranking officers in uniform can make political speeches and attack Communism, why should not rank and file soldiers in uniform make political speeches and attack capitalism, which the Minister knows is the enemy of co-operation?
    Mr. Alexander: The answer is, of course, that it would not be possible in the General Election for any high ranking officer to do what is alleged.
    Earl Winterton: To make the position clear, would the right hon. Gentleman state the undoubted fact that the majority of National Service men are under voting age in any case?
    Mr. Alexander: I should think so. They are under age, but that is not the main consideration in my mind. I want to make it clear that there seems to be no reason why the young National Service man should not go to political meetings for education.
    Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend state * just how a candidate is to be defined?
    Mr. Alexander: A candidate is one who has been adopted for consideration for election in a constituency.
    Colonel Gomme-Dnncan: Would the Minister assure the House that in all three Services where officers and other ranks have been adopted as prospective candidates they will not be moved great distances away from their prospective constituencies if that can possibly be avoided?
    Mr. Alexander: The position of a man's station in this connection is a matter upon which it is entirely for the Service Department to judge.

    Housing, Northern Ireland
    Sir RonaldRoss asked the Minister of Defence how much of the proposed programme for housing Service families will be situated at or near the recently formed naval and air establishments in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Alexander: The full programme for Northern Ireland has not yet been decided. However, on present plans provision will be made in 1950–51 for work to start on 36 married quarters for the Admiralty and on 46 for the Air Ministry. The Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland and this programme will accordingly be financed from the Works Votes of the two Departments.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Minister aware that, as the housing of the Forces is carried out under a service reserved to this House, to which Northern Ireland pays a very substantial contribution of many millions of pounds, they should be under no disadvantage there compared with the rest of the Service stations?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not for a moment think that there will be any question of disadvantage; but certainly, having regard to the general arrangements made by this House for the subsidising of the building of houses for the general population, it is not considered that we can apply this principle of loan outside Great Britain. It cannot be applied in Northern Ireland.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Is the Minister aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the families of English and Scottish airmen who are stationed in Northern Ireland, because the husbands are fortunate enough to be there and their families are away from them; and is he also aware that absence makes the heart grow fonder—very often of somebody else?
    Mr. Alexander: I have already indicated that we are proceeding with over 80 new married quarters in this area in the next year.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Argentine Meat
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Food why Argentine meat cannot be imported chilled instead of frozen, in view of the fact that this would improve its quality, and that there are refrigerator ships to spare.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): To maintain a reasonably level ration we must store imported meat for issue when home-killed supplies are low. Chilled meat cannot be stored in this way.
    Mr. Osborne: What is the total tonnage of the 13 ocean-going liners which are being used as floating refrigerators; what is the cost of maintaining them; how long have they been kept like it; and why is this extravagant, costly and crazy policy proceeding?
    Dr. Summerskill: That is an entirely different question.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the freezing of Argentine beef is in fact the main cause of the complaint about its quality to which her own meat controller referred the other day?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, but, of course, freezing does not improve the quality. It is not the main cause, but it does not improve the quality.
    Mr. Osborne: As the reply is so unsatisfactory, I will take any opportunity I find to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food what proportion of the Argentine beef imported is cow.
    Dr. Summerskill: About seven per cent. over the year.
    Mr. Baldwin: Will the right hon. Lady say whether the Ministry of Food imported this tough meat in order to impress on the British public that they are literally eating the Argentine rails?

    Butchers' Price Lists
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Minister of Food (1) if he will make it compulsory for price lists in butchers' shops to be exhibited in a frame in the windows of the shops, the lettering not
    2662
    to be less than 1¼ inches in height and to be replaced when they become faded or discoloured or for any other reason not clearly discernible;
    (2) if he is aware that some butchers are charging prices for B grade meat equivalent to the price they are permitted to charge for A grade meat; and, in order to protect the public, if he will make it compulsory for the notices relating to price and grade to be exhibited in a frame on the window board or slab and the lettering not to be less than 1¼ inches in height.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Meat Prices Order provides that the maximum retail prices for meat must be displayed in a conspicuous position, and I do not think that we can go further than this. I am afraid that a price list of the size suggested would be 11 feet long and nine feet wide. Any butcher who is found charging A grade prices for B grade meat is liable to be prosecuted.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the object of any price list which it is compulsory to exhibit in a butcher's shop is for the purpose of acquainting the public with the price of the meat which they have to buy, may I inform my right hon. Friend that if she were to go round the butcher's shops in my constituency and in other places she would find faded and discoloured notices upon which one cannot read the prices of meat? Further, in reference to her reply to my second Question, may I point out—
    Mr. Speaker: This a very long supplementary question. It is almost a speech.
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend goes round his constituency and finds faded notices which he is unable to read, then, of course, it is his duty to report the matter to the food office.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my right hon. Friend say whether there is a housewife in the whole of Britain who is able to face up to her butchers on this subject and, if so, could we have a photograph of her placed in the Library?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the House is willing, I am quite prepared to put the hon. Lady's photograph and my own in the Library.
    Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the housewife cannot at any time

    2663
    ascertain either the quality, the grade or the price of meat from the present arrangement in the shops, and will she consider making an order so that the butchers will have to do what they did before the war and exhibit on the meat they offer for sale the price to be charged? That could be done.
    Dr. Summerskill: I think my hon. Friend has missed the point of these Questions. That is done. It has to be done. The butcher has to indicate both the cuts and the quality of the meat as well as the price.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in fact B grade meat is being sold as A grade at 2d. a pound more than it should be sold, and that according to information which I have received from assistants working in butcher's shops in my constituency, fiddling is going on left, right, and centre, and will she do something about it?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend cares to give me details of these allegations, I will certainly institute proceedings.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Lady say what all this means, anyhow, when a housewife has to take what she can get?

    Carrots
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Carrots Order, 1949, provides a price incentive for growers to sell their carrots to canners, with the result that the public is being deprived of fresh carrots; and what steps he proposes to take by way of removal of price control or other means to divert larger quantities to the fresh vegetable market, having regard to the present general shortage of fresh vegetables.
    Dr. Summerskill: A farmer can get a higher price for his carrots from a canner than from a wholesaler, but he can get as much if he sells to a retailer and more if he sells direct to the public. However, the quantities used by canners at this time of year are relatively so small that I do not consider that there is any need to interfere with sales to them.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that it certainly is having this effect, and
    2664
    that I have had complaints from more than one quarter about it? Is it not very important to have more fresh vegetables, and cannot the right hon. Lady consider decreasing the difference in price?
    Dr. Summerskill: Ithink the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed, and I should like to remind him that of the last crop, I think 37,000 tons of carrots were sold to the canners out of a total of 322,800 tons.

    Eggs (Gambia)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if his Department have yet purchased the trial shipment of eggs from the Gambia, made by the Colonial Development Corporation.
    Dr. Summerskill: The trial shipment to which the hon. Member refers is presumably that of four boxes of eggs sent by the Colonial Development Corporation as an experiment. No question of purchase therefore arises.
    Mr. Hurd: What is happening to these eggs, because the Minister of Food is the only importer? Is he keeping them longer so that the quality will improve, or what?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has been told that there were only four boxes in all.

    Apples (Prices)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that since the re-imposition of the control of apples order retail prices have risen in the shops to 8½ d. for culinary apples, although growers are only receiving 1d. to 3d. per lb.; and in view of the fact that growers are affected by the large importation of foreign fruit, and that these lower prices are not passed on to the consumer, what steps he proposes to take to see that licences for the importation of horticultural produce are not issued whilst home supplies are sufficient.
    Dr. Summerskill: Before and since price control was re-introduced, growers have been receiving from 3½ d. to 5d. per lb. for large, good quality cooking apples and the prices in the shops have varied according to quality. Only desert apples are imported and the reason why growers have been receiving low prices for small, poor or ungraded cooking apples is the heavy yield of the home crop.
    Mr. Baldwin: As there appears to be some doubt about the information which the Ministry of Food seems to receive, may I ask the right hon. Lady to get some of her investigators or snoopers to find out what is really happening and give her some proper information?
    Dr. Summerskill: Before I answered this Question, I asked my investigators in the area in which the hon. Gentleman farms to find out the prices.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the difficulties of going into this matter, in view of the awful example of Adam and Eve and apples?
    Dr. Summerskill: They were not cooking apples.
    Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that the cessation of imports would tend to curtail supplies to the housewife, and does she not think that the implication of the question is that the proper thing to do is to look at the reasons for the disparity between the price paid to the grower and that paid by the housewife?
    Dr. Summerskill: I quite agree with my hon. Friend and he knows that I have devoted a great deal of my time to that investigation.
    Mr. Baldwin: Will the right hon. Lady send one of her investigators to the farm of the hon. Member for Leominster to see if he can negotiate a deal for thousands of boxes of apples of good quality?

    Food Parcels (India)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the Home Parcel Service operating from India by which food parcels are dispatched to the United Kingdom; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this loss of exchange.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is in communication with the Government of India on this matter.
    Mr. Baldwin: Since this food is apparently available in the world, is there any reason why the Ministry of Food should not purchase these parcels and have them distributed fairly in this
    2666
    country, and do away with this parcels racket that is going on?
    Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

    Sugar Ration (Babies)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that mothers who are feeding their babies on national dried milk use 1½ teaspoons of sugar five times a day amounting to about a pound a week and whether, in cases of this kind, he will increase the child's sugar ration.
    Dr. Summerskill: The feeding directions supplied with national dried milk call for 1½ level teaspoons of sugar per feed. Domestic teaspoons vary in size but if, in accordance with the directions, a medium sized teaspoon is used, the baby's ration of sugar will be found more than sufficient.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is a considerable amount, even in regard to the scarcity of sugar, and that, in consequence, families have to deny themselves of the ordinary ration which they would normally receive in order to provide the additional sugar? Will she look into it?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have reassured the hon. Gentleman on this question before, and the figures do not bear out what he alleges. If he will remember that a baby needs 7½ teaspoons of sugar a day, which equals 52½ teaspoons per week, if he will weigh that he will find that it is 6⅜ oz.

    Proposed Dairy, Pickering
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food what objections were raised by the Milk Marketing Board to the proposal of Messrs. Southwicks Wholesale Dairies, Limited, to establish a dairy, with main depot status, at Pickering.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Milk Marketing Board's objections were that the redirection of milk involved was unnecessary and would entail additional cost, and that the prospects of increased production in the area were not such as to justify the erection of a new depot.
    Mr. Turton: Am I to understand from that reply that these objections were over-

    2667
    ruled on the advice of an official, a Mr. Harper, who had himself been a director for nine months of Messrs. Southwick?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that again, because he mentioned it in another Question. Mr. Harper certainly served in the Milk Department, but he was not concerned with questions of this kind. He did not see Messrs. Southwick, but a farmers' deputation which came on an entirely different matter to discuss pasteurisation plant. Mr. Harper was only concerned in discussing buildings which are to be erected for the purpose of the heat treatment of milk.

    House-Charge Licences
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that his food executive officer informed the Aldenham Lodge Hotel Limited, that all applicants for house-charge licences must be in a position to prove that their business did, in fact, function before the war, and that the charge for a meal during the 12 months prior to September, 1939, was more than 5s. 6d.; and whether, in view of the licence he has granted to the Government Hospitality Centre in Park Street, he will now reconsider the application of Aldenham Lodge Hotel Limited for a similar licence.
    Dr. Summerskill: We have made exceptions to the normal rules in a few very special cases, of which the Government Hospitality Centre was one, but I can see no reason for doing so in this case.
    Mr. Turton: Surely, that is a different reply from the one which the right hon. Lady gave on this very question last week, when we were told that there was no hard and fast rule about whether an hotel had been operating in the previous year? Will the right hon. Lady look at her reply and compare it with that of the Minister, and, in view of the discrepancy, allow this hotel to re-apply?
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not think so. I think the reply of my right hon. Friend and my own reply are quite consistent. We do exercise our discretion, and we did not think it necessary to exercise that discretion in this case.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in reply to a speech made from this bench on the Estimates for the Government Hospitality Centre, either the Minister or the right hon. Lady stated that it was alternative accommodation? Why is she attempting to compete in this way with private enterprise?
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Since it is now 1949 and it will shortly be 1950, can the Minister give us any indication when, in this and a number of other fields, we shall get away from the monopoly of the 1939-ers?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir; when the supply of food equals the demand.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Lady make it quite clear that this rule about operating before the war, and of having had a charge of 5s. 6d. before the war, does not operate any longer?
    Dr. Summerskill: In most cases, it does. We have to exercise our discretion in some cases.

    Empire Sugar Production (Discussions)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with Commonwealth sugar producers; and what proposals he has made for the limitation of sugar production in the West Indies after 1952.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for the long-term contracts for the purchase of sugar from the British West Indies and other parts of the Colonial Empire.
    Dr. Summerskill: Discussions with Commonwealth sugar producers are still proceeding, and it would be inappropriate for me to make any statement at present.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulty in which we are placed in that very important and possibly irrevocable decisions may presumably be taken during the Christmas Recess, when we cannot discuss them, on a tremendously important issue of Colonial policy, not only of food policy, and has she read the excellent letter in today's "Times" by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot)?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir; I have read my hon. Friend's letter, and I have commented on it privately to him. I am sure he will realise that, while conversations are continuing, and they are actually continuing this afternoon on this subject, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on it.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: While agreeing with the right hon. Lady about the tremendous importance of this matter in regard to our Colonial policy in future, may I ask whether it would not be possible, if an agreement can only be reached during the Recess, for that agreement to be provisional and for this House to be consulted before any final and binding arrangement is made?
    Dr. Summerskill: I will certainly consider that.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it at all possible that agreement will be reached this afternoon, and, if so, could my right hon. Friend make a statement tomorrow?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I could not commit myself.

    Sweets
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food what the results of his inquiries into the quality and sale of coupon-free sweets have been.
    Dr. Summerskill: Discussions with the trade are still going on, so I can make no statement at present.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend personally satisfied that no ration goods are being diverted into this form of manufacture, and, further, that the material from which coupon-free sweets are being manufactured is fit to eat?
    Dr. Summerskill: Ihope that my hon. and gallant Friend realises that I shall receive a report on these discussions and that I cannot comment on the matter yet.

    Offences (Informers)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Food if he will instruct food officers to give, when required, the names of informers through whom investigation into alleged food offences has been made, and in cases where the allegations have been found subsequently to be without foundation.
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot lay down any general rule binding my Department to a particular course of action in hypothetical circumstances. Any such case would be considered on its merits.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If any hon. Member gives a definite case where this has occurred, can the right hon. Lady assure the House that she will allow her officers to give the name where the honesty and integrity of the citizen has been wrongly questioned.
    Dr. Summerskill: I should not like to make any categorical statement. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that if we discover that information which has been given to us is unfounded or has been given for malicious reasons we should give special consideration to what our action should be.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As the effect on the citizen is the same whether it be unfounded or malicious, can the right hon. Lady say whether any difference is going to be made between the malicious and ordinary informers who do it by mistake? Is the attitude of the Ministry that this should not be done?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that every case must be considered on its merits.

  ELECTRICAL POWER INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make about the situation in the electrical power industry.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am informed that the level of output at the power stations affected by the strike is rising, but that some load shedding is unavoidable. The trade union representatives on the National Joint Industrial Council this morning met the shop stewards from the various power stations in order to discuss the present situation and the events leading up to it. The meeting is still in progress.
  Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep us posted and give us what information he can on this situation, which seems to be no more promising than it was last night? Is the statement correct, about which I have been informed and

  2671
  read on the tape, that they adjourned this morning after two and a half hours without reaching any decision at all?
  Mr. Isaacs: It is correct that they adjourned, but they only adjourned for lunch. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh about in this; it is a cold fact. They have resumed their discussions, and I have been in indirect contact with their leader, who has gone back into the conference and has promised to let me know immediately what the conference decides. For what it is worth, that man expressed his optimism.
  Mr. Eden: I should like to address one other Question to the Minister of Fuel and Power. Can the Minister say what is the position about the traffic tonight on the Underground Railway? Is it true, for instance, that there is to be a 15 per cent. reduction in that respect?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): May I first express the apologies of my right hon. Friend for not being in his place in order to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, but he is fulfilling a long-standing engagement in the Kent coalfield and will not be back until this evening.
  In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Question, the position is that generation is steadily improving. Something between 30 and 35 per cent. Is now in operation and as the personnel come in and are trained it will improve. At the peak hours, however, there will be something like 25 per cent. less electricity being generated than is actually required, and to that extent, unfortunately, there will be some interference at the peak hours with public transport and other users of electricity.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Minister of Labour misled the House on Monday when he said that no notification had been given of the dispute and the possibility of a strike at this station, and will he now withdraw the troops and thus give an opportunity for an amicable settlement of this dispute, which I am certain can be settled if the troops are withdrawn?
  Mr. Isaacs: I did not mislead the House. I stated the cold facts, and it is
  2672
  the people who have misled these men who ought to answer for their conduct.
  Mr. Palmer: Will not my right hon. Friend say a word of thanks and encouragement to the technical staff and the engineers in these power stations whose skill and sense of duty during the last few days in supervising the labour coming in from outside and whose sense of duty to the wider trade union movement have enabled to be maintained in a very good fashion the public supply of electricity over the past few days?
  Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, I think it is right that the House should be aware of the care and attention and the extra work which these men have put in, but I think they are also to be praised, not only for having done their duty, but for not following the misguided course which other people have fallen for.
  Earl Winterton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unprecedented use—however necessary it may be—not made by his predecessors, of soldiers and sailors in these disputes means a serious interference in the training of National Service men, and will he say what steps he is taking to obtain volunteers in their place?
  Mr. Awbery: As negotiations are proceeding through the usual channels between the representatives of the employers and men, will the Minister give a report on this conference immediately it is terminated?
  Mr. Isaacs: I have already undertaken if it is possible, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, to give the House any further information, and I shall very gladly do so. But may I ask the House to remember that when dynamite is lying about, it is easy to have an explosion. The least said on this matter the better.
  Earl Winterton: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make some acknowledgment of the troops' services—up to the moment he has made none at all—and, in view of the interference with training, to make a further appeal for civilian volunteers?
  Mr. Isaacs: I expressed appreciation of the work done by the Services at the earliest opportunity.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is any point in pursuing the matter further.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any further statement to make about the Business for this week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have to inform the House of an alteration in the Business statement which I made yesterday about the consideration of Lords Amendments to Bills. In view of the Amendments made in another place to the Parliament Square Bill we felt that it was desirable to ask the House to consider them tonight, as well as the Lords Amendments to the Festival of Britain Bill. We are suspending the Rule for this purpose.

Division No. 304.]

AYES

[3.40 p.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Cullen, Mrs.

Holman, P.

Albu, A H.

Daggar, G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

Daines, P.

Houghton, Douglas

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

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

Alpass, J. H.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Attewell, H. C.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Austin, H. Lewis

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Awbery, S. S.

Deer, G.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Ayles, W. H.

Delargy, H. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Diamond, J.

Janner, B.

Bacon, Miss A.

Dobbie, W.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Balfour, A.

Dodds, N. N.

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

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jenkins, R. H.

Barton, C.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Battley, J. R.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Benson, G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Keenan, W.

Berry, H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Kenyon, C.

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

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Binns, J.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Kinley, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Ewart, R.

Kirby, B. V.

Blenkinsop, A.

Farthing, W. J.

Lavers, S.

Blyton, W. R.

Fernyhough, E.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Bottomley, A G.

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

Leonard, W.

Bowen, R.

Foot, M. M.

Levy, B. W.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Forman, J. C.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Bramall, E. A.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Lindgren, G. S.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Gallacher, W.

Lipson, D. L.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Logan, D. G.

Burden, T. W.

Gibson, C. W.

Longden, F.

Burke, W A.

Gilzean, A.

McAdam, W.

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

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

McEntee, V. La T.

Byers, Frank

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Carmichael, James

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Mack, J D.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Champion, A J.

Grey, C. F.

McLeavy, F.

Chater, D.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Cluse, W. S.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Collick, P.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Collindridge, F.

Hale, Leslie

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Collins, V. J.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Colman, Miss G. M.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Medland, H. M.

Cook, T. F.

Hardman, D. R.

Mellish, R. J.

Cooper, G.

Harrison, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

Mitchison, G. R.

Cove, W. G.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Morley, R.

Craddock, G.

Herbison, Miss M.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Crawley, A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hobson, C. R.

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

NEW MEMBER SWORN
George Craddock, esquire, for the Borough of Bradford (South Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill and to the Festival of Britain (Supplementary Provisions) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes. 267; Noes, 98.

Moyle, A.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Thurtle, Ernest

Murray, J. D.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Tiffany, S.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Tolley, L.

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

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

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

Royle, C.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Scollan, T.

Viant, S. P.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Scott-Elliot, W.

Walker, G. H.

O'Brien, T.

Segal, Dr. S.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Old field, W. H.

Sharp, Granville

Watkins, T. E.

Orbach, M.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Shurmer, P.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Pannell, T. C.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Parker, J.

Simmons, C. J.

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

Parkin, B. T.

Skeffington, A. M.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Wigg, George

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Skinnard, F. W.

Wilkes, L.

Pearson, A.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Wilkins, W. A.

Peart, T. F.

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

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Piratin, P.

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

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Popplewell, E.

Snow, J. W.

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Sorensen, R. W.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Pritt, D. N.

Sparks, J. A.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Proctor, W. T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Pryde, D. J.

Stubbs, A. E.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Wise, Major F. J.

Ranger, J.

Swingler, S.

Woods, G. S.

Rankin, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Wyatt, W.

Reaves, J.

Symonds, A. L.

Yates, V. F.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Rhodes, H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Zilliacus, K.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Robens, A.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Osborne, C.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Prescott, Stanley

Barlow, Sir J.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Price-White, D.

Birth, Nigel

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

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

Hope, Lord J.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bossom, A. C.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.

Robertson, Sir O. (Streatham)

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Hurd, A.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Butcher, H. W.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Challe**n, C.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Channon, H.

Langford-Holt, J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Linstead, H. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Davidson, Viscountess

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Studholme, H. G.

Do la Bere, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Drayson, G. B.

Macdonald, Sir P. (l. of Wight)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

McFarlane, C. S.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Duthie, W. S.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Touche, G. C.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Turton, R. H.

Erroll, F. J.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

York, C.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gtyn, Sir R.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Colonel Wheatley and

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Nutting, Anthony

Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Gridley, Sir A.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 1. —(ESTABLISHMENT OF TERRITORIAL ARMY ASSOCIATIONS FOR TWO OR MORE COUNTIES.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 3, at the end, insert:
  "(3) The scheme under section one of the Act of 1907 for an association established for two or more counties shall provide for constituting the lieutenant of any of those counties a vice-president of the association in any case where he is not president of the association and is willing to serve as vice-president.
  3.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It has the simple effect that, where a joint association is formed for two or more counties and the Lord Lieutenant of one county is the president of the association, then the Lords Lieutenant of the other counties shall be vice-presidents.
  Earl Winterton: It is only right that on this point, which was raised by one of my right hon. Friends or one of my hon. Friends behind me, I should take the opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to the proposal which meant that due recognition would be given to both Lords Lieutenant.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
  "(4) As respects an association established for the City of London and one or more other counties, the Act of 1907 and the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect subject to the following provisions, that is to say,—

  (a) subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall apply as if the Lord Mayor of the City of London were the lieutenant of a county, and

  (b) subsection (3) of section thirty-nine of the Act of 1907 (which provides that the Lord Mayor shall ex officio be president of the association of the City of London) shall not apply."

  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  2678
  It is purely consequential and places the Lord Mayor of London in the same position as the Lord Lieutenant of the county for this purpose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 3. —(POWERS AND DUTIES OF ASSOCIATIONS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 13, at the end insert:
  "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of an association to make itself acquainted with and conform to the plan of the Admiralty for the organisation within the area for which the association is constituted of the reserves of the Royal Navy and of the reserves of the Royal Marines in so far as that plan relates to matters with respect to which functions are conferred on the association under the next following subsection."
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It states a little more fully and clearly the duties of the association.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 5. —(CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 13, leave out "within the meaning," and insert "in accordance with the provisions."
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It will require slightly more comment than the last Amendment. The position is that volunteers in the Territorial Army enjoy certain safeguards with regard to compulsory posting and compulsory transfer, which safeguards it is not intended should be enjoyed by National Service men doing their part-time service in the ordinary way. But the National Service men who volunteer for a term of part-time service, as stated in the Act, do enjoy those safeguards. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear beyond all possible doubt that they do enjoy such safeguards.
  Such men, the National Service Act states, are not deemed to be
  "enlisted in accordance with the provisions"
  of the relevant part of the National Service Act. The wording here, therefore, by using that very phrase,
  "in accordance with the provisions"

  2679
  excludes such men from this subsection and consequently includes them among those who enjoy the safeguards.
  Earl Winrerton: This, again, was a point which I think was put from these benches, the case being that there should be a favourable differentiation between volunteer Territorials, if I may coin a phrase, and others. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for accepting it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 7. —(APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS TO ROYAL AUXILIARY AIR FORCE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 8. line 31. at end insert:
  "(c) to provide for any joint assurance that of the chairman and vice-chairman or vice-chairmen at least one shall be a military member of the association and at least one shall be an air force member of the association."
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the two subsequent Amendments. Together they simplify the drafting and meet a point which was raised in an earlier Debate in this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey).
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 10. —(LIABILITY OF NAVAL AND MARINE RESERVES TO BE CALLED INTO ACTUAL SERVICE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 8, leave out from "not" to "for" in line 9, and insert:
  "without his consent in writing be liable to serve in pursuance of this subsection."
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The effect of this Amendment is to put men of the Naval and Marine Reserves in the same position in this respect as is achieved for the Army by the proviso to Clause 12 (2) of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 7.— (DETERMINATION OF POSSESSION FOR PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT BY OWNER.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 25, at end insert:
  "Provided that the Minister shall not be required to give such a direction if the development in question consists only of the use of land for a period or periods not exceeding twenty-eight days in all in any calendar year, whether with or without the erection or placing of movable structures on the land for the purposes of that use."
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This proviso qualifies the Clause dealing with the giving up of sites in order that owners may develop them. If this Amendment had not been moved it might have been made necessary, where an owner greatly wanted to acquire the use of his site for a matter of under 28 days, for that site to be surrendered by the local authority. That was never, of course, intended and this Amendment is therefore being inserted.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 11. —(WAR DAMAGE PAYMENTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 42, after "authority" insert "or person."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that by "authority" we include a person—for example the Timber Controller—who might be involved in such a case.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 33, at end, insert new Clause A (Suspension of justices' licences).
  "Subsection (3) of section twelve of the Finance Act, 1946 (which relates to the suspension of justices' licences on the compulsory acquisition of licensed premises) shall have effect as if references in that subsection and in the First Schedule to that Act to the compulsory acquisition of premises included references to the taking possession of premises by a local authority by virtue of a lease or authorisation under this Act."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  A provision was inserted in the Finance Act, 1946, to place in suspense the licences on the licensed premises which were compulsorily acquired so that they could become effective again when alternative accommodation was found.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 15, at end, insert new Clause B (Penalty for depositing rubbish on war-damaged sites).
  (1) If any person, without the consent of the person entitled to possession of the land, deposits any rubbish or waste material—

  (a) upon land of which a local authority are entitled to possession by virtue of a lease or authorisation under this Act;

  (b) upon any unoccupied land which has sustained war damage,

  he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
  (2) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, any expenditure reasonably incurred by a local authority in removing (whether in the exercise of powers conferred by this Act or otherwise) any rubbish or material deposited by any person in contravention of that subsection may be recovered from him by that authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker: This involves a question of Privilege and, if it is carried, the necessary entry will be made in the Journals.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This matter was raised in debate in this House when the Bill was under consideration and a promise was given by my right hon. Friend that an Amendment of this nature would be inserted in another place to ensure that there would be a more adequate safeguard against the tipping of rubbish on war damaged sites.
  Mr. Keenan: I should like to express the thanks of those people in my area to the hon. Gentleman for accepting this Amendment. Apparently our local authority considered that they had no power to deal with this matter and this Amendment clears up the position. Now this nuisance can be attended to, and I want to express my thanks on behalf of hon. Members from
  2682
  Liverpool; this Amendment will enable us to push the local authority to do something in which we feel they have been defective in the past.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  FILM INDUSTRY
  3.59 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
  "That this House takes note of the Report of the Working Party on Film Production Costs and of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution and Exhibition of Cinematograph Films."
  The publication of the reports of the committees headed by Sir Arnold Plant and Sir George Gater provides an opportunity for this House to Debate the general position of the film industry, on which much concern has not unnaturally been expressed in recent weeks. I am sure it will be a Debate that will cut right across party lines, and I should like to say here and now that the views expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be of the utmost assistance to the Government in framing a long-term policy for the industry, which we were not in a position to do until these reports were received, and until public opinion had had time to make itself felt on their conclusions.
  I am sure the House will understand that the Government, in proposing that a Debate should be held so soon after the publication of these reports, and before we go away for the Recess, are not in a position—apart from expressing their broad agreement with most of the conclusions of both reports—to go into any detail on plans for giving effect to these conclusions until an opportunity has been given to the various sections of the industry to comment on them. I am sure this is right, the more so as in the Plant Report it is suggested that the industry be invited to carry out the principal detailed recommendations against a specific time limit mentioned in the report.
  This House has debated the position of the film industry on a number of occasions in the past four years, but most of the debates have been related to specific legislative proposals or to specific events.

  2683
  such as the Anglo-American Film Agreement of March, 1948. Today provides the first opportunity for a review of the problem as a whole; and, perhaps, it would be appropriate for me to say something of the development of the film industry, and of Government policy to the industry, since the end of the war.
  Immediately following the war, the first task which the industry and the Government had to face was one of physical rehabilitation. The producing side of the industry, located as it is mainly around London, had suffered its share of enemy attack, and repair and reconstruction—indeed, the rebuilding—of studios was essential if the industry was to be able to play its full part in the production effort. Roughly speaking, there has been £1,750,000 worth of building work on studios licensed and completed since the end of the war. In addition, from £250,000 to £500,000 worth of work on film laboratories has been licensed, but not all of that has been completed.
  Almost before the film industry had begun to recover from the war there were the difficulties, which have been the subject of considerable debate in this House, resulting from the nation's dollar situation in 1947. The ad valorem films duty, and the resultant boycott placed on the export of films by the American motion picture industry, dominated the situation in the winter of 1947 to 1948. The possibility of an indefinite continuation of that boycott might, one would have thought, have presented the industry with a real incentive to build up film production, and certainly the Rank Organisation, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will recall, made it clear that their own cinema interests dictated the stepping up of production to give a reasonably adequate supply of British films. But although production was increased in terms of quantity—I shall have a word to say about quality in a moment—it soon became clear that the existence of a boycott was presenting the film industry, and the normal sources of film finance, with an excellent excuse for one of its periodic crises.
  It has been suggested recently—and Mr. Rank's statement has given support to this—that the agreement of March, 1948, which brought both the tax and
  2684
  the boycott to an end, descended on the industry like a bolt from the blue, and frustrated its efforts to increase production. As I have already explained to the House on a number of occasions, this view cannot be upheld. Indeed, in the late autumn of 1947, I myself received _ a strongly worded memorandum from the British Film Producers' Association, headed by Mr. Rank, which said this:
  "If the import duty prevents American films coming to this country, it will inflict serious financial hardship on British film producers, who cannot, except on a long-term plan, so increase production as to make British cinemas independent of imported films."
  It was suggested—in many quarters, in fact—that the possibility that cinemas would be closing down within 12 months was operating to prevent both producers, and the normal sources of finance, from making possible an increased programme of production.
  Then it has been suggested—in the past few weeks—that the terms of the 1948 agreement, on which, as Mr. Rank has said, the film producing industry was not consulted, operated against the interests of British film production. I well remember the violent Press articles of the time—in particular one by Mr. Randolph Churchill in the "Daily Mail," describing the agreement—an agreement which reduced our dollar expenditure on films from 50 million to 17 million a year—as a sell-out to the Americans, and saying that it was certain that American producers would come in and over-run British studios. It was about eight months later that I was being equally violently attacked by those who said that the agreement had led not to too much, but too little production in British studios.
  The removal of the hardship and the uncertainty, to which the film producers had drawn attention, in terms of the boycott did not lead to that rapid increase of production which we had been led to expect would be possible after the agreement. This House in fact, before the agreement, had, during the previous few months, passed the quota legislation which is now in force, and the agreement was followed by urgent demands from producers that the quota be fixed at not less than 50 per cent.; and Mr. Rank was talking of playing over 60 per cent of British pictures in his own circuits. In fact, I myself took a more cautious view, and recommended to this House a

  2685
  figure of 45 per cent. which was accepted, though the expectations of production which had been held out by the producers, and which more than justified such a figure, did not, in fact, materialize; and it was with regret that I had to come to this House in March this year and propose a reduction to 40 per cent. Meanwhile the industry's difficulties in finding enough financial backing for production had become still more acute. The Rank Production Organisation, aided as it was later in 1948 by a new arrangement under which the immense resources and earning power of the circuits and distribution organisations were made available for meeting losses on film production, was still going at full blast, but a number of the more important independent producers, particularly some who, in the later war years, under Mr. Rank's leadership had done so much to revive the prestige and quality of British film production, were unable to find finance sufficient to enable them to go on the studio floor with projects which were all ready for shooting. Private sources of finance—the famous so-called "angels" of the industry—seemed fewer and farther between.
  The British Lion group, the principal distribution agency outside the Rank Organisation which was at that time financing a considerable volume of independent production, was struggling against the incubus of a succession of highly picturesque, but not, on the whole, remunerative, productions. In "Hamlet," a film which has added greatly to the prestige of British films abroad, Sir Laurence Olivier uttered the words, "Angels and ministers of grace defend us." This was a fitting commentary on the financial position of the industry. In the absence of angels, Ministers were faced with the imminent collapse of the film industry if special steps were not taken. Apart from the substantial finances made available to the Rank Organisation, the City was even more than usually unforthcoming in financing film production.
  It was in these circumstances that the Government took the unprecedented and, to us, unwelcome step of announcing that Government finance would be available, in the form of working capital, through appropriate distribution companies in the first instance, for film production. At the earliest opportunity the situation, as the House will recall, was regularised with
  2686
  the legislation to establish the National Film Finance Corporation, and to provide it with a fund of £5 million for the purpose of supporting production, with loans both to distribution companies who were engaging in financing production and, in appropriate cases, to producers.
  Now I should like to turn to the events of the past year and to the financial difficulties which have overcome the industry as a whole, not excluding the Rank Organisation. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in paying tribute to what was done in the later war years, and the years immediately following the war, to raise both the quantity and the quality of British film production. Whatever may be the position today, Mr. Rank and many of those associated with him—and the noble Lord will be with me, if he can overcome his natural modesty, in this connection—will have an undying place in the history of the British film industry for the production of British prestige films, in the real sense of the word, such as—if I may invidiously select one or two—"In Which We Serve," "Henry V," "Hamlet," "The Red Shoes," and many others; while, of course, Sir Alexander Korda and his group will be similarly remembered for other no less memorable productions.
  But it was during this period of the artistic renaissance of the industry that the seeds of disaster were being sown. Methods of financing—particularly out of E.P.T.—undue hopes of world market revenues for any production that was set in hand, fantastic extravagance on the part of certain individual producers, the loss of financial disciplinary control, the desire to produce prestige films no matter what the cost, the growth of harmful restrictive practices on both sides of the industry—all these things piled up costs, and gave rise to an attitude on costs from which the industry has not recovered.
  Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, when he was at the Board of Trade, I myself, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, warned the industry that this situation could not last, and since we could not expect to earn substantial overseas revenue, especially dollar revenue, on more than a proportion of our productions, costs simply had to be reduced to a level which could for the most part be recovered in the domestic market.

  2687
  Well, I think the industry has realised the importance of the financial factor, though, at least until this year, this realisation has principally taken the form of attacks by each side on the alleged extravagance of the other. It was for this reason that I proposed to the Joint Film Production Council that a working party should be set up, representative of both sides of the industry, in order that these matters could be thrashed out, and an agreed view presented of the real facts on costs in the industry. The Gater Report, which is available to us today, is the result of that proposal, and I propose to deal with its main findings in a few moments.
  Undoubtedly the main event in the film industry in the public mind in recent months has been the publication of the Rank Organisation's balance sheet and accounts and the statement to shareholders. This has been followed in the past few days by the publication of the accounts of the British Lion group. No one would, I think—I am sure the noble Lord would agree with this—wish to minimise the gravity of the situation as shown in these published accounts. But they would certainly seem to lend support to statements that have been made, that with the industry organised and managed as it is, with its present level of costs, its present overseas outlets—and current limitations on the remittance of blocked overseas earnings to this country—and with the present net domestic earnings, after distribution and exhibition charges and Entertainments Duty, film production in this country is not paying its way. The fact that in vastly easier conditions, and with a market of something like four times the size, Hollywood is even more depressed, is of small comfort to us.
  The House would not expect me to go into the details of the balance sheets of individual film companies, nor indeed in the Motion I have moved is the House asked to take note of these financial accounts. But they, and the speeches and statements recently made on the film industry, are very important in any discussion of the economic position of British film production. There is one general point I should like to make, and that is that it has been too easily assumed, at least in certain sections of the Press, that after years of reasonably prosperous economic conditions in the industry, this
  2688
  industry—which in the Press anyway is far too frequently defined as being coterminous with the Rank Organisation; they are two separate things—has suddenly been plunged into economic difficulties.
  It has even been suggested or implied that this sudden stormy weather has arisen through, for instance, the Anglo-American Film Agreement, or through a suddenly felt burden of Entertainments Duty, but I think a study of the relevant figures and facts make it clear that, although this has undoubtedly been a bad year both for new British film production and for realising the return on films made in previous years, the events of the past year are, in fact, no more than the accumulated results of tendencies which have been at work for some years past.
  Films distributed in the past financial year earned at the box office much less than had been hoped a year ago. This has been a year, too, for both of the major production groups of writing off substantial figures in respect of film productions or advances on account. To what extent that was due to a real change in trading conditions during the year, or perhaps to a change in the degree of optimism with which future earning power was forecast, it is impossible on the present basis of film company accounts to say, so far as the valuation of film assets is concerned.
  Undoubtedly the past year has seen the production of a considerable number of films the entertainment value of which has not been very high, and it is probably not unfair to say that the attempts of at least one section of the industry to reduce costs by producing a number of mass-produced films—it would be a little unkind, and perhaps a little inaccurate because they were so slow in production, to call them "Quickies"—have contributed to the relatively poor earnings of the year's output of films.
  In the film industry, of course, even more than in other industries, the accounts for a particular year are not wholly, or perhaps even mainly, related to the production activities of that year. Films never make anything like their full revenue in a single year, much less in the year in which the bulk of the expenditure is incurred. The chairman of British Lion has recently suggested that a minimum five-year period is required to know

  2689
  the real financial position of many films, sometimes even longer than that. The accounts at the end of any financial year must contain an estimate of the future earning capacity of the products of the past and preceding years whose showings are not complete.
  Clearly this valuation of completed and partially shown, or even unshown, films cannot be the subject of any scientific or physical measurement; a good deal must be left—certainly far more than in most other industries; perhaps far more than in any other industry—to a subjective valuation of those particular assets on the part of the company's directors and their financial advisers. As I have said, there is certainly not enough to show in the accounts to what extent changes in the valuation of film assets for the past year are due to sudden changes in their earning power or to a change in the degree of optimism or pessimism with which future earning power has been viewed, though in the case of, at any rate, British Lion the chairman made it clear last year that substantial losses had already been made on account of film production and would have to be written off, as has been done this year.
  It is for these reasons that I have felt it right because of my responsibilities to this House, to the country and the investing public, under the Companies Act, to ask the Companies Act Standing Advisory Committee to review methods of film asset valuation to see whether something can be done to make it less subjective, and less capable of variation between company and company and even within a single company between one time and another.
  In the case of the Rank Organisation, quite apart from the revaluation of completed films, on which there was some idea a year ago of a changing basis of valuation—since rejected—there has been a substantial writing off amounting to £2.5 million on advances against future film production. These advances, presumably, related to previous years and support my point that much of what has happened in recent weeks represents the accumulated result of several years operations. Quite apart from this and other details of the balance sheets, I am sure it is fair to say that the present financial position of the industry is due, as the Gater Report makes clear, to its
  2690
  history and development and to a considerable extent to the bad habits acquired in past years.
  Both the reports before us today deal with important aspects of the economic position of the industry, and I should like to pay tribute, and I am sure the whole House will join with me, to Sir George Gater and Sir Arnold Plant and their colleagues, for the tireless efforts and the great deal of time and trouble they took in producing two such important and valuable documents.
  The particular value of the Gater Report is, I think, the achievement of the chairman and the two independent members in getting an agreed report from representatives of such diverse interests in the film industry on the causes of high cost production. I know the criticism has been made in some quarters that the. report merely states facts which are already known and does not say what can be done to deal with them. But I myself attach great importance to having secured this agreed statement of the position, and I have called a special meeting of the National Film Production Council next week to review the findings of the committee and consider what steps can be taken to act upon them. But I think it will be clear to the House that the action called for is in the main action to be undertaken by the industry itself, and by both sides of it.
  Mr. Blackburn: No. Action to reduce the cost of production in the industry should be taken by the Government.
  Mr. Wilson: What action?
  Mr. Blackburn: The action which I have always suggested, that the Government should requisition vacant studio space and undersell the industry itself.
  Mr. Wilson: I am quite prepared to deal with that later on. If my hon. Friend had given thought to the economic position of the film industry, he would have decided that studio space is not such that requisition would be of any service; but I am prepared to debate that with him later.
  So far as one section of the industry is concerned, that is a matter for Mr. Rank and his colleagues, and there is no doubt that this organisation has fully

  2691
  recognised the need of cutting production costs to a minimum compatible with quality. There is a fairly general view that costs have been kept down in such a way as to interfere little with quality. So far as the greater part of the remainder of the industry is concealed, this is the area of direct or indirect financing by the National Film Finance Corporation. They are able through the power of the purse to influence at least part of the items entering into the cost, and indeed, as I hope to show in a few minutes, they have already done a great deal to cut out some of the more notorious extravagances of the industry.
  Now I should like to turn to the Report of the Committee on the Distribution and Exhibition of Films, which is intimately connected with the other and is, of course, complementary to it. As the House knows, this committee was presided over in the first few months of its work by the late Lord Portal, whose death not only deprived us of the contribution he would undoubtedly have made on this problem, but also, of course, robbed many other spheres of our national life of one of their most important figures. Sir Arnold Plant, who had been a member of the committee from the beginning, agreed to succeed Lord Portal as chairman, and under his chairmanship the later part of the inquiry was conducted, including the preparation of the report.
  The committee's terms of reference involved an inquiry into the single problem of film production earnings, namely, the proportion of total box office revenue taken by the producers, the distributors and exhibitors, and the methods by which these proportions are determined. It involved the study of the strategic position occupied by the circuits, who not merely account for a high proportion of box office revenue, but whose booking power and position is so fundamental that very few first feature films are produced in this country without prior guarantee or probability of circuit release.
  The cardinal theme of the committee's report is the need to overhaul the too rigid pattern which regulates the circulation of British films to particular cinemas, a pattern imposed by the booking strength of the three major circuits. The committee points out that as a result
  2692
  of this system, there are many localities where a good number of the best films are either not shown at all or not shown in the best theatres, that is, those which can best accommodate the public and earn the biggest returns for the producers. Each film is steered into one of three channels, and none of these artificial channels passes within convenient reach for the largest possible national audience.
  The committee recommend a different and more flexible pattern which would make the best films as widely available as possible to the public at the earliest possible stage in the history of each film. This result they consider could be achieved by "the adoption of freely competitive showing at each stage and in every situation" without, however, sacrificing the security presented to producers by the possibility of a circuit booking.
  The Plant Committee have, in my view, done valuable work in drawing attention to the position of the circuits. The front money for film production is usually not forthcoming without a distribution guarantee nor the end money without at least a probability of circuit release. This virtually means that few films are started unless they have the prior approval of one of the two exhibiting organisations in this country. This is a very serious fact. This House, which has always been rightly jealous of freedom of expression from censorship whether applied by persons in a public or in a private capacity, whether or not answerable to this House, may perhaps feel some concern about the power exercised by two organisations over what is one of the most important media of public entertainment and education.
  Equally, of course, it is extremely difficult to find any other means of deciding what films should be made since in the last resort the economics of the industry depend on those films being made which will have the box office appeal. I think that it is a serious thing that in the last resort the films made should depend on the judgment, virtually speaking, of two men responsible certainly not to this House and certainly not to any other accounting organisation, apart from the shareholders of the circuit companies.
  There is another important aspect of the position to which I feel it is right to draw the attention of the House. The Plant Committee has advised against a

  2693
  divorcement of production from exhibition such as was recently introduced in the U.S.A. following a judicial decision under the Anti-Trust Legislation. I think that in the conditions of this country their recommendation was right. There have been over the past few years a number of advocates of this kind of a separation—I believe that the "Express" group of newspapers has for some time advocated this degree of divorcement—but, to the extent that losses in film production were being financed from profits on exhibition and distribution—and to a smaller extent this is still true of the Rank Organisation and also of the A.B.C. circuit—such a divorcement would have dried up yet a further channel of finance for film production.
  But, of course, it will not have escaped the notice of the House that Mr. Rank is no longer predominant in production, and that in his recent speeches he has presented the possibility of a complete withdrawal from production if certain things do not happen that he would like to see happen. Therefore, as far as these two circuits are concerned, it is not antitrust legislation and any action by the Government that has virtually divorced production from distribution, but it is the decision of the directors of the organisations concerned.
  I think it is right to point out to the House that, although in the past we could rely on the two Rank circuits having an identity of interest with the largest group of British film production, and therefore could rely on them giving the best possible showing of at least a high proportion of British films, that identity of interest is fast disappearing. Apart from the quota legislation, there will be now no security that these two circuits will not seek to maximise their revenue regardless of whether they are showing British or foreign films, and they may be even more unwilling than before to experiment with unusual methods of film exploitation, which might in the course of time provide additional revenue for British film producers.
  It is already a fact, I understand, that the circuits in London do not give films facilities for second and third week bookings as is done in many provincial centres, and this undoubtedly lowers the earning power of individual films. This and other examples of such conflict of
  2694
  interest between the exhibition and production side of the industry cause me to view this development with some apprehension, and the House will, no doubt, conclude that the economic justification for complete vertical integration of the industry is now much less strong than it was.
  These questions are all of vital importance to the economic position of the British film industry. I know that following Mr. Rank's statement of a few weeks ago, in which the subject of the Entertainments Duty was headlined, there has grown up an unaccustomed and almost sinister unanimity in all sections of the industry on this particular matter within the domain of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Earl Winterton: Why "sinister"?
  Mr. Wilson: It is always potentially dangerous when industries that have long been divided and have been remarkable for their lack of unanimity come along with a new degree of unanimity to get something, not from efforts by themselves, but out of the taxpayer or the consumer.
  Mr. O'Brien: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that for many years—at least in my experience during the past 25 years—the Board of Trade and other Government Departments have criticised and castigated the British film industry for its lack of unanimity? Now that we have reached, or are trying to reach, an agreed policy, we are criticised and described as "sinister."
  Mr. Wilson: I certainly agree, and I have done it myself. Last year, when various processions went their separate ways to the Treasury, I understand they were told it would be interesting to have an agreed view for the industry as a whole. When this magical unanimity suddenly arises, the consumer and the taxpayer must begin to wonder, not only what is behind it, but who is going to pay, and what private deals may, perhaps, have been made to secure this new degree of unanimity. I want to make it clear that in using that phrase I am referring to private deals between different sections of the industry, agreements perhaps that have not been previously the subject of unanimity between the two sides.
  Mr. John Wilmot: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any particulars of the deals he has referred to?
  Mr. Wilson: I was merely saying that one begins to wonder whether, for instance, agreement on some of these matters perhaps envisages possible agreements which have so far been noticeable by their absence—for instance, the subject of quotas and things of that kind.
  I am sure that the House will not expect me in any way to anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement, but I am sure there is one thing to which the House will agree, and that is, that both Parliament and the country would reject any facile solution of the film industry's problems based simply on handing back, in the form of a subsidy, money to an industry, admittedly convicted of considerable extravagance, without guarantee that this money would not be swallowed up in further extravagance. I am sure the House will desire to emphasise the fervent hope of the vast majority of us that concentration by all sections of the industry on their new fiscal objectives—it is natural and perfectly right for them to concentrate on any fiscal or other political objectives—will not for one moment divert their attention from those major tasks on which these reports have thrown so much illumination. I think it will be dangerous to the industry if, in concentrating on political or fiscal changes, they fail to do what is required and shown to be required in these reports.
  Finally, I come to the production position in the industry. A month ago I said in the House, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) that I could not agree that these developments—that is, the Rank Organisation developments—confront us with any threatened collapse of the British film producing industry, and I hold to this view. I am certainly justified in saying, in considerably stronger terms than I did a year ago, that if the Government had not established the National Film Finance Corporation a year ago, there would have been by this time an almost total collapse of British film production. The establishment of the Interim Organising Committee and, later, of the National
  2696
  Film Finance Corporation made it possible to maintain in being the British Lion Group and the considerable number of free-lance producers associated with them, a good number of whom were previously working with the Rank Organisation and severed their connection with it at various dates in the past.
  The N.F.F.C. is also financing other distribution organisations, as well as a considerable number of film productions direct. In all, some 50 films completed, started, or ready for starting, owe their existence to the establishment of N.F.F.C., and for some months past it has been true that about half the productions currently being shot in British studios are directly or indirectly financed by the N.F.F.C. The House on a number of occasions has expressed fears that its activities would be too closely associated with financing of production from the distributors' end. I ought to make it clear that of the films whose production it has facilitated, roughly half have been financed from the distributors' end and half from the producers' end.
  Mr. John Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say what has happened in the case of these films financed by the N.F.F.C.? Are the records of the box office takings sufficient to show that the costs of production have been covered?
  Mr. Wilson: Since the corporation has been in existence for only a few months, I think my hon. Friend will agree it is not possible for the films that have been produced to begin to show any returns adequate for any views to be formed upon them. The films include "The Third Man" the results of which, quite apart from sales of gramophone records of the zither playing in the film, would certainly suggest a fairly hopeful outcome.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no danger of any money being lost by the N.F.F.C.?
  Mr. Wilson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to wait for the publication of the first annual report of the corporation, when a proper statement and assessment of the position will be made by the corporation.
  Although the number of films being produced at present is fewer than a year

  2697
  ago—14 against 21—it is greater than at the lowest point of production in the earlier part of the year; a further 12 films are already planned to start in the very near future, and at least five productions are programmed to begin shooting within the next three months or so with financial assistance from the N.F.F.C. In these cases, though, studio arrangements are not yet finalised, so it is fair to say that as privately-financed production has gradually been cut down, the corporation has been taking up a good deal of the slack. The corporation has not, however, rushed in with public money to carry on precisely where private finance left off. I do not think the House would have wished that to happen. The corporation has preferred to build on fresh and, I hope, more solid foundations. There is no doubt at all in my mind that since the corporation started to operate costs of production have been considerably reduced.
  Mr. Blackburn: That is exactly what I said earlier. The problem of production costs is being dealt with by Government action. Would my right hon. Friend make it plain that the loans made by the corporation are not made without security being given by people who receive the loans?
  Mr. Wilson: That is right, although the amount and degree of security varies from case to case. All along it has been one of the cardinal points of the operations of the corporation that its powers would be used to help reduce production costs to a more reasonable form. But this has nothing to do with the requisitioning of studios.
  The corporation is now employing methods which result in a greater degree of control, both of budgets and of expenditure, than has been general in this industry. I do not think the House would wish to see the corporation financing projects regardless of their merits just to keep the studios full and the workers in the industry employed. Indiscriminate financing of that kind would be far more likely to ruin the industry than to save it. Considerable discrimination is being and must be exercised by the directors of the corporation in the discharge of their duties. The fact remains, however, that finance has been provided or promised for about 50 films by the corporation and the interim company that preceded it.
  2698
  What the financial results of this will be is a question which cannot be answered today; no one can possibly forecast them. Hon. Members must realise, however, that operations of this magnitude cannot possibly be undertaken without the risk of considerable losses being made. The financing of film production inevitably entails certain risks, and the greatest risks are attached to that part of the finance which is provided by the corporation in most of its loans.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) had something to say on this on Second Reading, and I hope the House will agree that, even if some losses should be incurred, the corporation should continue to finance all the worth-while projects that it can. If it does this, there is no reason why film production should not be kept going at least at its present level without the sacrifice of that quality which is essential if the industry is to be worth saving.
  The N.F.F.C. has, in fact, in its few months of operation done far more than finance a number of productions which would otherwise have perished; it has introduced further measures of budgetary control of individual production and constituted a number of healthy arrangements under which a proportion at least of the fees earned by particular talents—and these are now being calculated for the most part on a much less lavish basis than has been usual in the industry—are deferred until the film is completed and has earned a reasonable revenue. More than that, the N.F.F.C. has introduced a degree of business organisation and common sense into an industry famous for its esoteric notions of business organisation and methods.
  This review of some of the problems of the film industry thrown up by these recently published reports will, I hope, serve to make it clear that there is no easy or royal road to a solution. While from the Government point of view the N.F.F.C. is playing a major role in keeping production going and helping the free lance producers to put themselves on a sounder economic basis, the industry's problems will not be solved without heroic efforts on the part of both sides to reduce production costs, and without a thorough effort on the part of all concerned with distribution and exhibition in such a way as to give British films a

  2699
  far better deal than they have had in the past.
  I have used the phrase "the industry" several times this afternoon to refer to film production. But in a wider sense this is a problem for the whole industry including exhibitors and distributing agencies. From the narrow short-term financial point of view it is, I suppose, a matter of small concern to the exhibitor whether British production continues at the level of recent years or is severely restricted. The statement usually made that American films on average earn more than British films tends to predispose the exhibitor in their favour. I certainly do not need to give the House this afternoon the reasons why the British film producing industry must be kept in being and put on a sound economic basis, and I know that among the leaders of the exhibition side of the trade there are many whose devotion to the public interest far transcends any considerations of narrow or short-term financial advantage.
  Lest there be' any who are careless as to the future of British film production, let me say—and I am sure I am speaking for all sections of the House—that the maintenance of the prosperity of the cinema exhibition industry in this country is not to be bought at the expense of British film production; let them not think it will be possible to maintain an exhibition industry on anything like the scale or standards they would have in mind if the British film production industry is allowed by them to go under. They certainly must not expect any supply of dollars being made available to fill the gap on British screens caused by any further fall in British production.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there exists in the margins available to exhibitors something which could be put in to fortify the production industry?
  Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. Member will agree that exhibitors could, if they would, give a better showing to British films. They could give them a better chance and undertake a little more experimentation in the methods of showing British films. They could by various means increase the revenues available to the British producer. It is not a question
  2700
  of mere compliance with a quota, it is their national duty, as well as their long term interest, to go out of their way to give British films—and I am thinking not only of first feature films, but to that most important section of film production to which this country has made a unique contribution, the short and documentary films—a fair, indeed more than a fair, showing.
  For in the British film producing industry we have not only an industry capable of considerable dollar earning and much more considerable dollar saving, not only an industry which offers employment to a considerable number of people, whose lives and work are bound up in its future, but an industry capable in its finest products of presenting our way of life, our national character and our cultural heritage to the peoples of the world. There is, therefore, on the leaders of all sections of the industry a grave responsibility to the industry, and to the country; I am certain that in the discharge of these responsibilities they will not fail.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Has the President of the Board of Trade any proposals to make as to Government policy towards the end which he has in view?
  Mr. Wilson: I do not know if it is for the convenience of the House to answer that before the right hon. Member for Aldershot speaks. I made it clear at the beginning that the Government's view, in proposing this Debate, was that we should be free to have a full discussion of the facts put forward in these reports to enable the Government to formulate their minds on certain long-term aspects of the future of the industry. In dealing with this industry I have often said that we are not dealing with any other economic industry, but with an industry which powerfully affects public opinion, public entertainment and public education. Therefore, before we form any views on this important subject, it is right that we should hear the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I was going to refer to the very point mentioned by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay). In a very painstaking production

  2701
  the President of the Board of Trade began by saying that no long-term policy would be announced by the Government until they had had an opportunity of reading the reports which are now the subject of this Debate. That is a rather curious statement after nearly five years of office. It is a still more curious statement when read in conjunction with what the President called a "sinister" agreement on certain fiscal aspects which is now sweeping over the industry, so long disunited on other subjects. But if the right hon. Gentleman appoints a distinguished committee of independent persons and the main parts of the report are concerned with the incidence of the Entertainments Tax, he must not be at all surprised if the people in that industry agree with the findings.
  This was a very painstaking and skillful production on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, because he has succeeded in an agreeable speech in dealing at some length with all the subjects which are not of very great relevance to the topic we are now discussing. If this Debate does something to resolve the perplexities which have troubled the industry and have darkened the counsels of His Majesty's Government, it will not be in vain.
  We are faced in all these subjects with the inherent difficulty of trying to harmonise or reconcile a commercial, industrial business—I see the report says that 28 million people see the pictures every week—with the artistic standards which are necessary and which have to conform to artistic canons. We talk about the film industry, the theatrical profession and so on, but I must say that the word "industry" always strikes a little oddly in my ears when we are talking of films. The balance of these 28 million people who attend every week tend towards the happy ending amongst the apple blossoms of spring rather than towards the darker events which generally await human life.
  There is another word which has to be used with limitations in connection with this industry, and that is the word "efficiency." We all agree that production costs have to be pared as far as possible, and all kinds of waste removed. Still, we must be a little careful about the word "efficiency." The Rokeby Venus by Velasquez no doubt took a
  2702
  long time to paint, but when the production was finished, the lady was found with her back to the auditorium. No doubt it was a very inefficient production, but that does not make it any less of an artistic success. We must use this word "efficiency" very carefully.
  There are three reasons for the present plight of the industry, and the President has given us a slightly technicolour version of the second. I shall try to reduce it to more sober terms. It is necessary to see that the fundamental thing in connection with this industry is the small size of the market available to the British film production compared with the American production. I apologise for repeating this, but it is fundamental, and during any discussion on Government policy and other measures it is necessary to fix our attention upon it. The President of the Board of Trade said that the market available to the American production was four times that available to the British production, but taking all the economic facts into account it is nearer six. We do not quarrel much about those details but that is a fundamental handicap.
  The second handicap has been Government action over the last few years. I am excepting from that statement the National Film Corporation, which I concede to the President has certainly been a great help in time of very severe crisis in the industry. But the Government actions have their share in the plight of the industry, and that is the part of the President's speech where he got into the technicolour sequence. On this side of the House we have tried to support him as far as we could in the difficult situation which confronted him and the industry. In this history we have to go back to the days when the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that time he imposed a 300 per cent. ad valorem duty on imported films, or that is the effect of the duty.
  We all agreed at that time that we could not afford to allow the American industry to remit the equivalent of £17 million sterling from this country. But the action was taken very brusquely, and with so very little warning, that it led to a virtual embargo on the importation of American films here. That that in fact

  2703
  was due to resentment over the terms was undoubtedly true, but there are other things, which we ought to remember. I have seen it said—and I believe it to be broadly correct—that in order to finance American imports here, there would have been locked up something like £20 million sterling to bridge the gap between the period when the American producers had to pay the Customs duty, and the time when they earned their receipts. It was not only a psychological fact, but also there was this serious burden.
  As far as I know, there was little or no consultation with the industry at all. We know the Government think they can manage everybody else's business. There are times when everybody else thinks that the Government cannot manage their own business, and perhaps this was one of them. There was no consultation with the industry, which was a curious thing, because the Government and most Members in all parts of the House are advocates of general consultation in industrial difficulties. All through this story very little consultation has taken place between the Government and the industry.
  Mr. J. Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the industry as a whole?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, the industry as a whole.
  The embargo was on both the Americans and ourselves, and it is to the President's credit that he ended this difficult period by the arrangements of 11th March, 1948. I also thank him for having made the arrangement in a form which I can always remember, because it gave the American producers and importers the right to export the equivalent of 17 million dollars instead of £17 million, which they had been exporting before. He also made arrangements about the investment of any funds earned here in excess of those 17 million dollars. He rigorously interpreted these arrangements afterwards.
  Of course, immediately after the 300 per cent. ad valorem tax had been removed, agreement followed about the importation of American films. That was on 27th April. Shortly afterwards, on 11th June, a 45 per cent. first-feature quota was given to British producers, by
  2704
  which 45 per cent. of the first-feature screen time had to be devoted to British films. I think, and I said so at the time, that this arrangement was maladroit and showed the President of the Board of Trade in the somewhat unintended light of being rather smart at the expense of the other parties to the agreement. He should have warned the Americans at the time of the previous negotiations that he intended to raise the quota very sharply.
  Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting. Seeing that the negotiations took place in March, and seeing that I was by statute required to consult the Cinematograph Film Council, which was not set up until some time afterwards, before I could begin to inform my own mind on the quota, how could I possibly have warned the Americans at the time of the discussions what figure was likely to be established?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I did not say anything about the figure. The President of the Board of Trade need not have confined himself to the actual figure, but he ought to have indicated that it was his intention to bring about a sharp rise in the quota.
  That was one of the things which caused a great lack of co-operation from the Americans at that time. One cannot expect co-operation if agreements which purport to cover the whole field cover only part of it, and then if very drastic action is subsequently taken. We may be told first of all that the embargo acted as a great stimulus to British production. There was a fear that there would not be nearly enough first-feature films to keep the theatres full. That stimulus was afterwards supplanted by the high quota, but the question which the whole of the exhibitors were asking was whether there would be enough first-feature films to keep the industry going.
  It was in those circumstances—first, as a result of the embargo and afterwards of the quota of 45 per cent. which was imposed—that the industry threw itself into production with, I think, more enthusiasm than judgment. I believe we are all agreed about that. It is now more the fashion to complain of the extravagance and inefficiency with which they did this than to extol the enterprise and determination they showed to place the

  2705
  British film industry in a good position. I believe that was really the dominating intention which governed their action.
  I will confess, to be wise after the event, that the industry did try to expand itself too quickly under those various stimuli and that too much attention was placed on quantity and not enough on quality. At that period of the industry's expansion, the word "efficiency" in relation to artistic production became rather like that which I have cited with some levity about the Rokeby Venus. The effect of the Government's other agreements was even more serious.
  I should like to remind the House that by April, 1948, I think, about the end of the spring, the Americans had accumulated rights to export something like 14 million dollars worth of sterling. That is the accumulation over a period of about 10 months and had been banked up owing to the embargo. They also had at that time the rights accruing in respect of films for the following 12 months, namely, 17 million dollars. Then several other factors supervened. As soon as the Americans could export films here they were determined to re-establish themselves in this valuable market and to make their position as impregnable as possible. The fact was that they had not exported anything here for 10 months. They had this right to export and remit in dollars.
  The laws of supply and demand began to operate, always the most awkward thing in the Socialist economy. The Americans were very anxious to get in here with their films, and keen competition began. It banked up. Many Americans in some cases accepted 30 per cent. box office receipts who previously would have expected very much more. This situation was one of the reasons why the quotas could not be, at least were not, honoured by the exhibitors. By June, 1948, all the expected conditions governing the import of American films had altered to our disadvantage. There were 31 million dollars' worth of the best American films banked up because of the scramble of competition by the Americans to get in. Later, by November, 1949—and this was perhaps the "most unkindest cut of all"—the Board of Trade was found to be not enforcing the quota for which it had previously legislated.
  2706
  This is a sad story. It shows what blunders can be made by a Government even if well-intentioned. Even after this record, I think there are some hon. Members, if I am to believe the Press, who are not deterred from hankering after nationalisation.
  Mr. Blackburn: Who are they?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am not going to say who they are.
  Mr. Blackburn: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly quoted the President of the Board of Trade a moment or two ago. He ought not to make reflections of this kind without specifying who the hon. Members are.
  Mr. Lyttelton: If I am wrong, I am glad to learn that what I said was incorrect, but I should be interested to hear whether the hon. Member who interrupts me is really speaking for everybody.
  Mr. Blackburn: There is nobody else.
  Mr. Lyttelton: As the Debate is allowed to develop I think the hon. Member will find that the speeches will prove that I am nearer to the truth than he is, but I cannot help saying how agreeable it is for me to find myself in agreement with him, and that he is in agreement with the Plant Report, which says, on page 38:
  "For our part, we are unanimously of the view that film production, which requires the free exercise and development of individual enterprise, skill and craftsmanship, is among the businesses least appropriate for State ownership and operation."
  I am bound to say how appropriate those words are when applied to industries concerned with things other than films and I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade wholeheartedly agrees with that remark.
  Mr. Wyatt: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the record under private ownership has been a good one?
  Mr. Lyttelton: That is the whole question to which I am coming now in the third part of the subject. Of course, the industry is in difficulties now or we should not be discussing this matter perhaps. Where I think we are getting to is a method of getting it out of the difficulties. The one thing that is not required is nationalisation. Now I am coming to

  2707
  the third matter, which was hardly referred to by the President of the Board of Trade in the course of his remarks, although it is the centre of the subject.
  I am glad that the hon. Member interrupted in order to point to what I am now going to say, which is that the third main reason is the Entertainments Duty. I have not got the information and I cannot say if the law of diminishing returns is yet beginning to operate. I should have thought so, but I do not know. Many hon. Members know more about this industry than I do. I should not have thought that the Entertainments Duty would act as more than a slight deterrent to the level of public attendance. I do not know whether hon. Members agree. I should have thought that it might drive the public to rather cheaper seats and might lengthen the queue of those going to see Miss Russell escape a fate worse than death. I doubt if it has a very big effect on the whole attendance of the public but, before attacking the main part of this subject, there are some fairly cogent arguments for altering the incidence of the Duty.
  Let us take the hypothesis that the exhibitor is entitled to another 1d. gross on his takings. In order to put that on a 1s. 9d. seat we should have to charge 2s. to the public, because the Exchequer would take 2d. out of the extra 3d. Quite apart from the broader questions, there is something to be said for revising the incidence of the Duty. In these times we have to look upon the Entertainments Duty primarily in terms of Revenue and put that foremost in our minds, but I think that the indirect effects upon the future of the Revenue are probably much more serious than the direct, for if film production involves a certain financial loss, which I shall show that it does, the Treasury will suffer in two ways, and suffer severely. First of all, it will be impossible to maintain the necessary flow of first feature films to fill the theatres and down will go the attendance and consequently, the revenue from the Entertainments Duty. Secondly, the demand from the public for films must in one way or another increase the strain upon dollars by creating a more insistent demand by the public for American films.
  The report bears out my fears. It is quite categorical. On pages 27 and 28 are
  2708
  set out the calculations. It was remarkable that in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade only the most passing butterfly reference was made to this subject. The report says:
  "When full allowance is made for errors of computation it remains abundantly clear that the average receipts fall far short of the minimum average cost of production."
  That is very strong language for a Report:
  "Abundantly clear …. fall far short."
  Do the Government accept those words or do they reject them? I want to know whether the Government accept those words or reject them. Such information as a private individual is able to gather would appear more to confirm them.
  I am told that if one takes an ordinary film such as those in which the National Film Finance Corporation is engaged this is the kind of typical economics of the position. About £140,000 is spent upon the production. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree with me that at that figure we should not describe the production as extravagant. These are about the costs which are blessed by the N.F.F.C. having regard to our economic situation. The public will probably pay something like £500,000 at the box office to see such a film if it is reasonably successful. Out of that £500,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes £200,000 and the exhibitors and distributors, including the expenses of copies and so forth, about £210,000, so that at the end there is £90,000 left for the producer, who has spent £140,000.
  These facts were never mentioned in the President's speech, but they are fundamental matters and they tie up with the first thing of all, which is that the industry starts out with a handicap of having a much smaller market than its competitors who use the same language. These are the economics of what might be called the "run-of-mine" film.
  Paragraph 64, which deals with global figures, says that the net proceeds on first feature films are £18,750,000. The share of the market leaves something between 210 and 300 first feature films, and on this calculation, the average return to the British producer would be between £62,500 and £89,200 per film. The £89,200 is the £90,000 which I used in

  2709
  round figures just now. The paragraph concludes with the striking words:
  "On either assumption, the average cost of production cannot be recouped at present from the cinemas in Great Britain."
  Do the Government accept those words, and if they do, are they surprised by the "sinister" agreement which exists among all sections of the industry when they are in great economic difficulties with the present duty being levied upon them? I think this "sinister" agreement is the result of the persuasion which the President himself has put out.
  As I said at the beginning, we all now know that it is the fault of somebody else. The City is not being forthcoming. Of course it is not. I should think very little of the City if it was prepared to finance ad lib an industry which must always be upon a losing basis, at least must always be upon a losing basis according to the Government's own report. It is time the Government occasionally looked at some of their own shortcomings and did not always pass the buck to somebody else.
  I have now discussed what I believe to be the three main difficulties facing the industry—first of all, its inherent handicap, second, much Government action during the last two years, and, third, the Entertainments Duty. The report goes on to make a number of other suggestions—they are quite innocuous and will be very largely ineffective—and from a dialectical point of view the President was quite right in directing most of his speech to them. They appeared to me to be valuable but, with respect, they appear to me as a layman to be ancillary rather than to strike at the fundamental difficulties.
  I believe that more competitive conditions and bidding for films and some other administrative changes may accelerate box office receipts and even increase them somewhat, and both an increase in receipts and an acceleration of receipts are valuable and helpful, but I should have said that it is manifest that such measures are only palliatives and ancillary action, and, to go back to a delicious phrase by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they only serve to high-light the deep-seated maladjustments of the industry.
  Of much of the other measures suggested I am at least doubtful. The report
  2710
  suggests that the exhibitors should discard the arrangements under which they refuse ever to pay more than 50 per cent. of the box office receipts for a first feature film. At first this 'proposal seems very attractive because it appears to increase the rewards for a very good film and to be cancelling out something restrictive, which I think most hon. Members would applaud as a general principle, but I must say that I am very doubtful about it in practice.
  First, this limitation of 50 per cent. is made at a time before the exhibitor knows what the film will earn from the public. He has to make a guess about this. We have to concede that the 50 per cent. restriction deprives a very successful film of the proportion of the box office receipts which it otherwise would have. Under the present arrangement, however, some of the receipts which might have gone to that successful film are undoubtedly finding their way into the less successful productions. There is a great deal in what Mr. Laurie says in his objection on page 58.
  I must admit that if we keep the 50 per cent. cap on box office receipts by the exhibitors, we shall take away a large part of the effect of bidding for films. The right way is probably to have some sliding scale arrangement to be fixed after the film has been exhibited, rather than to try to get the cap of 50 per cent. removed altogether. I have serious misgivings at going in one step from the maximum of 50 per cent. of the box office receipts into completely unrestricted bidding for films, and I believe that the result might be the reverse of what we all hope—it might increase the risk of production rather than reduce it. Mr. Laurie says quite clearly:
  "… film production must always be to some extent speculative, and even the best producers sometimes have disastrous failures. I question the wisdom of doing anything that will make these failures even more disastrous and of emphasising the element of speculation by a deliberate attempt to increase the profits of the winners by adding to the losses of the losers."
  Now I turn to another aspect. Again I may be wrong, but I think I have detected in the Press a desire to run two horses at once in the Parliamentary film stakes over some aspects of this business. It is quite common to complain about the size of the circuits, and of the Rank circuit in particular. I am not here to

  2711
  defend the circuits and my right hon. Friend the noble Lord is not able to do so even if he wished, for we have him muzzled today. We all admit that the size of these circuits brings disadvantages, but it is a little hard for people to complain about the monopolistic practices of the circuits in one breath and, in the next, to complain of the large losses they have incurred.
  Once upon a time a monopoly used to be criticised because of its ability to hold the consumer in fee and charge what prices it liked for the goods and services which it gave to him. That used to be the classical example of monopoly. Nowadays this monopoly which is complained of has provided the public with goods and services which cost it £4½ million more than it has received back from them, and has also paid to the Chancellor £9 million in Entertainments Duty. On those terms I think the Chancellor could well do with a few more monopolies, and so could the public.
  There is also, I believe, a movement to break up the circuits. Of course one of the reasons why the circuit and the exhibitor is pushed into the production business—and many of us would like to see production more independent—is because the basic economy of this industry is such that unless they willingly go into production the supply of first feature films would undoubtedly be insufficient to fill the deficit. So do not let us blame the circuits for what is after all a piece of self-preservation, the fact that they have had to enter production and, having done so, have tried to protect themselves against competition to some extent. Their whole business is affected.
  It is generally true that we on this side of the House think it healthier that an industry which cannot live in a competitive world should wither, and that the labour and materials which it is misusing under that hypothesis should be available for other industries which can contribute to building up the national wealth. However the application of such a doctrine must always take account of special circumstances, particularly of the human factor, and there are many technicians in this industry who cannot readily find employment elsewhere. We are debating this question at a time when
  2712
  there is mounting unemployment throughout the industry and, in many cases, those who are becoming unemployed cannot readily use their skill and talents elsewhere.
  Of course a national film industry is, if not as important, at any rate of comparable importance to a national Press or national literature, and it would be a counsel of despair to imagine that a country which bred Shakespeare and Sheridan, Congreve and Bernard Shaw, to say nothing of Keats and Wordsworth—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Rank."]—should have to rely on the exotic productions of another civilisation, however admirable we may think that civilisation to be.
  If these arguments have any cogency; if it is true, as I submit it is, that the industry starts out under a grave initial handicap, then we might expect to see the Government lightening this handicap instead of doing everything it can to make it more heavy. Yet it is singled out for almost the hardest slashes of the Chancellor's tax whip, and nothing was more remarkable this afternoon in the long but interesting speech of the President of the Board of Trade than the almost complete silence upon the most important facts which emerged from the report of the committee which he himself set up.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. O'Brien: It is a matter of regret that an important industry such as the British film industry should be the subject of continual Debate in this House, for that is a vote of censure on the industry itself. Of all the industries that should be in a position to manage their own affairs, to solve their own problems and to resolve their own troubles and quarrels, the entertainment industry of this country should be able to do so. Therefore, it is no credit to producers, distributors, or exhibitors, it is no credit to any of the trade unions in the industry, that matters have got so much out of hand that the problems are thrown into the political arena and we have these continual Debates on the state of affairs in the industry. So whatever may be our divergence of opinion on policies with regard to this issue, politically and industrially, I must say, as one who has been in this industry for 30 years, that I feel ashamed that matters have reached

  2713
  such a stage that it is now the subject of political and industrial wrangling.
  Despite the implications of the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend, this Debate is more or less non-political in the sense that it is a non-party Debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) on what I regard as being in the main a very truthful and factual historical review of the conditions and the problems of the industry. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have their own views about the industry. I do not know the degree of their expertness and knowledge, but their views differ considerably from the views which I have expressed both in this House and outside, and no doubt from the views I shall express this evening. Having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall be able to deal with those differences by way of anticipation rather than by way of debate after hearing what hon. Members have said.
  The causes of the present issues can be divided into two parts. First, there are what people regard as the original defects of the industry. There are defects in every industry. Why the film industry should be singled out, apparently, as the only one with any troubles, I do not know. No doubt it is due to the fact that it has a great deal of public attention; it is glamourised and catches the eye of newspapers, periodicals and all the rest. Nevertheless, there are defects in the industry quite apart from the general defects about which we are talking; they are the defects which are inherent in any other industry.
  Secondly, there are troubles which are undoubtedly due to lack of foresight and planning in the industry, and defects for which Ministers of the present Government are partly responsible. It is very difficult for me to agree with the right hon. Member for Aldershot when I say that the prime cause of the trouble in the second part of the industry's problem, to which I have referred, is the peremptory although necessary action taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer in the imposition of the "Dalton" duty. There is no argument against the fact—I have heard no satisfactory argument accepted by any authority—that that was the first death blow to British films at a
  2714
  time when their prestige was rapidly rising in the United States and in other parts of the world, and when everything was lined up for a great programme of prosperity in production.
  I will not traverse the other consequences, but I thank heaven that when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade entered that Department the first thing he did was to take a live and alert interest in the state of affairs as he then found it in film production. His record in this respect is an excellent one. There may have been mistakes, but the trade as a whole regards the present President as one of the best men the film industry has had. Having said that, I hope that the policies to be propounded by the Board of Trade henceforth will not diminish and dim that lustre which my right hon. Friend has so far earned.
  The two reports before us are given a great deal of attention. I happen to have been a member of the working party on costs, with which the first report is concerned. It is rightly said that that report may not have told us anything we did not know before, but my right hon. Friend is quite right when he says that for the first time a body representing conflicting interests got together and agreed on facts. Those facts were not on record before; today they are recorded in a document which has been agreed to by different unions and different bodies of employers. The value of this report will be realised as time goes by and when investigations into the problems are made by this Government and by others. A lot of bunkum is being talked about extravagance in film production. That there has been extravagance is beyond question, but everybody engaged in film production, including labour, has in some way or other benefited by that extravagance. Members of all the trade unions and the artists have benefited.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Cheer up!
  Mr. O'Brien: Oh, yes, the problem has to be faced, and some of us must have the courage to face our own errors. The fact remains that everybody in the British film industry, from the star down to the girl who works in the canteen, in some way or other has benefited by the extravagance in the industry.
  Mr. Collins: And now they are out of work. Is that the benefit?
  Mr. O'Brien: The workers of the industry certainly have had no hand in shaping policy. When I say that they have benefited by the extravagance, I mean that they have benefited indirectly from the extravagance of those in charge of policy. Costs of production, however, have been cut to a terrific extent in all studios, and it is a matter of considerable regret, as many hon. Members have verified by their letters to me and to others, that the sufferers are those who have been dismissed and that the axe has fallen mainly upon members of trade unions, technicians, craftsmen and others. The sackings are still going on every week and we are losing men from the industry, many of whom, I agree, may find occupation elsewhere, but many of whom, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, will have difficulty in finding other occupations by reason of the nature of their skill. The great tragedy is that while most of these men and women may find other employment, the film industry is losing a repository of skill and experience which it will be almost impossible to recoup or to regain should the industry get out of its present "jam" and come once more on to the highroad of prosperity. We shall have lost this great repository of experience and skill that is so vitally necessary and which it took Hollywood many years to build up.
  I should not like the House to think that this extravagance is still going on. It is being cut out a great deal, and it should be. But I should prefer to use the word "waste" rather than "extravagance." It is waste that has been going on. Waste is unnecessary anywhere, and it must be cut out of film production as it must be cut out anywhere else. But a certain amount of extravagance—using that word in its wider significance—is essential in what I may term "show business." One cannot put on a show in a theatre or in a music hall or make a film in the same way as one would reel out sausages or make pots of jam. There is bound to be an element, not of waste, but of extravagance.
  Let me give an example. At this time of year we might put a Christmas tree into our homes for our children, grandchildren or friends. Left in its natural state that tree still remains a Christmas
  2716
  tree, but how miserable and dull it would be to the children on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning without tinsel, lanterns or toys to make it glitter. I regard the necessary extravagance of the film industry in the same way as the necessary extravagance of dressing up a Christmas tree. It may be said that that is extravagance. Of course it is. The tree is a tree despite its adornment and embellishments, but those necessary embellishments must continue. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is aiming at getting rid of them.
  I share the President's view that we owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Arnold Plant and his colleagues for producing such an objective and interesting report. I notice that that Committee was helped by evidence from four hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), and Devonport (Mr. Foot). I see from the list that everyone inside and many outside the industry gave evidence, so it cannot be said that Sir Arnold Plant and his colleagues rushed into print with the report and recommendations without having regard to those monuments of wisdom and ideas about the way in which the industry should be run.
  Those are the immediate factors which face the film industry and which in some way will have to be collated, and solved as one problem. We have the defects of the Anglo-American film agreement, between known as the Wilson-Johnston agreement, which is to be reviewed. There are certain matters arising from it which cannot be ignored and which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be going into. Much of what I was going to say about the effects of that agreement has been said by the right hon. Member for Aldershot, and I will not take up the time of the House on it.
  There is the question of American sterling balances held here. Many of us believe that they should be used to make British films, or American films, in Britain. I will be frank with the House and say that at the moment I am speaking with my head under the cold water tap and my feet on the earth, very realistically. Members of my union and of other unions, who are being dismissed

  2717
  from employment without prospects of absorption for years to come, would not be averse from making films in studios sponsored toy sterling balances held by Americans in this country. The President of the Board of Trade should endeavour to arrange with Americans the permissible use of sterling here in the manufacture and making of films in our empty studios.
  We have the problem of dollar remittances, a wider problem, on which the entire industry is in agreement with the Government. We cannot agree to any policy which would involve us in difficulties in regard to dollars. It is agreed by those of us who have been in the industry for years that the basic rock-bottom problem of the British film industry—which unless solved will always create other difficulties and problems—is the fact that we cannot continue to make good British films of a type that our British audiences will continue to see unless we have some reasonable access to foreign markets. We cannot recoup the costs of production in this country of British films continuously made and continuously pleasing British audiences. That is a fact, although it is ignored by many. As far as possible, we should arrange our scheme of things to get reasonable access to the North American market and other markets, in South America, Europe, the Colonies and the Dominions. In that way we can be assured of the continuity of production of our British studios. If we could get even under 5 per cent. of the United States market alone, our problems would be over.
  Mr. Bena Levy: Will my hon. Friend say how he would manage to achieve that?
  Mr. O'Brien: It is not my duty to solve the problem; I can contribute towards the solution of the problem and, in answer to my hon. Friend, I advocated on the occasion of my last but one visit to the United States that there should be on the Films Council all the American interests, including labour, British interests here, including labour, plus the Board of Trade, plus a request to the Board of Trade, if they could get their interest, to include the American State Department, or Trade Department equivalent to our Board of Trade. By the establishment of such an all-in Films Council, an international films' council,
  2718
  these problems could be looked at and possibly solved, without having to come to this House for a Debate of this kind almost every three months. That is one idea I put forward, but vested interests on both sides of the Atlantic thought otherwise. I can go back to the days when the Ostrer Brothers almost "went broke" in trying to establish a distribution agency in the United States, and one must give credit to Arthur Rank. He has spent a great deal of money in the United States in building up a distribution agency and has invested a great deal of money in Canada in order to try to get a footing in the Canadian market. When I hear some people criticising a man like Rank, I think they do not know what they are talking about.
  Mr. Michael Foot: How many dollars did Rank earn in the United States? He refused to give any figures and if we could have the figures through my hon. Friend, who has access to them, it would enlighten the House.
  Mr. O'Brien: That question would be more appropriately addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[An HON. MEMBER: "It has been."]—who has access to them; I have not. I do not think Rank would object to giving the figures to anyone.
  Mr. Levy: The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the receipt in dollars is negligible.
  Mr. O'Brien: I like to hear these experts on films. It is like a Debate on Foreign Affairs in which there are so many Foreign Secretaries in the House that I have great difficulty in following the actual Foreign Secretary. I am not criticising it at all, but when my hon. Friend says that it was negligible, he, as one who is not uninformed about the entertainment industry of this country, must not overlook the fact that though dollars are earned by Rank, or Korda, as the case may be, distribution charges and costs have to be paid out of those dollars. As far as I know, the Rank organisations or any other similar organisation have not had a special allocation of dollars from the Treasury or the Bank of England to set up a distribution agency in the United States.
  Mr. Boothby: Surely they have.
  Mr. O'Brien: I do not know; if so, it could not be much.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: On the Board of Trade recommendation.
  Mr. O'Brien: The expenses would be met out of earnings in the United States and, if the cost exceeded the earnings, the receipts would be negligible.
  The other factor with which we have to deal is the question of quality and quantity. That has been referred to in the two reports in different ways. Whatever we do, for heaven's sake do not let us sacrifice the quality of our films merely to get quantity. Mr. Rank has learned that lesson much to his sorrow. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned it in his review of what happened in that particular episode.
  The British have a reputation abroad in all countries for the quality of their goods.' Films must not be an exception. We must maintain quality whatever happens. Quality does not mean extravagant or wasteful pictures. It does not necessarily mean prestige pictures, but we cannot continue to make on a cheap scale quality pictures which will continuously please our audiences and meet with that requirement in our market overseas. Money has to be spent on quality films, because they cannot be made for £50,000 or £60,000. One or two can be made; a good picture can be made for £100,000, but we cannot continue to make quality pictures on a cheap basis. We must keep to quality.
  That brings me to the last two points which I wish to make, which concern the Film Finance Corporation and the question of quota and Entertainments Duty. The Film Finance Corporation was a great source of salvation to the industry a year or so ago, but I agree that it is not the answer to the industry's problems. Like everyone else, it charges interest. It charges 4½ per cent., which I think is excessive. If the intention of the Corporation is to help the industry, why should it act like a bank? That is a comment not a criticism, but if what it does is done to help the industry its interest charges are too high.
  We do not want the Film Finance Corporation to take the place of the industry's responsibility for putting its own house in order. There is certain criticism at
  2720
  present that the Film Finance Corporation is beginning to act as a censor, that it has to look at the scripts and even pass comments upon them. I happen to know Lord Reith, the chairman of the Corporation, and Mr. Laurie, the managing director, and I am quite satisfied that neither of these gentlemen nor their colleagues on the Corporation wish to act as censors, but by the very nature of their task and responsibility they have to be sure as to what it is for which they are advancing the money. That comment is enough to show that we do not look to the Film Finance Corporation as a complete solution of our difficulties.
  Of the quota I will only say that it has not saved the industry. There is more unemployment today with a high quota than there was when the quota was 20 and 25 per cent. A high quota has failed miserably. The facts are staring us in the face. Studios are closing and all the statutory enforcements in existence will not make films. The quota only obliges the exhibitors to show the films. There is no demand coming from the cinema or from the public to enforce that demand. There is in fact no effective demand, and no finance which would meet an effective demand. A mere statute compelling exhibitors to show 45 per cent. British films is as bad as compelling a grocer to sell pots of a certain make of jam when no pots of such jam are being produced. It is nonsense. We want a realistic quota, whatever the figure may be.
  I would not advocate that the quota should be abandoned. I advocate the quota being at a figure that could be met—in fact, at a figure which exhibitors of all kinds can exceed. It is far more dignified to have a quota that is" exceeded, than to have one which is falling down badly.
  Mr. Gallacher: If all the studios were working, could not the quota be met?
  Mr. O'Brien: My answer to the hon. Member is that all the studios cannot work because there is no money available to open them, there is no money available to make films in them. If money were available to make films in all of them, the quota could be met, but money has to be available to open studios and capital to make films. There is none available except what is left of the gallant £5 million of the Film Finance Corporation, which is very little. I do not know

  2721
  the figure, but it does not mean anything in the production programme of the next 18 months.
  Much can be said about the Entertainments Duty, but this is not quite the occasion on which to say it. It is a fiscal matter which concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the House cannot ignore the very serious statement in the Plant Report on the question of the Entertainments Duty. Nor can it ignore the fact that almost the entire industry on both sides is unhappy in one way or another about the tax. Reference to this unity brings me to the "sinister plot" or whatever was in the mind of my right hon. Friend in respect of deals being made by the various interests. No deals have been made. There is no sinister movement, no ulterior purpose about the matter. The industry and its various sections have realised that they have been clowning and making fools of themselves for many years with divided policies, etc; that we are bringing public odium upon ourselves by the antics of that last 25 to 35 years; and a greater sense of responsibility is entering into the minds of the leaders on both sides of the industry, including the trade unions.
  We are trying to see what common ground there is on which we can stand and upon what common purpose we can agree to solve our problems. We have reached unanimity on one point only upon which we made representations this morning to the President of the Board of Trade. The Association of Cine Technicians, which represents the technicians of the industry, the Electrical Trades Union, my own organisation, all the leading producers and also the documentary and specialist producers went to the Board of Trade and made representations on one point. That idea briefly was to obtain, in effect, the complete abolition of the Entertainments Duty in respect of British films and for an entire British programme, that the tax should, by an agreed percentage, flow back to the producer of a film already made and taxed on condition that that producer was in the course of making his second film, so that the finance would be earned by the tax on the first film automatically going back to the producer for his second film, and so on, and that an incentive should be given to the exhibitor by way of a percentage so that there would be a
  2722
  greater desire to show an entirely British programme.
  That was the case, and my right hon. Friend has promised to look at it and to collect whatever information he can upon it. It is a practice which I believe operates, or is to operate, in Italy and in some form in France. The point is that the Governments of those two countries feel themselves compelled in some way practically and constructively to aid their native industries by relieving them of this taxation, provided that The tax flows back to the proper quarter. There are other ideas on the subject of Entertainments Duty relief. The Cinema Exhibitors' Association, as hon. Members know, have circulated literature. They can make out a case irrespective of the prosperity or losses of the industry. That is a matter which will have to be discussed on another occasion. There are other ideas about Entertainments Duty in other quarters. We agree that those quarters can further their case as they wish, but the idea of which I have been speaking is an agreed one between all the parties concerned, and is worthy of having notice taken of it.
  Finally, if the Government of the United States applied to American cinemas an entertainment tax of the same percentage—roughly £38 to £40 million a year in this country—of about 36 to 40 per cent. of the takings, the entire movie-picture industry of the United States—the distribution and the exhibition—would collapse. Although it is mighty, and is stronger than we are, it would have to fold up in less than three months. The best picture costs the same to the public as the worst film. The difficulty of producers is to recoup from the best and more paying films the losses experienced on inferior films.
  There is one point which I wish to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. His idea, from what I have heard and read of his views, is that the argument against the Entertainments Duty is a bad one, because it is a Purchase Tax, and that any other industry could have its Purchase Tax taken away. That makes it appear that the argument of those in the industry, who feel that this duty is too heavy and acts as a block and a barrier to progress, is a bad one. A little thought will shown that the Entertainments Duty is not a Purchase Tax,

  2723
  and nothing like a Purchase Tax. The Entertainments Duty in itself can be attacked, quite apart from the fact of whether the entertainment industry is prosperous or not. Tobacco, beer and whisky, and so on, have been used as examples. A film shown in the cinema once a week or twice a week is not the same film. Every film is a different film and is probably made by different directors, by different artists, at different studios and probably in different parts of the world. Tobacco and beer do not fall into that category. If the tobacco manufacturers had to make a separate type of cigarette every week or a separate type of tobacco every week; if they had to have different sizes and lengths week after week; if the brewers had to brew a different bottle of beer every week, of different sizes and so on, that argument would apply. But tobacco and beer and wireless sets are all of a fixed pattern. They all conform to one pattern. Films are not made that way.
  Mr. Follick: Are they not?
  Mr. O'Brien: No, and consequently when hon. Members on both sides of the House think of the Entertainments Duty as a Purchase Tax, they should keep that particular example in mind. I hope that whatever the Government can do as a short-term policy—
  Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend explain why, if the Entertainments Duty were reduced, the benefit of the reduction should not be passed to the consumer rather than the exhibitor?
  Mr. O'Brien: I did not say that the benefit should be passed on to the exhibitor exclusively. I dealt with one example, where a plan or idea was placed before the President of the Board of Trade this morning that the Entertainments Duty should be taken off British films, or preferably off British programmes, and an agreed percentage given to the producer of the film which earned the duty and a small percentage as an incentive to the exhibitor. The argument which involves the consumer or picture-goer is one which I will not take up at this stage, because it is not relevant to the point. It may be dealt with when other proposals come before the House, probably at Budget time.
  2724
  I hope that the Treasury will favourably consider the present plight of the industry. Everyone in it is involved; workers and technicians and artistes, all are affected. I can assure hon. Members that extravagance, or waste as I should prefer to say, is a thing of the past, and if in some way or other the Treasury can come to the rescue of an industry which is vitally necessary for the wider interests of this country, then that industry will be grateful—and not only the industry, but the public, who like our good films, will ever bless the Government for whatever help or contribution they can make.
  Mr. Mitchison: My hon. Friend has talked about incentives to exhibitors. What is the difference between an exhibitor who has an incentive and an exhibitor who has not? My impression of this industry has always been that they went on exhibiting until they went "bust."
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: The House always listens with great attention to an expert on any subject, and we have listened with great attention to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien), who made a very interesting speech. I make no claim to be an expert at all; I am only an observer. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a very valid point when he said that, looking back, we had made two pretty bad mistakes. The first was our mishandling of our relations with the United States of America in respect of the film industry ever since the war, and particularly the handling of it by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that the action we took was absolutely disastrous. Quite frankly, we were not in a position to take high-handed action of this kind. We were inviting retaliation of the most vigorous character, and we got it from a competitor who was stronger than we were. We have now to face up to the consequences.
  There was a second point made by the hon. Gentleman which interested me very much. He confessed that there had been great extravagance in this industry in the past, if not waste; and then he said that it was over. He implied that this did not matter very much any more, but of course it does matter. I believe that the extravagance which has been displayed by this industry generally—and that goes

  2725
  for everybody—is to some extent responsible for its present plight. I should like some more assurances than we have had in this House that that extravagance has really come to an end. I wish to tell the House that I have recently seen some people connected with the American film industry. They were not high-ups, not stars, and nobody whom I am prepared to quote by name; but I believe what they told me.
  Because they have had great experience, I asked them what in their opinion was the real trouble in the film industry in this country. They told me that one of the main reasons, apart from anything else, was the frightful slowness. They told me that M.G.M. 'has a studio in this country in which they are now producing films. I think they have produced a film called "The Forsyte Saga"; and they are now producing a second edition of "Mrs. Miniver." They also had plans for producing further films in this country, at American expense. These experts on the American side told me that the contrast between the time taken to produce films in this studio and the time taken in Hollywood was almost in the proportion of three to one. They said that every technician, for example, carpenters—and I give only the one example—that for one carpenter employed in the United States there were two or three employed in this country. They said there was no stream-lining of any sort, kind or description.
  Then they said there were "elevenses," and for a moment I could not think what they meant. They said it meant that everybody stopped for tea at 11 o'clock in the morning. If they only stopped for tea at 11 o'clock in the morning it would not be so bad. But they stopped for tea continuously, at one o'clock, at three o'clock and at four o'clock, when everybody sat down and had a kind of garden party. There were the high-salaried stars sitting round with nothing to do, and everybody going pretty slow and taking it pretty easy. Meanwhile all these high-powered and high-salaried stars have to be kept week after week and month after month in this country. They can rightly demand, and they get, extremely comfortable living conditions, shall we say, perhaps at the Dorchester Hotel. Whereas, if the thing were streamlined and really working at high pressure and efficiently, they would be
  2726
  here for perhaps five or six weeks, they are kept here making one film for three months instead. I was informed—and I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of my information—that whereas M.G.M. had contemplated making another three or four important big films at their studio in this country, the delay has been so great and the consequential expense has been so great that they are now seriously contemplating scrapping the whole of the rest of their programme. That will mean that the studio will be closed down.
  Mr. Wyatt: How can that be so when presumably M.G.M. are using frozen sterling in this country? It can mean nothing to them.
  Mr. Boothby: My experience of a rough life is that expense is never totally meaningless to anyone. I think that the expense factor does come in, even if one has assets which may be temporarily frozen. One may take the view that one might expend those assets in a more profitable way than by wasting them, if one really thinks that it is waste. If we think that we can take advantage of our position as holders of frozen assets of the United States to mulct them by producing films in an expensive and inefficient way, I think that we shall make a very great mistake. That is not how the American mentality works.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should know that his American friends gave him a very coloured and extravagant picture of what is happening in the British studios. The tea breaks are the ordinary tea breaks which are enjoyed by workers in most factories under trade union agreements and they are not of the character described by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the English directors of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer will tell him that extravagance in costs of production in Hollywood is far greater than in this country.
  Mr. Boothby: I have had a look at Hollywood, and I have had a look at our studios here. It seemed to me, purely as a superficial observer, that it was a more streamlined business in Hollywood; that people were more on their toes, and more anxious than they are here to get the job done quickly. At a time when the film industry in this country is going through a very difficult period, and everyone is

  2727
  apprehensive about their jobs, there is a great incentive not to hurry too much in case, when the film comes to end, there will be no job left. That is understandable.
  Mr. Gallacher: Oh.
  Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) said that people are actually being thrown out of employment in this industry, and so it will go on. If one has an industry where unemployment is not only threatening but actually taking place, of course there is always the temptation to drag on a little bit in order to keep the job going. That is most understandable. I ask hon. Members whether there is not also something in the question of redundant labour, particularly technical labour. Are we not employing, under present conditions, too many men on a particular job to make a really efficient competitive production?
  That brings me to my last point. Here, from a competitive point of view, we are absolutely up against an industry which nobody can say is inefficient. I think that we have come up against one of the fundamental difficulties of this country, that competition is in many industries, and over a very wide field of industry, almost a lost art. Here in this industry we are feeling the full blast of competition almost for the first time, and I think that we must take very serious account of that.
  We have proved since the war that we are capable of making in this country what I think are the best films in the world. I think that a great deal of the credit for that, if we are to be fair, must go to Mr. Rank. He has produced some very fine films, and some magnificent documentaries. For my part, I am particularly interested in a recent documentary which he produced about the possibilities of a greater unity in Europe. I thought that was the best propaganda from the point of view of those of us who are interested in a united Europe that I have ever seen.
  Not only from a British, but a European point of view, it is absolutely essential that this industry should be revived, because it has come to that now. It is not a question of preserving it; it is a question of reviving it. If we are to do that, the industry must become reasonably competitive. It must become more
  2728
  efficient than it is now, and less extravagant than the hon. Member for West Nottingham admitted that it has been in the past. If it does all these things, then I think that its claim for some direct financial assistance from the Government—I will not specify the form now—will be very much greater than it has been during the past four years.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) may well have brought out one of the underlying defects of the British film industry when he referred to the slowness of production by comparison with the United States. But I do not think that he imagines—I am sure he does not—that to remedy that defect alone, whether by cutting out these alleged tea breaks or by more drastic methods, will get us out of the difficulties which we face. Speaking personally, I have been disappointed so far by the Debate because no one has really made any concrete suggestions about what should be done to get the industry going again and to deal with the immediate troubles which it faces.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) spent part of his speech blaming the Government for the failures of private enterprise. He spent another part of his speech in mentioning proposals put forward by other people and proceeding to puncture them. He did not himself put forward one concrete suggestion about what should be done to help the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) in a very lengthy speech, so far as I could see only put forward one suggestion, and that was one which I understand he had already put to the President of the Board of Trade privately this morning. That suggestion was in connection with Entertainments Duty.
  Before trying myself to put forward one or two humble suggestions, I should like to put my point of view about Entertainments Duty. I think that the campaign that has been run in the country in recent weeks in favour of a flat reduction in the duty is a very dangerous one indeed. We are out to help the production of good British films, but a flat reduction in the duty, among' other things, would help the producers of American films, and it is no part of our job to do that. It would also help the producers of

  2729
  bad, extravagant British films, and it is no part of our job to do that. Further, it would help the distributors and exhibitors, and I am very far from being convinced by anything I have read in the recently published reports that in fact the distributors and exhibitors need any help whatever. Therefore, I beg the President of the Board of Trade to reject outright any demand for a flat reduction of Entertainments Duty.
  The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham is not that. It is a much better proposal than that, but I think that it has a serious defect in that it will mean that bad producers as well as good—bad in the sense of extravagance, quite apart from any question of quality—would get the benefit of the remission of tax just as would the good ones. I should like to concentrate any help we give upon the good ones. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that if he intends to consider that proposal seriously, he should make one or two additions to the proposal. One is for the benefit of specialised film producers—the makers of "shorts." I should like to see him specify that they shall get a certain stated percentage of the tax remitted for the further production of short films.
  Furthermore, I think we must extend the idea to cover not only all British programmes, but any programme in which a British film is shown. It seems to me that it would be very hard on the producer of some British film, who happened to sell his film to a circuit which was showing American films at the same time as British, if he himself, because his film was not in an all-British show, could not get the benefit of the remission which would be given to an all-British programme.
  But I do not myself think that it is by way of remissions of Entertainments Duty that we are going to find any immediate solution to the problem now facing the industry. I would, therefore, as quickly as I can, put forward one or two suggestions which might well be considered for the immediate assistance of the British film industry. First, the British Film Finance Corporation. I suggest that at once—and by that I mean this week—the British Film Finance Corporation should find out how many good directors who have a good record
  2730
  are out of work. Having done that, they should get hold of them and find out how many of them are able and willing to work, in the sense that they have got scripts ready or reasonably nearly ready. Those who are ready to work should at once, with or without a distribution contract, be given financial assistance to get on with the job.
  I know there are risks, but it seems to me that the production position has become so desperate, with Denham as the latest one to close down on the 23rd, that unless something unconventional in the financial sense is done right away, we shall have the bulk of production stopping entirely. I would also like to see some provisions being applied to the use to which the money that is issued is put, such as some of the suggestions about the reduction of production costs, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and also by the Gater Committee.
  Now I come to the second point. One of the troubles from which it seems to me the producers are suffering at present is the fact that the allocation of the proceeds of a film is unfair. Maybe there is too much for the exhibitor and too much to the distributor, and not enough going to the producer. I do not know; it is very difficult to tell, but it seems to me to be possible that that is so. I believe that the one way in which we can help to make certain that that shall not continue to happen in the future to the same extent as it has done in the past would be to establish, again through the British Films Finance Corporation, a public renting corporation. I believe that the Finance Corporation has the power to do that without further legislation. I suggest that this public renting organisation, taking for itself out of the proceeds of a film only an amount necessary to cover its costs, would make possible a greater share of the proceeds of a film to be sent back to the producer.
  Mr. J. Lewis: With which circuit would such a public renting organisation be tied up?
  Mr. Mallalieu: With all of them; it need not necessarily be tied up with any one circuit.
  The next thing I would suggest, in opposition to the point of view of my

  2731
  hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham, is that we should put more teeth into the quota. At whatever rate it is fixed—and my hon. Friend said it should be a realistic rate—once we have fixed that level, let us see that it is properly operated. The present level officially is 40 per cent., but I am told that exemptions are so great that the average level is something like 27 per cent. That seems to me to be no way of conducting the nation's business. It should be made clear to all exhibitors that, once the rate is fixed, if they choose to disregard it they will be fined very heavily indeed instead of receiving warning letters and that, on the third offence, the right of the President of the Board of Trade to take away their licences will in fact be exercised.
  I should also like to put before the House a proposition which has been made many times before concerning the double-feature programme. At present we are faced, for reasons of which we are fairly well aware, with a shortage of British films, and indeed of films of all kinds, and we should do our best to economise. By means of legislation we should stop the double-feature programme. I believe that would be a tremendous saving of first-feature films. It would also offer tremendous encouragement to the producers of the "shorts." I should like to go back to the old-fashioned cinema programme of my childhood, when, as far as I can remember, we used to have a nice documentary the big feature, a serial with Pearl White or William S. Hart and then Charlie Chaplin. That was the best four pennyworth I have ever had, and it was a contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tory misrule."] That is one way in which we can make the immediate cuts that are required, but side by side with the immediate programme we have got to get down to the long-term policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham has been complaining that every three months this industry comes before the House for discussion of its affairs, and he dislikes it. I think he said that this is the result of what he called "messing about," just dealing with things from day to day and not trying to achieve a long-term policy for the industry. Under that heading of a long-
  2732
  term policy, I would recommend, if indeed they need recommendation, some of the suggestions included in the reservation by Mr. F. A. Hoare in the Gater Report. The recommendations made there were, in general, for a greater planning of the industry on the production side, and an attempt to get together the various individual companies, so that they would let each other know what their own production programmes were. Even more, I think Mr. Hoare had in mind the idea of making a survey of the capacity of the industry, and by capacity I do not mean merely studio space, but include the services of directors, technicians and the rest. Having discovered what is the reasonable capacity, it should be our job to see that that capacity is fully and steadily used. We should plan production so that it is sufficient to occupy the total capacity, and should organise it in such a way as to ensure that, when one picture finishes, there is another ready to go into production.
  There is another, and last, suggestion. I was asked a few momments ago about the public renting organisation and whether it would be tied up with any particular circuit. It is not necessary that it should be so, but I think that, on the whole, it would be desirable if that renting organisation could have behind it a circuit which would be reasonably well disposed to the public renting organisation. I therefore return to a proposal which I and some of my hon. Friends have made several times before, that we must now seriously consider the creation of a State circuit as well as of a State rental organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am afraid that, as always, hon. Members opposite are far too dogmatic and doctrinaire. Oddly enough, though I am a Socialist, I do not believe in the nationalisation of the film industry. I am not dogmatic or doctrinaire about it. But if the State comes into an industry in any other way except to dole out money, then, apparently, it is wrong in the dogmatic minds of hon. Members opposite.
  I would say that the future of the film industry is probably going to be bound up with the provision of a State circuit. I will not tonight, partly because of the shortness of time and partly because I have done it before, go over the arguments in favour of it, but I should like

  2733
  to commend once more to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Parliamentary Secretary this proposal which has been put forward in detail to the Board of Trade. I would say, as I said just now, that this industry is not suitable for full-scale nationalisation. Quite clearly, from the experience we have had, it is equally unsuitable for full-scale private enterprise. Here is an industry which, it seems to me, is best suited to something which is a mixture of the two, something which would enable it to use those parts of private enterprise which would give freedom to directors to develop the ideas in their heads, and, side by side with it, the advantages of public enterprise which would give it a reasonable chance of having its products shown.
  Mr. Gallacher: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that remark that if an industry is nationalised, the directors associated with it are incapable of developing ideas?
  Mr. Mallalieu: By no means. But I would suggest to the hon. Member, whose experience in these matters is perhaps greater than mine, that there is a difference between ideas and material things. Generally speaking, I want to nationalise material things, but I want to keep ideas as individually free as we possibly can.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll: What a contrast there has been between the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and that of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien)? The speech of the last named contained much that was right and sound about what is necessary for the industry. I particularly like the remarks about the need for courage in talking about extravagance to both sides of the industry. I only hope that, in fact, the hon. Member for West Nottingham will speak to that section of the industry which he represents as he has spoken this evening. By contrast, we have the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield advocating a State circuit. "When in doubt advocate some State organisation," seems to be the theme of hon. Members opposite.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield pointed out that we on this side were being doctrinaire, and that we only invited the State in to dole out money. We are opposed to nationalisation just
  2734
  because we find that in almost every nationalised enterprise the State has to dole out money. We are therefore opposed to a State circuit because we see in such a proposition, quite apart from the evils of extended State power, the prospect of yet further drawings on the Exchequer to subsidise its inevitably inefficient operation.
  It was satisfactory to hear in the opening remarks of the President of the Board of Trade that this Debate was to be in the nature of a general discussion, and that no hard-and-fast line of policy had been adopted by the Government. Far too often we have come to a Debate in this House only to find that the Government have decided their policy and that the Debate has been arranged merely as an opportunity to blow off steam without our having any chance of effectively influencing a policy already decided upon. It is indeed a welcome change to find that we can all, by reason of our speeches today, hope to have some influence on the Government's policy in the matter of the film industry.
  I hope that during this Debate we shall avoid any polemical references to figures in the industry. I notice that already one or two remarks have been made about Mr. Rank—some good and some bad—but I hope that hon. Members opposite will not descend the easy road of damning figures in the industry, because that does much harm outside the House as well as inside. If the management of the industry is persistently "slated," it will only create a bad impression and make what is urgently needed in the industry, namely, the full collaboration of both sides, all the more difficult to obtain.
  What we on this side wish to see is more collaboration at all levels of the industry, between workers, technicians, producers and distributors. I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham was a notable contribution in that direction. I am sorry to find, of course, that if anything constructive is said by an hon. Member opposite, he is immediately met with the jeers from his own side. They cannot even listen to one of their own colleagues with whom they happen to be in disagreement without noisy jeers and laughter, but, of course, that is another aspect of the Socialist Party.
  Earl Winterton: They hate each other almost more than they hate us.
  Mr. Erroll: As my noble Friend says, they appear to hate each other more than they hate us, and that is one of the most regrettable appendices in that book of Socialist demonology from which they all draw from time to time.
  Today we heard a rather regrettable aside by the President of the Board of Trade when he referred to the industry's views on the Entertainments Duty as displaying a "sinister unanimity." I do not want to make too much of what was only an aside; on the other hand, it is significant because it shows the way in which the mind of the right hon. Gentleman naturally works. Sometimes asides are very revealing. They sometimes show the true state of a man's point of view more than does a prepared speech. There was surely nothing sinister about the industry responding to the recommendation of a powerful and impartial committee and saying that they were in full agreement with it. If they do not get together, that is a fault; if they display unanimity, that, too, becomes a fault and is labelled "sinister." I hope that hon. Members opposite will refrain from using that type of language on which they so freely draw from time to time.
  The President of the Board of Trade dealt very lightly with what is, in fact, the main cause of the troubles in the industry. The disease from which the film industry is suffering is that of Government interference. The reason this industry is worse off than any other is that it has been more interfered with than any other industry in the country. I do not allude merely to the Parliamentary Debates which were referred to by the hon. Member for West Nottingham; they are but a reflection of Government interference. The interference is far more widespread than that.
  The Minister referred to the "City angels" withholding their support. It is something new to hear financiers described by a Socialist as angelic. It is welcome perhaps to see this change. But why did they withhold their support? They did so because it was no longer desirable or worth while to put money into an industry which was being subjected to so much amateurish interference. That is what happens to all
  2736
  aspects of free enterprise economy. If one creates by Government interference conditions in which money cannot fructify and expand, the interferers have only themselves to blame. It is no good putting the blame upon the shoulders of the financiers or the leading figures in the industry itself. The precise details of interference were well outlined by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech—the heavy import duty followed by the reaction of the ban, then the new quota so arranged that it caused the maximum discontent among American producers, and all the time the figure of Mr. Johnston flitting from room to room in Mill-bank and phoning the President late at night.
  Mr. Boothby: Is the hon. Member referring to the President of the Board of Trade or the President of the United States?
  Mr. Erroll: The President of the Board of Trade. That is my main complaint against the behaviour of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. I do not think that he has behaved with the full dignity of his office. He has been quite content to deal with an American civilian who may be quite reputable in his own way but whose position does not hold the same status as the office of the President of the Board of Trade. The attitude of the President of the Board of Trade towards the American industry has been most undignified. I will not proceed further, as he is not here, but I should be glad to hear later an explanation of why such an unconventional approach should have been deemed right and proper in this field. By a more aloof and dignified approach to the problem, instead of running after one particular civilian in the United States of America, the President of the Board of Trade might have secured far better terms for the British film industry.
  I want now to turn to the Entertainments Duty, as it obviously and inevitably represents a major factor in any discussion of the industry today. The President of the Board of Trade deprecated the industry, to use his own words, begging for tax relief. But if one is hard hit by the taxation levied by a Government, it is quite honourable to appeal against it. It has been done by other industries, and done successfully. I have only to cite the radical change in Excise

  2737
  Duty on motor vehicles, passed in a recent Finance Act, to show that other industries have adopted the technique of obtaining taxation relief in order to improve their industrial position.
  In any case, as the Entertainments Duty is a duty essentially on turnover, surely it is unfair and unjustifiable at a time of declining attendances at individual cinemas. The whole position of Entertainments Duty is riddled with anomalies, as the spirited questioning in this House in the last few days on the subject of "A Streetcar Named Desire" has shown. Here is a profitable dollar play which is performed free of duty at the same time as British films are heavily taxed on the turnover basis.
  A good deal of play has been made of the fact that there are only two or three distribution networks which can exercise something like a monopoly control over what is produced. Surely, as the cost of producing films increases—and it has now reached six figures in most cases—the producer has got to have some guarantee that his film will be accepted and shown in a large number of cinemas. It is, therefore, inevitable that the exhibitors should coalesce into several big groups and so provide the producer with a sufficient guarantee to go ahead with a highly expensive production.
  One sees in other walks of life much the same process taking place. In fact, it would be difficult to imagine a firm or undertaking embarking upon an entirely speculative production of such magnitude in the hope that it would be sold. For example, any building construction work is proceeded with only against a firm tender or a firm order. One would never build a large works or structure of any sort entirely in the hope of selling it some time afterwards to an unknown purchaser. Before one embarks upon an expensive piece of construction one must have some guarantee that what is made will in fact be purchased. So with the modern expensive films. There must be some guarantee for the producer that there is a likely outlet on a sufficiently large scale to provide a chance of the picture proving remunerative.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to the Charlie Chaplin shows of his childhood and their cheapness, for which a Tory Government is entitled to take its due share of credit; but, of
  2738
  course, the main reason why such films were cheap was that they were much easier to produce and were not nearly so expensive. Production has become more expensive not only because of the inevitable extravagance but also because the technique is more complicated and the standard has become much higher. I think it is essential, therefore, that we should not look to the break-up of the distribution network and a return to a position of entirely unrestricted competition, because that might be very much worse for the producers in the long run.
  I agree, however, with the Plant Report that there is a strong case for some freeing of competition. One important factor in that freeing of competition would be to make more copies of a film available in England. There are four very significant paragraphs in that report—paragraphs 73 to 77—which deal with the production of film stock from which copies are made. Film base, from which the film stock is made, comes mainly from America, and has to be paid for in dollars. While some proposals have been made for its manufacture in this country, nothing very much has come of the suggestion, due largely perhaps to a certain Board of Trade reluctance to give the necessary approval, authority and encouragement to this development.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): Has the hon. Gentleman any reason for believing that that is why the factory has not been built?
  Mr. Erroll: Yes. The report strongly urges that the Board of Trade should investigate its own position in the matter. The matter was originally sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) when he was President of the Board of Trade, and it seems to have lagged ever since. Perhaps I may quote from the report. This. is strong language for an impartial official report. It says:
  "… we would strongly recommend that the Board of Trade should investigate the present state of the projects for industrial development to which we have referred and assure itself that the work is pressed forward upon a sufficient scale with all speed."
  Mr. K. Robinson: There is no suggestion whatever that the Board of Trade is in any way to blame.
  Mr. Erroll: Having read many of these reports, I know that a sentence of that sort is as near to a stricture of a Government Department as an official report normally can go.
  Mr. Wilmot: Has the hon. Member any evidence that this is not a private enterprise venture.
  Mr. Erroll: There is plenty of evidence to show that many private enterprise ventures are frustrated by Government interference or Government activities. I think it would not be fair to take up more time of the House on this matter. The Minister will have an opportunity of stating his case when he replies.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): Before the hon. Member leaves that point would he mind telling me in what way the Board of Trade has frustrated any of these ventures?
  Mr. Erroll: I am going by what is said in the report—in paragraph 76.
  Mr. Wilmot: It does not say anything about it.
  Mr. Erroll: It is the sort of language which is used in an official report when a Government Department is being censured. If that is not the case, I should be very glad indeed to be corrected.
  I should like to refer, in passing, to what I think is a lamentable lack of initiative on the part of exhibitors. In the present state of the industry, I think there is room for considerably more variety and enterprise on the exhibiting side. Wherever one goes, one finds that the methods of showing are standardised. Everywhere the programmes are continuous and nowhere is the attempt or experiment made of introducing fixed times of showing, with intervals, so that people can book seats in advance and thus plan their evening with a reasonable certainty of being able to get into the cinema. It should be noted how the theatres, and particularly the pantomimes, profit immensely from large parties going through together because they have booked their seats in advance. There is no sign of such an arrangement being possible in the cinemas of this country. True, a small number of the most expensive seats can usually be reserved in advance at certain cinemas, but there is
  2740
  nothing like the advance booking facilities available in the cinemas everywhere as they are available in the London theatres. This suggestion might not work, but at least it would be worth trying. I suggest that some initiative of this sort would be well worth displaying.
  At the same time, there is an obvious need for longer periods of showing of popular films. I speak as a layman in this matter, but surely all of us have often found that the particular film which we wish to see has appeared at our local cinema for one week—perhaps a week in which we could not attend—and then, if we wish to see it, it is a matter of trying to chase it all over the country to find it in the short period during which it is shown in the other cities. Surely there could be more flexibility in this matter so that popular films could be shown for longer periods, thus increasing the revenue. Surely, it would be possible also to bring the popular films back again if only there were more flexibility in the arrangements. At times they are brought back, but usually long after the time when such a film has lost its major interest. The film could be brought back in order to have repeat shows and thus earn increased revenue for distributors and producers alike.
  I am sorry that exhibitors have not shown more initiative with regard to television programmes—surely an additional source of revenue in these days. In the week when normal revenue is not likely to be great they could show the television programmes on the screen of their theatres. These are but a few simple suggestions to show that there is certainly room for improvement on the exhibiting side of the industry, and I hope these suggestions may be heeded.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilmot: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), who made a most interesting speech, to make one or two practical suggestions. In opening, I must say that I should regret it if this Debate should seem to exhibit the British film industry as being wholly disastrous and altogether bad. In fact, the British film industry has great achievements and has had some remarkable successes. In many ways it has set a new standard of artistic performance in the film world and the best

  2741
  British films—not always the most expensive—are certainly among the very best in the world. We have shown that we can make these films and that there is a wide public outside this country for them, and in passing judgment on or making a review of the past, I think we have to avoid, if we can, getting ourselves divided up into pro-Rank and anti-Rank parties.
  We know that the Americans have learned from bitter experience some of the lessons which we are learning now. They have been through. their worst boom-time extravagances. They set a pattern which, unfortunately, the British industry followed, and the Rank organisation made the mistake, which I think it recognises now, of trying to follow the American model and to make a colossus at once instead of building up from the bottom a sound industry, not in copy of the American system but based upon a native and different British method. Had such a policy been followed, we should be in a very much better position now, but we should acknowledge and proclaim with pride that the Rank organisation, both on its production side and on its exhibiting side has done a first-class job in many ways. It has produced some grand films and has opened cinemas all over the British Commonwealth—in New Zealand, in Australia, in Canada, in South Africa, in Cairo and in many other places. These first-class theatres stand as a shop window for British ideas, British goods and British life. Indeed, I am told that in the beautiful cinema in Cairo, the best theatre in the city, the foyer is devoted to an exhibition of British export goods.
  Mr. J. Lewis: In view of the argument which my right hon. Friend is putting forward, is he suggesting that a subsidy should be given to this industry or is he saying that, in fact, the industry should stand on its own feet?
  Mr. Wilmot: I think my hon. Friend should wait for a moment to see why I am making this statement. I want to get things in focus in order to point to one or two possible remedies. I think—and the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) agrees, in spite of his doctrinaire principles—that this industry cannot be left to go down because it is in financial difficulties. He, too, thinks that the
  2742
  Government must come to its aid because of the widespread ramifications and of the repercussions of a failure to continue to produce British films. As I was so glad to hear the President say, we all recognise that a way has to be found to bridge the gap and to make it possible for British film production to continue. If it is to continue, then as a corollary of Government assistance in some form or another the industry——
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Member, but I think he is getting his terminology mixed, because this is an industry out of which the Government are at present drawing £39 million sterling. One could hardly describe it as giving assistance if the industry were relieved in this direction.
  Mr. Wilmot: The Government are drawing taxation from many industries in various ways, and if it should be found expedient and desirable to make a special remittance of taxation in the case of some particular industry or part of an industry, that is Government assistance and we must recognise it from the start. I do not think that the assistance which the Government can give should be or can be confined to a single channel. I think there are a number of actions which the Government can take which can, if properly directed, assist the British film industry in the right way and to the right purpose. I do not believe that a flat reduction of Entertainments Duty is the way to do it. Such a flat reduction would assist alike deserving and undeserving, good and bad, British and Foreign.
  We have to be very careful in what we do here that we do not encourage the replacement of British films by Foreign films made in Britain. I think this is very important, as anybody who has seen a film like "The Forsyte Saga," to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred, will understand—an American film of a famous British classic completely ruined by the American treatment. It would be a disastrous thing if that kind of production were the result of Government assistance to the industry. It is most important that British films which exhibit the essential British subjects, British ideas and British life should be travelling round the world.

  2743
  I suggest that there is a very good reason for looking at the impact of Entertainments Duty on this industry, and so far nobody has referred in this Debate to what I regard as the key passage in the Plant Report, and that is the first few lines of paragraph 63. Perhaps, the House will allow me to read them:
  "If the establishment of a British film industry on a self-supporting basis can be correctly assumed to be an accepted aim of government policy, then the amounts of the cinemas' admission prices which are levied in Entertainments Duty appear to us to be in general quite excessive."
  Now we know it is an aim of Government policy that there should be a self-supporting British cinema industry, and therefore I invite the President of the Board of Trade with the utmost earnestness to pay attention to this and the contiguous important paragraphs. It goes on to say:
  "The overall proportion taken is in practice nearly 36 per cent. There cannot in our opinion be any doubt that the balance of receipts left in the industry after meeting the reasonable costs of exhibition and distribution is inadequate to recoup even reasonable production costs of the whole supply of first-feature and supporting pictures required to keep the cinemas in operation."
  Now, that cannot be overlooked. It is the considered opinion of the most authoritative inquiry into the film industry that we have had. I think a case is made out for saying that what the Government have to consider is not whether or not they are going to do something to lighten this burden on the industry, but the manner in which the relief should be made.
  I suggest that we have some guide to help us in the living theatre. It would be impossible for the best productions of the British stage to appear at the present time if it were not for direct assistance by way of concessions in Entertainments Duty, whatever we may call them. The fact of the matter is that the flower of the British stage today is being produced under the protection of this special help, and without it the best to be seen on the British stage would disappear.
  I suggest that some part of the product of the Entertainments Duty could be put into a special fund. I know that Chancellors of the Exchequer do not like this earmarking procedure, but we have to find a way of differentiation between good and bad, and some part of this enormous
  2744
  revenue taken out of this industry—taken out in the most peculiarly damaging way, which prevents the exhibitor raising the prices of his seats—some part of this revenue should be put into a fund, administered by a competent body to be created, as suggested in the Report, and used to assist the production in the form of relief or payment to British films, which in production costs and quality conform to certain standards, and pass the tests which that body lays down. There are, of course, difficulties. Of course, somebody has to judge between good and not good. Naturally, there will be mistakes, and inevitably there will be criticism. Unless, however, some way can be found of doing this, then I think we may face the close-down of British film production altogether.
  But this is not all. The Government should assist in other ways. Although I should regret the State embarking upon film production, I think there are special spheres of production in which it could easily take a hand. Some of the best films we have had were produced in the old days by the Post Office Film Unit. The Crown Film Unit has a first-class record of film production of documentary films, a peculiarly British contribution to the cinematographic art. There is no reason at all why such units should not be a great success in this limited but most important field, the field of the first-class little film.
  One of the criticisms I make of the industry is its failure to develop a sufficient number of competent producers. We are terribly short of first-class British producers. It is not true to say there are large numbers of first-class producers out of work. The trouble is we cannot find enough to make the volume of really good films that we need to have made. I am hoping that, just as in the theatre the Old Vic, through its threatre school centre and with the help of Government subsidies given through the Arts Council, has been able to set about building up a succession of leading players—through team work in the theatre and the school—so some such influence may be—as it ought to be—brought into the cinema industry; it must if the British genius in British film production is not to die.
  I think that the Film Finance Corporation, which has made a very good start

  2745
  in most difficult conditions, could well extend its activities, by providing for such a purpose, so that, just as the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells have built the system of theatre education and production which is world famous, and which has made an enormous impression across the Atlantic, so the cinema could do the same.
  Those are one or two suggestions which I think we might bear in mind, and to which I invite the Government's attention. I think it would be a great mistake if the Government were to set their face against any form of reduction or remission of Entertainments Duty. There is no way, I think, of bringing this industry into a healthy condition unless some part of this heavy tax is re-routed.
  There is one other thing I should like to say. I believe that some help for the cinema industry could be found during the shortage of British films that will come, whatever we do now, if something concrete and progressive could be said about the cinema showing of television programmes. This matter seems to have got bogged down in some Beveridge Committee. I am told that people in the industry are completely unable to get any help or guidance as to what possibilities there are; and that they are refused permission to proceed. Technical developments are held up because nobody knows what is likely to be the line of Government policy. At this time it seems to me that we should do very much better to fill a part of our programme time by the showing in cinemas of television programmes, rather than be forced to buy second-rate American films with precious dollars to fill up the gaps in cinema showing time caused by the absence of British films. I commend these suggestions to the President in the hope that, with the expert knowledge at his disposal, he may be able to find a practical method of assistance.
  Finally, I urge him to strengthen his arrangement for continuous consultation and connection between his Department and the industry. There seems to be a great barrier between the Board of Trade and people who really understand this highly-complex and difficult industry, in which I have no professional status at all. I am sure that in this complex matter, and at this time, continuous advisory help from a practical body actually engaged
  2746
  in this industry would be invaluable in assisting the President in the very difficult decisions he has to take. It is not enough merely to have a somewhat decorative body to which things can be referred from time to time. I think that there must be much closer day to day co-operation, and I strongly advise my right hon. Friend to get it.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot: At the outset I should like to associate myself almost entirely with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) in a most interesting and persuasive speech. I feel that something has to be done to help this industry, because cinema-going is an important feature in our social life: for good or for bad it has become so. I therefore think it essential that people should see British films portrayed upon the screen. Now, if films are to continue in production, there are two things upon which I think we are all agreed: they must cost less and they must earn more.
  I deal first with the recommendations of the Working Party Report. They are no doubt very useful recommendations; they are rather technical recommendations in some cases; but they do not go very far. There is only one suggestion here that I have to make to my right hon. Friend. Where advances are being given by the National Film Finance Corporation—which I recognise is, as the President told us this afternoon, doing an admirable job of work—I hope the Corporation will try to secure that the recommendations of the Working Party are carried out before those advances are given.
  I am told—and I hope I am right about this—that the cost of a French first-feature film such as may be exhibited in the cinemas of London like the Academy, bears no relation at all to the cost of a first-feature film as made by British producers. I have been given a figure as low as £35,000 to £40,000. I simply throw out that suggestion, that the industry, which has got into such difficulty, should not dismiss anything without carefully examining it, and should consider whether there are some practices now being carried on in France—more particularly with regard to the salaries paid to stars and to some of the leading technicians—which could well be adopted

  2747
  in this country. One further consideration that must be taken into account has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), and that is that the British industry must concentrate upon quality and not upon quantity. That has been the terrible mistake which I think Mr. Rank would, to judge from his recent speeches, be the first to admit.
  I would also draw attention to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) when he referred to the minority reservation made by Mr. Hoare on the first recommendations of the Working Party. What, in effect, Mr. Hoare recommended was the setting up of a planning organisation for the industry. That seems to me highly desirable. It is something into which all members of the industry can come, both on the employing side and on the trade unions side. They should set up a planning organisation on similar lines to those which have been advocated in respect of a great many other industries. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend will really dissent from that. Surely he believes in planning. If and when Government help is to be given it seems to me that this might very well be taken into account as a condition of Government assistance.
  If the output of British film production falls, as it may very likely fall, we must face up to what will be the result. I think that my right hon. Friend will probably have to reduce the quota. Here let me interpolate a little more about what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield with regard to offences under the quota. I am told that in some cases it will actually pay a cinema deliberately to infringe the quota, no doubt in the hope that they will receive no more than a warning letter from the Board of Trade. I have heard about these warning letters before, and they are not always very effective. But suppose there is a prosecution, and suppose they are fined £100. It may actually pay them to pay that fine of £100 if they are pocketing so much more by doing so. It would seem that the law ought to be amended in that respect. While dispensations should clearly be given under the quota where a cinema cannot carry out the provisions of the quota, where a cinema is deliberately evading the law the
  2748
  punishment should be very much greater than it is today.
  Let us turn to what will be the implications if there are less British films coming into British cinemas. There seems to be only one thing to take their place, and that is more imported American films. I contend that we cannot allow the export of more than the 17 million dollars that are allowed at the present time, and I cannot imagine for one moment that the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to more money being remitted. It therefore seems very possible that the Americans will be unwilling to send over more films. In other words, we shall have less films for the British cinemas as a whole.
  Now, what has got to be done? As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield has said, we should consider abandoning this rather extravagant form of two-feature programme. It may be argued, and it is argued in some quarters, that the abandonment of the two-feature programme would lead to a fall in box office receipts. I am not at all sure that that is not the opinion of the Board of Trade, but I venture to give my own opinion. I think that people go to the cinema far more as a habit, because they want to go to the cinema, than because they receive some particular form of entertainment. I therefore suggest that the fall in box office receipts would probably be nothing like as large as some people may fear.
  I now come to the Plant Report on distribution, and, of course, to the major recommendation that was made, to which I am sorry my right hon. Friend did not make more reference in his speech: namely, that there should be some rebate on the crushing duty that falls upon British films at the present time. Here let me make a point which I think has not yet been made during the Debate. Entertainments Duty falls with equal severity upon an American film, which has probably already succeeded in recovering its negative cost and is showing in this country merely for profit, and upon a British film which at the outset is struggling, probably vainly, to secure its negative cost. Therefore, in addition to the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot about the larger size of the American market, which as he says

  2749
  is probably between five and six times our own, the British film starts at a very great disadvantage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, some form of assistance should be given, but I think that that form of assistance should be given wholly, or almost wholly, to the British producer: not to the exhibitor, not to the renter, and not to the American film, but to the British producer. That postulates that it should be an all-British programme before it can receive any assistance at all. I will not enlarge upon that, but I end by saying that I feel that assistance must be divided fairly between the first feature film and the supporting programme.
  May I say a word on behalf of the documentary film? Documentary films have received praise from all quarters of the House, and from the President of the Board of Trade. I do not feel, however, that they have been given very much help. I think that the documentary film, if there is to be a rebate, must secure its proper share of that rebate. Personally, I would go further. I spoke on behalf of documentaries when the Film Bill was going through Committee and Report stages, saying that the documentary film was worthy of greater consideration. I commend that suggestion to my right hon. Friend because I believe that the documentary film has a tremendously important part to play in British life. If only it is given a reasonable chance of securing its initial cost, we shall, I think, in the future see even better documentary films than we have seen in the past.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: It is inevitable in a Debate like this, dealing with a complicated industry, that every now and then hon. Members will show a flash of insight into the problems of that industry, and, at other times will show the greatest intellectual confusion. I think that the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) seems to have performed both those feats. I agree with much that he said, but when he said that people go to a cinema as a habit, and it does not matter what picture is on, that is something which should not be said even in this House which accepts so many improbable theories. One has only to have some experience of the industry to know how utterly untrue that is.
  2750
  I want to come at once to the Entertainments Duty side of the industry. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suffers from a split mind when it comes to Entertainments Duty. So far as the Entertainments Duty on films is concerned, that to him seems sacrosanct. He demands 100 per cent. to be gathered into the capacious pockets of the Treasury. When it comes to the theatre, it is another thing—the Chancellor does not seem to want to touch any of it. He wants to give it away. He wants to finance American importations. That is not good enough. On the one hand, Entertainments Duty has discouraged film production, and, on the other hand, it has discouraged the production of British plays.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot Mr. Scott-Elliot indicated dissent.
  Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, because it has been raised once or twice, I will tell the House exactly what happens with a much discussed play like "A Streetcar Named Desire." The Entertainments Duty on that play was not deducted from the public. It is still there, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not take it. The company take it and put it to their non-profit costs. They then advance upon New York with this immense sum. If not this play, another advances upon Broadway, and the company say, "We will pay you anything you like. It does not matter what percentage you want within reason because we are not going to take the profits anyway, and, besides, we are going to get the Entertainments Duty as a bonus."
  I do not think that the House has the faintest idea of what is happening. The Americans say, "We want as much as 17½ per cent." "That is all right," says the non-profits tax company, "we will pay that certainly, and perhaps we will give you an extra big production." How interesting it is when one company has one room marked "non-profits" and one room marked "profits," or one set of offices marked "non-profits" and one set marked "profits." They have the same staff and the same publicity—
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is going a little far, and that we are getting on to another subject.
  Mr. Baxter: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. We can see the abuses that come from that.
  Mr. Wilson: No.
  Mr. Baxter: Therefore, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade must take a more charitable view of this problem. I agree that a flat reduction of the duty would benefit those who did not need it as much as others. I think that the best suggestion is that which has been hinted at once or twice—that there should be a proportion of the Entertainments Duty drawn from all the theatres and cinemas put aside as a bonus for British film producers who have reached a certain average of excellence. There would be some trouble about it, but, nevertheless, it could be done, and I think it should be done.
  What is really the trouble with the cinema industry? In the first place, one cannot tax any industry to the extent of 30 per cent. of its gross revenue and expect it to survive, any more than the Government can take 40 per cent. in taxation from the people and expect the Government or the nation to survive.
  Mr. Levy: They are surviving already.
  Mr. Baxter: One of the real troubles of the film industry has been the humbug existing in it since it got through its beginnings. As it grew, caught on with the public and soared in finances, so directors and producers began to believe that what they paid for something, was the value of it: that if one paid a star £30,000 for a picture, that made the star worth £30,000. The directors who were not extravagant had no chance. Temperament was mistaken for genius. All that the director had to do was to throw a fit on a set and walk off, tearing his hair, and all the directors said "He is a genius." Of any ordinary director who got his picture through on time, they said "He is nobody." Believe me this is the truth. I was in the film industry for two years, and I have been trying to forget it ever since.
  It amounts to this. There is no trouble that a good picture cannot cure. The Government can plan away and give advice, but all a company has to do is to turn out a picture like "The
  2752
  Third Man," and there are no troubles. That picture will make money. There we have a brilliant director, Mr. Carol Reed. Why are there not more brilliant directors? There has been some confusion about producers and directors today, but it is the directors we are short of. What is the reason for it? Once an industry becomes as huge as this—and I will grant this point—once it becomes a great financial venture and combines and monopolies come into it, so the structure grows and grows, and, as it grows, the man on whom it depends, the author, grows less and less. So today there is hardly a successful writer of scenario. I doubt if anybody in this House could name two really successful writers of scenario. They are not counted. The same happens in the theatre.
  The more this industry is built up financially, the more the creative side is reduced. I do not know how the President of the Board of Trade is going to help. It is easier to plan when there is a great corporation to deal with, but, instead of planning, we should get competition back in the industry. I would rather see studios working short of money on the chance of producing a good picture. I should like to see the pioneers of the early days, who never knew how they would be able to finish a picture, back in the industry. I would far rather have that than a finance board saying, "Here is the money available. How much will your picture cost?"
  The custom of the House for a Member to speak on what he knows something about, should be encouraged, but I fear that if I continue a little further I shall prove that I do not know as much as I pretend. Therefore, I will end with this one thought. The big combines of picture houses have too much power, and the distributor gets too big a percentage for what he does. The big circuits have too much power because they can book a picture and refuse to allow its showing in other circuits, which means that it does not earn its maximum return. That is something into which the right hon. Gentleman ought to look.
  I am all for breaking up the power of the big fellows. In saying that, I know that I am preventing my return to the industry, but I will risk that. I want to

  2753
  see more of the authors, directors, pioneers and budding geniuses, and less of financial movements. Above all, I do not want a State circuit of cinemas. Of all suggestions put forward, that is the worst. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well, and hope that he will carry out some of these ideas and not have to give advice on something about which he personally knows very little.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I do not want to take long, but there are a few things I want to say, some in answer to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I do not think that enough has been said—perhaps it is a platitude—about the absolutely essential point of having a British cinema industry from the cultural and political point of view—even from the advertisement point of view in order to sell our goods—and also from the point of view of what is rightly called "Our way of life."
  The next point I wish to make, on which I shall found some of my arguments, is that the history of the cinema industry in this country has been a tragic example of how capitalism just will not work. The theory of capitalism is that there is a marvellous gentleman called "the risk taker" who must be fully rewarded, but the moment the risk is real he does not take it, and that is why capitalism does not work. Several Members have said that there is no money available in the industry, which is because the risk is a substantial one and "the boys" will not put up the money.
  The hon. Member for Wood Green says, "Why not work on the chance of a good picture?" It sounds lovely, but it cannot be done, for no one will give the producer money with which to hire the studio or pay the wages. No one will take a chance or a risk, unless some distributor says in advance that he will put up the money when the picture is finished. The whole thing just will not work, and so the capitalists involved follow the ordinary procedure of carrying on until things are bad, and then come to the Government and say, "Give us some public money, but do not apply any controls." It is the old, old game. I remember very vividly, as one of my earliest recollections in this House, how
  2754
  when the question of subsidies for shipowners was being discussed, shipowner after shipowner got up and said what an excellent thing it was, and Member after Member on the Opposition side read out from the White Paper how much each of these gentlemen were getting quite legally, by way of subsidy.
  The answer cannot be nationalisation at this stage, but the answer is that Parliament at any stage should have a proper regard for the interests of the public and not the interests of particular people who want to make a little more money. Very little has been said up to now on what I consider to be the basic problem, although it was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). I am thinking of the serious misdistribution of the proceeds the public pay at the box office, and not, at the moment, of the Entertainments Duty. The money is divided between the distributor, the exhibitor and the producer. The distributor is a fairly powerful person, and so is the exhibitor, and the fact that they are very often the same person as the producer complicates the picture, but it does not alter it in any way.
  Everyone knows that the producer is not getting enough in this three-way cut. He is not getting enough for the simple reason that the distributor has, in substance, two places from which to draw the films he wants to distribute, namely, the United States and Great Britain. He may think that the British film is better, and it very often is—we have had some lovely films—but he knows that the British producer must cover his costs and that the American film has already had its costs substantially covered in the United States, and is therefore available for distribution in this country relatively cheaply.
  If he can buy two films of equal merit, one at a dumping price and another at what ought to be the real price, the effect is to depress the price of the home-made article. It is just the same as trying to sell British motor cars in competition with dump priced American cars, although it is much more important culturally when we come to films. The result is that the distributor's ideas of what should be paid for a film is something that will hardly keep the producer alive. That is something which has to be dealt with, and it is no use dealing with it in the airy way

  2755
  of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who made the sort of speech I have heard from Tories ever since I was six years old—the rotten way, he says, in which British people do everything; they are extravagant, and they drink tea.
  Mr. Wyatt: He drinks whisky.
  Mr. Pritt: And eats herrings to give him a thirst. If there were twice as much extravagance here as in Hollywood, it would aggravate the situation but would have nothing to do with the basic position, which is that the organisation is such that the producer will never get enough unless there is some kind of Government interference. Not many suggestions were made in the early stages of the Debate and none at all by the Government, for which I suppose we ought to be glad; it is something of a change. Instead of the Government imposing something upon the Labour Party, and putting the Whips on in the Division Lobbies, this time they are asking us what we think. We are getting on.
  I would like to say a few words about the remedy proposed by the experienced hon. Member for South-West Nottingham—
  Mr. O'Brien: My constituency is West Nottingham. Majorities do make a difference.
  Mr. Pritt: I am sorry I got my geography wrong. The hon. Member mentioned, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield followed up, the proposal for rather subtly dealing with a certain amount of the Entertainments Duty in the case of wholly British programmes. I am not sure that this goes a long way, but I do not like to pour cold water on a scheme which has the agreement of the three unions and I would like to see the Government, at any rate, consider it. But I want for myself to go a little further and examine some of the things that fell from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, because I think some of it fits in very well with the argument which I want to present to the House. His first suggestion was that the National Film Finance Corporation should immediately—because this is a very urgent matter—look for some good directors who are not at
  2756
  work, see whether they have scripts to go to work on, and help them, contract or no contract. The great trouble with the Corporation up to now, broadly speaking, has been that it cannot finance anything unless a distributor is prepared to sign a contract under which he will pay real money, and quite a bit of it. as soon as the film is ready.
  If we carried out no more than this first suggestion of the hon. Member we would find that when the director had made a film it could not be distributed. We have, therefore, to add something, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield had that in mind, because he went on to suggest that we should establish a public renting corporation, which would take no more than reasonable payment, and let it set about distributing the film. If we get as far as that we shall have gone quite a distance on, I think, the right lines. While he was speaking the hon. Member for Huddersfield was interrupted by another hon. Member, who asked about the circuits through which the films would be distributed. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said, "We must be linked up with some well-disposed circuit, and the best way to do that is to establish what is called a fourth circuit, at any rate, a Government circuit." At that moment all seven Members on the Tory benches uttered a groan, because that interferes with the sacred principle that if an industry does well it takes its profits, and that if it does not do well the Government must come in and finance it but must not say anything about how the business should be carried out.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I feel that as a short-term remedy the Government should see whether independent producers, cooperatives of technicians, or any others are prepared to do the job; should find them studios—plenty are available—give them finance and set up a corporation which will market their films for them, and not allow itself to be defeated by selfish organisations of distributing circuits, but will have a circuit of its own. This will mean, among other things, that other circuits would also be ready to distribute the film. Many criticisms have been made of the exhibitors' quota, about which I do not want to say anything further, for the ground has been sufficiently covered; but with regard to the

  2757
  renters' or distributors' quota, which a good many people desire, I imagine that the Government, in their recent negotiations, gave away so much to the Americans—maybe it was linked up with Marshall Aid, and it might have been inevitable—that it probably is not practicable to seek to re-apply the renters' quota. I myself do not think very much of the renters' quota idea; I think it is swimming against the stream to try to impose from outside, by regulation, on powerful organisations, the duty of doing what is in the interests of the country and against their own interests. I prefer the method of the Government entering a good deal more into it in the way I have suggested. So I am not unhappy about the difficulties of the renters' quota.
  The hon. Member for Wood Green talked about the Entertainments Duty. I must not answer anything he said, because it was established that all he said on this point was out of Order; but I wish to say this about the duty: Any attempt either to reimburse or reduce the duty, except under a limited scheme such as was put forward by the unions and the other side, too, will, I think, present considerable difficulties. If we are to reimburse the tax, most of it will go to the Americans, and if we do try to let it go to the industry at home the same tendency that starved the producers' interests in favour of the distributors and exhibitors will operate. If we reduce or abolish the tax the tendency will be to charge the same amount for seats, and thus get more money. Some of that money will stay in this country, but much more will go to America. If we could reduce the duty and see that the prices for seats were lowered by the same amount, so that the public got the benefit, then it would be an advantage for the trade, because if the public paid less for each seat the tendency would be for more people to go to the cinema or for people to go more often. But none of these things is a remedy. What I have suggested is a remedy, and I will not detain the House any longer.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras. North): I would like to say, at the outset, that I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will resist this pressure to give a subsidy to the production side of the industry from the Entertainments Duty. This pressure
  2758
  coming from the spokesmen of a three-tiered vertical combine, two tiers of which are making handsome profits at the expense of the third, is nothing less than an impertinence.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Does the hon. Gentleman regard the findings of the Plant Committee on this matter an impertinence as well?
  Mr. Robinson: I was referring to the specific request made by Mr. J. Arthur Rank when his balance sheet was published recently. I am not referring to the Plant proposals, although I disagree with them. Mr. Rank's idea was that £20 million should be taken off the Entertainments Duty and given, not necessarily to him, but to the production side of the industry.
  Mr. Diamond: What my hon. Friend is saying is directly supported by one of the most important conclusions in the Plant Report, which, on page 61, says:
  "… we do not subscribe to any of the proposals whereby part of the proceeds of the duty would be used as a direct subsidy on. production.…"
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The figure of 36 per cent. is not an excessive one, considering the present general level of taxation, in an industry which is not an essential industry, in the same sense as tobacco is non-essential, though tobacco is much more heavily taxed. The whole problem of the division of receipts between the producer, the distributor and the exhibitor has been confused, and deliberately confused in some cases, by constant reference to the gross takings instead of to the net takings after the deduction of Entertainments Duty. That is the figure which is to be distributed amongst the industry, and the gross figure only serves to confuse an already confused issue.
  I should like to give my diagnosis of the troubles which are facing the industry today. I hasten to inform my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) that I am not an expert. I am a cinema-goer, and keenly interested in the cinema industry, although not financially so. I think I am entitled as such to intervene in this Debate as well as the experts. The causes are, I believe, three in number. The first is the high

  2759
  level of production costs; the second the division of receipts between the producer, distributor and exhibitor; and the third the fact that far too many worthless films are being made, and have been made, which are quite unsuitable for the British market.
  My hon. Firend the Member for West Nottingham slid over the question of extravagance and the high level of costs in the film industry. He tried to draw a distinction between extravagance and waste, but I did not gather exactly where that distinction lies. The Gater Report makes clear what many of us have known for a long time, that this industry ever since the war has been living in a cloud-cuckooland of extravagance, quite divorced from the world of reality, and a world in which costliness has become inextricably confused with quality, and economy a sordid expedient which any producer or director should not be subjected to. In this sort of honeymoon atmosphere the artists, the top-rank technicians and executives have all been allowed to exaggerate their own value in terms of cash, until the fatal moment arrives when they come to' believe the fairy-tale.
  The honeymoon is now over, because it is abundantly clear that films made at the present level of costs are not going to recover their production costs at the box office, not at any rate on the present distribution of the receipts. We have got to have a drastic scaling down of the top-level salaries, and if we lose one or two people to America, what matter? There will still be enough technicians and artists left in this country to produce an adequate number of films for a reasonable reward. Nor do I think Hollywood's capacity to absorb talent from this country is by any means unlimited at this moment.
  There is a contribution to be made by the wage-earners in this industry. I notice that the Gater Report mentions restrictive practices, and I hope in so far as they exist the trade union side will cooperate in removing them, because there is no excuse for them at this critical stage. Equally, there is room for more flexibility in overtime arrangements and even a review of overtime pay. There is the question of demarcation and of the number of men on any particular job.
  2760
  It is inherent in film production that there are always a large number of people standing around, but it cannot be in the interests of the trade unions, or in the long-term interests of their members, to increase this number to the maximum. I am sure, in fact, they will see that it is reduced to a minimum. It must be their aim to create conditions of security whereby there will be reasonably continuous employment for their members. If concessions are made by the wage-earners, they must be conditional on the other economies I have mentioned. They should be the last people to contribute. not the first.
  Then there is this question of efficiency. I welcome the emphasis in the Gater Report on the statistical unit of screen minutes per camera day. It is only a rough and ready yardstick of efficiency, but it is one which we can all understand. It is only by a yardstick like that that efficiency in an industry of this nature can be measured. The figure of 1.29 screen minutes per camera day is appallingly low. Even the Hollywood figure is double that. It is not justified on the score of quality, and I believe it could be doubled without any appreciable loss of quality. I hope that will be one of the aims of the industry in the future.
  We are always up against the problem of applying business standards to this industry, which to some extent is a form of art. We must remember that no other form of art involves anything like the expenditure of the film industry. If there is any relationship between cost and quality then it is more likely to be in inverse ratio, rather than in the direct ratio, which seems to be the idea of many in the industry at present. It is no use a director saying he cannot, make a film for £100,000, because he never had that sort of discipline imposed on him. He has never had to try. Such a thing would involve far more complete and detailed advance planning than operates at the moment, and far less striving for a perfection, which is often not noticed when the finished film comes on to the screen.
  The other day a 30 second scene was shot 44 times in a studio not very far from London. Do hon. Members think that the finished film would have been appreciably worse if the director had taken the best of the first four attempts? It is as simple a matter as cutting one's

  2761
  coat according to one's cloth. If the possible maximum return from the British screen is, for the sake of argument, £250,000, and the average return, also by way of illustration, is £100,000, then these figures must bear some relationship to the production costs of a British film. The closest analogy that I can think of is the case of the architect. He is no less a creative artist than the film director, but the architect has to work within prescribed limitations laid down by his client. No architect worth his salt, would say, "I cannot build a house for £1,300." He will accept that limit and will make the best job he can, and would probably produce a better aesthetic job than if he had had twice as much money to spend on it.
  We are entitled to expect the film director to give us the best possible job within those limitations which present day financial considerations lay down. If these economies cannot be adopted voluntarily by the industry they must be imposed by the people who provide the finance, and by this I mean the National Film Finance Corporation, because it is very clear that they are going to be the main source of finance for some time to come. I am not concerned at this stage with the private financial interests. They must continue to be allowed to lose their money in their own way.
  I want also to look at the question of the division of receipts between the various sides of the industry. The Plant Report makes it very clear that the distributor takes far more than his share. In fact, he is the real nigger in the wood pile. He takes out too much for doing too little.
  He is also responsible because he is one of the main sources of finance—for so many bad films being made, bad films which also make losses. It is this secondary, but I think more important, function of the distributors, that of acting as arbiters of quality, to which I would call attention. Practically no film can be made unless it gets the "O.K." from some distributing agency. It is this factor which has very largely brought disaster upon the industry. These distributors, and I think perhaps two gentlemen who book for the main circuits, are the people that determine the films that you and I, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, see in the cinema. Perhaps I might quote in this connection a
  2762
  few words which appeared in the "Tribune" on 2nd December, written by Mr. Richard Winnington, who is not only a distinguished film critic, but a man who really understands the cinema and has its best interests at heart. He wrote:
  "Vertical monopoly put paid to the last hope of the struggling British film by placing production in the power of distribution and by eliminating the free play of talent. Artists and audiences are at the mercy of those who view the film only as a commodity and whose understanding of its needs and scope is nil."
  I endorse those remarks entirely. The only suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) with which I disagree, is that I do not think it is immediately essential to have a State-owned circuit. I will give my reasons for thinking so in a moment. Nor do I agree with the Plant recommendation as to the immediate necessity of taking over some of the existing circuit-cinemas and transferring them to independent ownership. I think both those courses are ultimately desirable, but that there are more important things to be done at the moment.
  The present problem is to see that all British films of quality get an adequate, and indeed the maximum possible showing on British screens. It is on British screens that the future of British films lies and not in chasing after any will o' the wisp of dollar earnings in the American market. Those may come, and if they do we shall all be delighted: but it is at British screens we must aim in order to get the return of our production costs. The main thing in this matter is the use of the quota. The quota has never been effectively imposed. A constantly-revised quota, keeping in step with production planning and imposed with the minimum of exemptions, especially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said, if armed with a few more teeth than the present quota, could be a vital factor in this matter. It would have to be wielded far more ruthlessly than it has been in the past and the penalties would have to be increased beyond the present derisory figures, which makes it profitable for a cinema exhibitor to evade the quota.
  Mr. O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend aware that a special sub-committee of the Cinematograph Films Council has been

  2763
  charged in the past with the duty of going to every cinema in the United Kingdom in regard to the film quota, and that it has agreed upon recommendations to the Minister as to what cinemas can fulfil the quota and what cinemas should be exempted, and as to the percentage of British films that could be shown?
  Mr. Robinson: I am aware that there is an enormous number of exemptions from the quota and that the quota percentage has been whittled down to something like 27 per cent. I am also aware that the maximum fine that has ever been imposed for evasion of the quota is £100 which, I repeat, makes it worth while for an exhibitor deliberately to evade the quota. The only way to deal with this situation is through a strengthened and enlarged National Film Finance Corporation. The Corporation has done a good job upon a somewhat limited scale. We shall see some 50 films, thanks to their intervention, that would not otherwise have been made. They have kept independent production alive—and the future is in the hands of the independent producer. The Corporation will now play a very much larger part and it will need more money in order to do so. This need not be too hazardous a venture as long as certain safeguards are adopted. The most important safeguard was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, the establishment of a State distributing organisation. It is most important that the National Film Finance Corporation should be in a position to distribute all the films which it finances. For one thing, it cannot afford to accept the qualitative decisions of Wardour Street any longer, it cannot afford to allow the private distributor to take the cream of the takings of those films, and it cannot afford to risk any ganging up on rentals between the exhibitors and the present distributors.
  That brings me to the whole crux of the problem. It is one which I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will boldly face. If the N.F.F.C. is to play the important part in this industry which we hope it will play it must be prepared to impose qualitative standards on the films submitted to it for finance. No one is satisfied with the present artistic level of films in this country. The N.F.F.C. need not itself under-
  2764
  take the task which I have suggested. It will have to set up some panel, in association with itself, made up of people with knowledge and experience of the cinema, writers, artistes and possibly representatives of the general public who go to the cinema. This panel will look at scripts submitted by directors, and also at the directors' past records. It will take all those considerations into account before it recommends finance for a particular proposal. That sort of thing was done by the Ministry of Information during the war, and a very considerably improved standard of films resulted therefrom. It is therefore not entirely a revolutionary idea, but if it is so regarded I would point out that the film industry is in a revolutionary situation.
  We have also the British Film Institute, which can render a lot of assistance in this connection. [An HON. MEMBER; "It is dead from the neck up."] It is not dead from the neck up. It may have been so in the past, but if hon. Members will look at it they will find that a very considerable change has come over that organisation recently. After it has had some initial experience, I think the panel I have suggested could do an admirable job. I believe it is an experiment well worth trying.
  I had wanted to say something about the necessity for producing "B" films as a training ground for new people and for men of promise, and because of the necessity of getting new blood into the industry, but I have already detained the House longer than I intended. I would say in conclusion that I believe that if my right hon. Friend will not initiate some action on these lines and those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, this industry may struggle along a little longer, but it will eventually die.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. K. Robinson). I cannot help thinking that for too long renters and distributors in Wardour Street have had the ear of the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers. When the hon. Gentleman was giving his conclusions on the costs of production, I thought he was describing the French system. I have not been able to understand why we do not try to

  2765
  emulate the very high quality of French films at their extremely low cost.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was the only hon. Member on the Government side of the House who advocated nationalisation of the film industry. I should have thought that the answer to that is that the President of the Board of Trade has made a definite statement that, notwithstanding that this is a monopoly-ridden industry, the Government have no intention of nationalising it. I think he was a little hard on the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) who always entertains the House with his speeches on the film industry. I felt a good deal of sympathy with his remarks when he was extolling the virtues of or pleading for the soul of the scriptwriter. I shall always feel that the fact that Sir Michael Balcon was unable to retain the services of the hon. Gentleman has given the House of Commons an entertaining Member and the threatre an interesting and successful critic.
  I agree with the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) who said that perhaps we have too many Debates on the film industry. We go over the same ground and make the same suggestions, and I do not know that many of them are adopted. One of the difficulties is that very few of us in the House can speak with any real experience of the film industry. It is a complicated, complex and highly technical industry. Instead of having further Debates on the industry, it would be better if the House itself tried to make a film. We might take over one of the empty studios and induce the President of the Board of Trade to become the producer and the hon. Member for Wood Green the director, and let the House of Commons itself try to make a film, if only a film of the film Debates in the House. We might learn something of this extremely complicated industry and our Debates might then be more helpful to its financial future.
  Having listened to most of the Debates that have taken place, I feel that the President of the Board of Trade has not had a great success with his policy since he took office. He has just been to the United States and rumour has it that he met Mr. Eric Johnston, the czar of American film producers. I do not know
  2766
  whether he has any last-minute agreement or anything else fresh to pull out of the bag, but up to the present his increased quota, as many hon. Members have said, has been a failure. The tax on American films, which was imposed rather hurriedly as a panic measure, has also been unsuccessful, and no one has yet given us the dollar balance sheet of the Rank venture in the hope of a dollar revenue return from the United States. I cannot believe that this venture could have been undertaken or even the permission of the Treasury obtained without the acquiescence, if not the active support, of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. The result of the three items—the failure of the quota, the failure of the American tax and the failure of the Rank dollar venture—is that the production studios of this country are at an all-time record low.
  I do not believe that we ought tonight to be debating the policy of the President of the Board of Trade for films in this country with any feeling that he has achieved a success. One hon. Member said that if the cost of producing a film is not met by the returns secured on the home market, it is bound to fail. We have to be realistic about this in the long run, and unless film producers or the film interests in this country can reach a working commercial agreement with the United States interests, we cannot produce a film in this country. Long experience over the years has proved this to be so. We must take as our guide the revenue we are likely to get from our first or second distribution on the home market. America has a market of 140 million and we have a market of 49 million. One hon. Member said that America can spend very much more money in producing films and break even on her home market and get her profits over here. If we spend more than we can recoup on the home market, we have to take the gamble that we shall get our profits in the United States, and without a commercial agreement and with the assistance of the tax, the quota and the Rank dollar venture, we have failed to do this up to the present.
  The internationalisation of air lines used to be advocated in this House. It was said that we were paying far too much money for national prestige in air lines and that in the end we should come to an international air line. I believe that

  2767
  in just the same way the film is international. I believe that in this country we have made a great mistake in trying, by the quota and by other means, through the policy of the Board of Trade to bolster up national prestige for film production as such.
  I agree with the hon. Member for West Nottingham that it is no good trying to solve this problem when there is a feeling of antagonism between the United States and Great Britain in this field, and that we ought to form an Anglo-American council and try to get together on the problem. Perhaps that was one of the items discussed by the President of the Board of Trade when he was in the United States. I believe in cooperation. It was proved before 1933 that we can have a successful production policy in this country without the spectacle which there is in the studios today. I should have thought that the quota has proved an absolute farce. I have not seen the latest figures, but I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how many prosecutions have been made over the last five years against exhibitors for the non-fulfilment of the quota.
  According to the Press today, Sir Michael Balcon has been invited to act as an adviser to the National Film Finance Corporation. I cannot think of a better appointment. That will be agreed by anyone who has known Sir Michael during the long period in which he has been in association with the film industry. He is a man who understands the pounds, shillings and pence of production. He has been extremely successful throughout the whole of his production career. I look forward with fresh hope now that he is in this important advisory position.
  The film industry ought to observe, note and take warning from what is happening in regard to television in the United States and its challenge to the film interests there. Although television gives an opportunity to film interests here to produce 30-minute films for televising in America, television is a great challenge to the colossal film industry in the United States, and in our time, it will be so in this country. I often wonder what happened to Baird television and the great pioneer work which was done. I remember seeing in Wardour Street the
  2768
  Derby being televised about 15 years ago—
  Mr. Baxter: It was more than that; it was 20.
  Mr. Granville: And that was on the screen. What has happened to all that today. Where is it now? Is it somewhere in the Rank empire? Has the genius of Mr. Baird been lost? We should be allowed to go on with that work. The warning from America is that unless we harness television to our film interests, television becomes a tremendous challenge.
  I am glad that one hon. Member took the trouble to set out his views with regard to some rebate of the Entertainments Duty. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) said that he was not in favour of a flat reduction, which I think would perhaps be the general view of the House, but this is a fiscal question and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find some way of giving assistance to this industry in the coming Budget. I also hope that the Government will be constructive and realistic about this matter and will set up forthwith an Anglo-American co-operation council.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Benn Levy: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade hoped at the beginning of his speech that the discussion would be general and non-partisan. However, I do not suppose that in the event he was unduly surprised when the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) immediately sought to infer that this catastrophic failure of private enterprise was in some not easily discernible way really due to the mischievousness of a Labour Government.
  Looking across at the right hon. Member, I was tempted to admiration and surprise that he should be capable of weaving so insubstantial and gossamer a case. It seemed to me that all he had to say in support of his contention was that although he approved everything which the Government had done to help the industry, and though it was left to a subsequent speaker—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll)—to describe this help as interference, he contrived to suggest that the method of this help was somehow injurious to the industry, that the manners of my right hon.

  2769
  Friend had not been good enough, and that if only his manners had been better there would have been no resentment, no conflict with the other side of the Atlantic, no embargo, and the whole of the conflict which did exist, which still exists, and which will continue to exist would have been evaporated by a few courteous smiles. I do not think this was taking the House very seriously.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest—or rather it was implied in everything he said—that in so far as Government interference and Government mishandling were responsible, the industry must therefore have fallen into a state of decrepitude from a state of grace. I rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell us when indeed was this golden age of the cinema in England to which he referred. Not surprisingly he was unwilling to give way, but if he had read the Gater Report, he would have realised what I think everybody who knows the industry already realises—that there never was a golden age in the British film industry At paragraph 6 of that report we find these words:
  "At no time have the receipts of producers from exhibition in Great Britain been sufficient over a period to cover the costs of production."
  That is quite unequivocal, and to suggest that this latest crisis is suddenly due to the machinations of the Government is completely irresponsible.
  There are two basic things wrong with the structure of the British film industry. One is that it does not pay, and has never paid, to make films. The other is that even if it did pay, nobody can make films without the kind permission of Mr. Rank or Sir Philip Watter. I should have said that both those things were indisputable. I was sorry, but not altogether surprised, that the right hon. Member for Aldershot, although he made the first point, could not find even a sentence, even a parenthesis, to deplore this virtual monopoly.
  The history of the film industry provides an almost classical textbook for the student of private enterprise. Vast personal pickings at the same time as vast aggregate losses, intricate financial manoeuvres, company promotions, optimistic prospectuses, plenty of bankruptcies, plenty of throat-cutting, but hardly any genuine free competition. And then eventually, needless to say, the
  2770
  time comes when the failure can be disguised no longer and then the votaries of this system come running to the Government for protection—tariffs, quotas, loans and now a wholesale demand for indirect subsidy.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot lent his voice, too, to this demand for subsidy. I must say that he did not appear to have examined it or its ramifications at all carefully. He was not prepared to say, or he did not volunteer, how many millions he thought should be remitted of the taxpayers' money into the pockets of film companies. He did not say how that money was to be made good, what alternative taxation he would advocate as preferable—whether for example, a reduction of the food subsidies was in his mind. He merely made a demand that taxation should be reduced without any examination of the. consequences, or whether it would do the film industry any good, or even whether it would cure the handicaps of the film industry.
  If one examines the figures at all carefully one will find some interesting things. The first demand for a remission of taxation was for no less than £20 million. That figure was proposed conjointly by those heavenly twins of the cinema firmament, my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) and Mr. J. Arthur Rank. But let us examine what would happen if that admittedly silly figure were remitted, or rather let us examine the later and revised figure. [Interruption.] It seems more sensible to do so. Even the proponents of this first figure have drawn in their horns and have subsequently suggested that £6½ million of the taxpayers' money would really be quite nice.
  Mr. W. Shepherd: I think that the hon. Member would perhaps find that the figure of £6½ million is that now proposed by the exhibitors. I do not think that the producers agree with that figure.
  Mr. Levy: Mr. Rank is also an exhibitor, and the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham is predominantly with the employees on the exhibition side of the industry. The point I really want to make is that in order to fulfil the quota we need approximately 80 films a year. These figures are generally accepted It is also generally

  2771
  accepted that £150,000 per picture is a not unreasonable cost in these days and is indeed on the low side. Eighty pictures at £150,000 a picture would cost £12 million to produce. That means that £12 million has to come back from the box office to the producer if he is not to make a loss. How much did in fact come back last year? The figure was £7½ million, so that there is still £4½ million to be recouped.
  Would it be recouped if £6½ million of Entertainments Duty were remitted? It would not. Only £850,000 would come back to the producers, because the exhibitors would take their share as would the distributors, the foreign renters and the foreign producers.
  Mr. Shepherd: Would the hon. Gentleman say how much he is allowing per film in respect of 80 films as the return per film for the producer.
  Mr. Levy: I have not made the calculation per film, but on a film cost of £150,000 and on the basis of the receipts being the same as last year.
  Mr. Austin: It is the percentage that the hon. Member wants.
  Mr. Levy: Percentage of what? I am not quite clear about the hon. Member's point, but I assure him that the figures I have given are completely verifiable figures. Even if the higher figure of £20 million which was originally proposed were remitted, that would bring to the producer only £2½ million.
  Mr. Beswick: I understand that one proposal by the producers is that 75 per cent. of the tax to be remitted would go to the producer—and that only to the British producer.
  Mr. Levy: That is a different suggestion to which I shall refer later.
  Let me say, in passing, that whereas the remitting of £6½ million of the taxpayers' money would produce only £850,000 for the producer, £1½ million could be obtained from the renters simply by halving the rent charged, and halving the rent charged is virtually what is suggested in the Plant Committee's Report. From that source alone more could be obtained that would be obtained from tax remission to the extent I have mentioned.
  2772
  What astonishes me on reading the report of the Plant Committee, a sober body established to give us full information, is that they should have advocated a tax reduction in this way without pointing out that nothing short of a complete 100 per cent. abolition of the tax would even recoup the losses of producers, let alone afford them a profit. All they put forward is this vague recommendation in favour of some unspecified degree of tax remission without any examination whatever of the consequences. I must say that this report, even more than the Gater Report—it is true of both of them—is sketchy, unthorough and, I am afraid, unconscientious. They just do not supply us with the data which we are entitled to expect.
  Mr. Shepherd: Perhaps they did not read the hon. Gentleman's memorandum.
  Mr. Levy: My memorandum did not and could not provide the data which is missing.
  But even if this tax remission did work, even if the whole taxation could be remitted—and obviously nobody thinks it could—I say quite definitely that we have no right to recommend any remission of taxation whatsoever until we have had a full examination of the figures and are convinced that the industry as a whole is truly unable to finance itself, even if it distributed its takings more equitably. We cannot expect the taxpayer to finance production until we are assured that, in a vertically integrated industry, the other two departments of the industry are not making money to excess.
  I have been trying, and in vain, to get these figures. They do not seem to be forthcoming. I put a Question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him what were the trading profits or losses of the three arms of the industry over a period of years. The reply I got was that it was not proper to divulge the affairs of private companies. I did not ask for that, and I must say that that was really an unsatisfactory reply. I did not ask for any revelation of the accounts of private firms. I asked for aggregate figures, and to withhold that information was really indirect obstruction of the House in tackling this problem properly,

  2773
  As we have seen, the Plant Committee showed the same delicacy, and the Gater Committee the same.
  The Gater Committee was supposed to examine costs. It did examine the costs of plasterers, carpenters and hairdressers and it told us how those costs have risen; but it gave us no breakdown of the front office costs. We know nothing about them. Those figures were withheld. It is interesting to note, and it is often noted, that the people who take most out of an industry are the most secretive about what they take; and so successfully secretive have they been in this case that even after waiting for these two reports we know virtually no more than we did before. In spite of the fact that they produced no figures the Plant Committee said on page 27, paragraph 63—it has already been quoted by my right hon. Friend—
  "There cannot in our opinion be any doubt that the balance of receipts left in the industry after meeting the reasonable costs of exhibition and distribution is inadequate to recoup even reasonable production costs of the whole supply of first-feature and supporting pictures required to keep the cinemas in operation."
  That seems to me to be the key point of the whole report. That is really what we wanted to find out. Yet we are given no evidence of any kind. We do not know what the exhibitors or the distributors make and it is presumable therefore that the Plant Committee did not know either. How do they come to their conclusion? Presumably they had great difficulty in getting evidence, and that does not surprise me, because what evidence is available seems to suggest precisely the contrary.
  One is often told—I have often been told—that in the last few years exhibitors' profits have shown peak records. They have done very well. In fact, if we examine that obscure balance sheet which the Rank Organisation last issued, it would appear that even the Rank company is not doing too badly. Gaumont British, one of its concerns, showed a trading profit of £1 million, after paying debenture holders and fixed loan interest of £300,000; that is, 6 per cent. gross. Odeon Theatres paid an interim dividend of 3¾ per cent. tax free. Odeon Associated Theatres paid an interim dividend of 7 per cent. tax free, and Odeon Properties paid an interim dividend of 14 per cent. tax free. This
  2774
  does not seem to me like penury. Even the consolidated accounts which claim to have made a loss of £750,000 did so only after bumping up the depreciation figure by £200,000, paying debenture holders £750,000 and writing off £2,500,000 for film losses; so that even with record film losses and with normal depreciation, what this figure means is that there would still have been a profit of £200,000.
  It is worth noting that this result was reached by an apparently arbitrary calculation of current film assets at £10,500,000. Nobody knows why £10,500,000 was fixed or whether it should have been higher or lower than last year. Indeed, I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade is submitting this figure for investigation under the Companies Act. I should have thought myself that the whole accounts should have been submitted for investigation, because, after all, they conceal information which it is perfectly proper for the investing public, let alone Parliament, to know. We do not know what figure is represented by distribution interests, exhibition interests or any other interest.
  Outside the Rank Organisation also, the Shipman and King circuit did better this year than last, and the A.B.P.C. paid a 20 per cent. dividend after putting £100,000 to reserve; yet the only information connected with all this that appears in the report of the Plant Committee is in paragraph 114, where it says:
  "It is therefore clear that, as compared with the last financial year before the outbreak of war in 1939, the exhibitors who comprised this large sample had paid out in 1947–48 a larger proportion of their net box-office takings in film hire and were left with a smaller proportion for themselves."
  As a matter of fact they had previously admitted that that proportion is smaller by only 2½ per cent., but they do not relate that 2½ per cent. to the all-important fact that turnover during the period was very nearly doubled, and nowhere in the report do they mention that, in spite of this 2½ per cent., their net profits, after paying Entertainments Duty, were up by 70 per cent. If one thing is more certain than another, it is that nothing in this report proves the case that the industry cannot support itself. Until that is proved, I suggest that no help should be given.

  2775
  The time for really radical action is overdue. I ventured three warnings some years ago on this subject. One was that if radical action were not taken, then something like this present crisis was inevitable. I warned also against the mirage of the United States market, and that it was dangerous to be fobbed off into delay on that account. I also warned that the danger of the present structure of the industry was that in so far as production rested in one man's hands, change of policy could wreck the industry. That is virtually what we are facing today.
  Mr. Granville: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what radical action he suggests?
  Mr. Levy: I am taking rather longer than I meant. I have advocated from the beginning, in conjunction with certain of my friends, the splitting up of the big circuits and that, if necessary, one should be taken over by the State. I still think that that is the right long-term policy, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he points to the fact that the two circuits under Mr. Rank no longer fulfil their former functions, will consider that one of them might properly be taken over. But that is a long-term matter, and we cannot embark upon it now.
  What can we do in regard to the short-term policy? One thing we can do is to start the State distributing company, to which my hon. Friend made reference, and which would be of financial help to the industry. The present form of short-term help is that granted through the National Film Finance Corporation, but I feel that financial help really should not be given without much more rigorous safeguards. Why should the taxpayers' money be devoted to financing the losing end of the industry and be precluded from taking any part in the profitable end? Every time that the National Film Finance Corporation backs a film, it means that it is almost certainly losing the taxpayers' money and at the same time adding potential profits to the distributing and exhibiting companies. That is a situation which cannot go on, and, therefore, the sooner we have a State distributing company the better.
  I hope that, if it does nothing else, this Debate will at least ensure that for a long time hon. Members opposite will no
  2776
  longer have the effrontery to jeer and sneer at the competence of our Civil Service.,
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) has given us a brilliant portrait of the ramshackle film industry as it is at present organised, and I do not believe that very much more needs to be said. My hon. Friend has also torn to shreds the whole of the case, such as it was, made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) about the Entertainments Duty, and has generally exposed the flippancy with which hon. Members on the other side approach this question. I think he has also demolished almost all the arguments made in the Debate from the other side.
  He has also shown how ridiculous it was that we were being asked from the other side of the House not to mention the name of Mr. Rank in this discussion. We have had a touching appeal from one hon. Gentleman on that side who suggested that it would be wrong to bring the name of this leading figure in the industry into the Debate, and we appreciated that appeal all the more because we recall the reticence with which they sought to keep the name of Sir Leslie Plummer out of the groundnuts Debate. This, however, is a different proposition. because Mr. Rank really has something to do with the film industry, and to talk about the film industry without mentioning his name would be like "Hamlet" without the Prince of Denmark. What hon. Gentleman opposite want to see, I suppose, is a "Hamlet" in which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would play the sole parts, because they do not want any inquiries to be made into the behaviour of Mr. Rank and his companies.
  We are facing a situation in which a great many of the technicians are now out of work, and I believe it is largely because of the positive genius for disorganisation which has been shown in this industry—an industry which, in spite of all the excuses about a small market, Government action and so on, does cater for probably the most popular pastime of the British public. Because of the fact that it is not organised on a better basis, somebody must be held responsible.

  2777
  Mr. Rank has made clear his responsibility. On 1st November, 1947, despite the charges made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot against Government actions, Mr. Rank's organisation issued a statement in which it was announced that Britain's biggest ever film programme was to be undertaken. More than £9 million was to be spent on that programme, which would maintain the high quality of British films. Nothing whatever was said in that document about the terrible, cruel and harsh Entertainments Duty which was making it absolutely impossible for the industry to survive.
  But what is the situation now? Mr. Rank, apparently, is not to be attacked, according to hon. Members opposite, but Mr. Rank is doing some attacking, and we have the right to reply. I do not mean only his attacks on the Government because, perhaps, the Government can look after themselves in these matters, but he has been attacking other people in the film industry. A month or two ago he said:
  "There has recently been a large proportion of bad and mediocre films."
  And again,
  "The cost of film of all kinds has been excessive."
  Who is responsible? He also said that there is a great shortage of talent in this country for making films, which remark was repeated, I am sorry to say, by one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I do not believe that to be true. The reason it is difficult for the talent to get through is because, as the President Of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough have underlined, it has got to get past two men. It is difficult for talent to arise in such a situation, and that is the real reason why there has not been a continuance of the revival which took place in the latter years of the war. It is a bit thick for Mr. Rank to turn round and say that it is all the fault of the technicians and the lack of talent. Even the coal owners did not blame the pit managers for the mess they made of their industry.
  I would also like to say a few words to the Government on this matter. In the past, we have taken the advice of Mr. Rank and others engaged in the industry, but there are some others in the industry
  2778
  of whom we ought to take notice—the people who make the films. Unhappily, we do not seem to have taken much notice of them in establishing committees to look into this problem. It is quite true that there were representatives of the trade unions concerned on the Gater Committee, but sitting on that committee were also people responsible for the extravagance and methods employed by the whole industry. How the President of the Board of Trade imagined when he set up that body that he was going to have a ruthless inqury into the extravagant methods of the industry passes my comprehension.
  Again, if we take this independent panel—for which I do not blame the President of the Board of Trade because I think it was set up before he took over that office—which was supposed to be a safeguard, to ensure that the circuit showed any reasonable films produced by an independent producer, we find on that panel representatives of the circuits and distributors who had already rejected the films in their own organisation. It seems farcical that we should continue appointments of this nature to these committees when by making such appointments it means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough has proved, that we shall not get the facts. We have not had the facts to which we are entitled and which should have been available to us in this Debate.
  The composition of the Plant Committee was a slight improvement on the composition of the others, which is not a great compliment, but it is extremely interesting to look at the names of the people who gave evidence to that committee. I have here a list of the people who at any rate did not give evidence to the Plant Committee who were advising the Government about the main proposals which they might consider. The names of those men are Carol Reed, David Lean, Frank Launder, Sydney Gilliatt, Laurence Olivier, Thorold Dickinson, the Boulting brothers, Anthony Asquith, not to mention directors from Ealing Studios who were responsible for films such as "Kind Hearts and Coronets," "Scott" and "Passport to Pimlico." None of these people was heard. These are the directors who make the films. They, and not Mr. Rank, are the people who made the British film industry famous, who put it on

  2779
  the map. They are the people with the creative power, and yet not one of them gave evidence to the Plant Committee. Why did they not give evidence?
  Mr. O'Brien: I do not think my hon. Friend is giving a fair account of the matter. The directors whom he has named were members of a trade union—the Association of Cine Technicians—and that trade union gave evidence to the Plant Committee on their behalf. Many of those producers, although members of that trade union in another capacity, were employers and members of the British Film Producers Association, which also gave evidence to the Plant Committee.
  Mr. Foot: There is a difference between giving evidence through one's general organisation and giving one's individual evidence. These were some who did not give evidence. It strikes me as peculiar that the people to whom I have referred, who are the most famous names in the British film industry, and who have made the British film industry, did not give evidence to this committee. Why did they not do so? They could have gone and given to this committee all the experience they had in this industry. The reason they did not do so was that if they had gone they would have had to reveal their ideas about the film industry, and they would have become known in some way or other to one of the two gentlemen whom they have got to appease in order to be allowed to make their films.
  One of the grossest evils about monopoly is that it shuts people's mouths, and until we begin to understand that, it is impossible to understand why we get such pitiable reports as the report which we have before us, and which is supposed to provide the basis for our deliberations. The directors know more about the way costs mount up than anybody else. If we had been able to have the right kind of committee—I know it is not an easy thing to organise—we should have been able to get from directors much more evidence about overhead costs than we have in the report. I was talking to a director who has made six or seven of the best films which have been made in this country in the last seven or eight years. He is now making a film which will cost about £80,000 or £90,000, and afterwards £20,000 or £30,000 will be
  2780
  added to the cost. That additional amount represents the overheads about which he does not know anything. It is certain that that film will get a return. Incidentally, that example proves that it is possible to make films at a lower cost. I am not saying that all films should be made at such a cost, because we want more expensive films at the same time. It reveals, however, that it is possible to provide a stable basis for the industry if only people will find out the facts and ascertain how to relieve the industry of these fantastic costs, and overhead costs in particular.
  I should like to refer to one or two remarks that were made by some of my hon. Friends. The only thing which has come from this Debate has been a series of practical, realistic, sensible suggestions from some hon. Members on this side of the House, and I do not refer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham. I think this series of practical proposals is much more realistic and goes much more to the root of the matter than anything which we have had in the Plant Report. I should like to refer to the proposal which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), that in the immediate future the Film Finance Corporation should see if there are directors available who could start now, or fairly soon, to get some of our studios back into operation and make films. I hope the President of the Board of Trade and the Film Finance Corporation will consider that suggestion.
  I do not quite understand the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that half the films now being made have been financed without a previous distribution contract. That astonishes me. People do not always distinguish between a producer and a director. A director who has made two or three films at Ealing studios, for instance, may want to become a producer. He ought to have the right to do so, because that is the way to build up a greater number of people who can create the talent and provide the films we want. It would be a good idea if the Film Finance Corporation would invite one or two of these directors not only to make films themselves with money provided by the Film Finance Corporation, but also to act as surveyors over films which would be

  2781
  made by other persons whom they would guarantee.
  It is at this point that we have the great difficulty in the industry; that is the point where the industry touches the artistic side of the whole concern. We have to invent some system whereby a financier has to take the advice of somebody who really knows about film production and about artistic production, and I hope that there will not be a system whereby we have the leaders of the Film Finance Corporation thinking that they can do that job, because that is one of the developments which was primarily responsible for the ruin of the industry which Mr. Rank and his advisers contrived. We do not want an arrangement whereby the Government set up in a business a new kind of gentleman, such as the people responsible for the management of Mr. Rank's affairs, to dictate to different parts of the industry and in particular to dictate to the directors.
  I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough that it is high time we had a much bolder policy to deal with the whole problem. Do not let us have any more committees. Let us think out a few principles which we are going to apply to the industry. It is those principles which some of us, on this side of the House, have been advocating for the past four years. We have said that this kind of combine was bound to lead to a crash; we have said that this industry was semi-corrupt; we have said that this industry had all the evils of monopoly in the sense that it stopped the facts coming out. We have said this for four years and the President of the Board of Trade has been able to argue that he was waiting for a report. Now he has got his report it does not give him the grounds on which to act.
  The main proposal of this Plant Report is that we should have a system of competitive buying. That was tried in the United States a few years ago, and it has faded out and been abandoned there because it was unworkable. It seems to me another sign of slackness on the part of the committee that it did not find out what happened in the United States, where this actual proposal has been tried and has been found a failure.
  2782
  What they are now trying to do in the United States is really to divorce production from exhibition. That is the principle which has lain behind our proposal for the new circuit. I believe that if the Americans are allowed to go ahead with that principle in their country while we hang back and think that we can run this industry in this miserable, private monopolistic method, then the Americans will forge ahead of us and will ruin the British film industry. I believe it would be a disaster to this country to see this industry fade out of existence altogether. It has easily been proved that we could make it function. There is plenty of talent in this industry; there is plenty of eagerness on the part of people through the country to see films. The industry is catering for a pastime which people all over the country wish to enjoy. Surely, therefore, the Government should now consider a much more drastic policy than anything they have attempted in the past four years.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: If personal vindictiveness could solve the problem of the film industry then the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) would be its most distinguished saviour, but I do not imagine that he, any more than the majority of hon. Members on the other side of the House, has any significant contribution to make towards the solution of the admitted difficulties of the industry at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) said that this Debate had revealed hon. Members with flashes of insight into the industry and a great deal of confused thought, and that may well be true because I thought that the opening speech of the President of the Board of Trade was very disappointing indeed, and we had another disappointing speech from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). The hon. Member built up an enormous facade on the basis that one could not recover enough money, by remitting Entertainments Duty, to make the production side solvent and he produced some figures which are really astounding. When I asked him to break them down he said he had been supplied with them, he thought they were correct, but he did not quite know what they were.
  Mr. Levy: I asked the hon. Member to explain precisely what figures he wanted broken down. He failed to do so and the general feeling of the House was that I should continue my speech.
  Mr. Shepherd: I cannot, of course, know what the feeling of the House was; no doubt the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has a different view on that point from that which I have myself. I want to point out to him, however, that he could not have given the figures which, in fact, he gave to the House had he read page 20 of the Plant Report, where there is clearly shown the incidence of Entertainments Duty and the effect it would have if it were remitted on the sum total of British films.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Shepherd: I really ought not to give way any more.
  Mr. Wyatt: Sir Arthur Jarratt, the Chairman of British Lion, gave me precisely the same figures yesterday himself, and I imagine that he knows just as much about it as the hon. Member.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not know what is the personal relationship between the hon. Member and Sir Arthur Jarratt. I am concerned here only with the figures that are given in this Report, which demonstrate clearly that all the tedious argument which the hon. Member adduced to the House has, in fact, no foundation.
  Mr. Levy: They are precisely the same.
  Mr. Shepherd: I cannot really keep on giving way. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has already taken some of my time.
  The President of the Board of Trade delivered a speech which, I think, to some extent reflected the confusion in which he finds himself. It was a speech which was somewhat soured and churlish, in which he brought down strictures upon the exhibitors and the producers, and this mood persisted, and for the rest of the Debate we have had internecine strife amongst hon. Members on the Benches opposite. [Interruption.] I was saying that the atmosphere which the President generated had the effect of disturbing hon. Members behind him, because the first part of the Debate was an unseemly
  2784
  wrangle among hon. Members who support Socialist policy.
  Mr. Daines: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Shepherd: I really cannot give way.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman may not remain standing or speak if the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way.
  Mr. Shepherd: The President was trying to say that this demand for a remission of tax was some innovation, and that there was no justification for the kind of statements that have been made in the last few months, or—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Daines: There are six Tories here now.
  Mr. Shepherd:—for the kind of attitude that has been taken up by exhibitors and producers so far as Entertainments Duty is concerned. There is a perfectly reasonable and logical reason why the attitude towards Entertainments Duty has hardened during the last six months. In the first place, the takings of the industry at the box offices have been lowered during that time. Secondly, the percentage of British films has gone up. Now, this industry could continue as an industry if it were to exist only on American films, because the Americans have no need to get that full return which we in this country have to get by virtue of our smaller production area.
  The President said that this industry had always been in trouble, and I am inclined to agree with him. During the whole of the life of the film industry on the production side, there has been continuous trouble. It has gone, like the present Government, from crisis to crisis.
  Commander Maitland: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, himself taken a strong personal interest in this industry, and it has, perhaps, done worse than any other industry since the war. I hope the House will not draw any connection between those two facts.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the disparity between the

  2785
  situation 18 months ago and conditions today. Eighteen months ago we were discussing whether we could by Government stimulus, supply more studio space. The President was giving reasons why he thought he ought not to do it. Today the situation is entirely reversed, and we are faced with the question how to keep occupied the studios that we now have. Many reasons have been advanced by hon. Members opposite as to why we have suffered this decline, but there are two reasons on which there is general consent on both sides of the House: first, that the vicious import duty put on to American films by the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the turning point in the industry since the war; and secondly, that the quota was over-optimistic.
  There have been many suggestions as to how this situation could be dealt with. Hon. Members opposite have, in the main, suggested that some form of nationalisation, or some form of Government circuit, would fill the Bill. Now, that is against the recommendations of the Plant Committee, and I think against the common sense of most individuals in this House and in the country, because nationalisation is not likely to provide the kind of atmosphere necessary for the successful operation of a film production industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made what I thought was an excellent speech, pointing out the decisions which the President and this House must take upon the film industry. The question we have to ask ourselves, as those responsible for the industry, is whether we want it to continue. Do we want to have a sucessful and prosperous British production industry? That is the question, and all these subsidiary questions are of little importance compared with that.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are content to say: "This is a grossly extravagant industry, and therefore we must do nothing about it until they have cured their extravagance." But what are the facts? No one denies the existence of waste and extravagance in production, but whereas in 1947 the average cost of production of a film was £250,000, it had gone down in 1949 to £150,000, and there is no reason to suppose that the efforts that are now being made will not reduce that figure even
  2786
  further. Mr. Rank and his organisation have installed efficiency experts, and budgetary control in order to reduce costs; and it is perfectly true to say that at the present time films are being produced on a much more economic basis than in 1947.
  It is no good our avoiding what is the central fact about production in the United Kingdom compared with that in the U.S.A. We have here a market of only 50 million, and, as the Plant Report says, for all essential purposes we must discount getting any revenue from overseas. Therefore, we cannot judge our own industry by what happens in the United States; we have to have regard to the fact that we have only a market of 50 million people. What is the central feature of the economics of film production at present? It is that there is not sufficient net return from the box offices, either to remunerate the British film producer or, in fact, to make a reasonable return to the exhibitor.
  The hon. Member for Devonport produced figures to show that exhibitors were doing very well, and it is true to say that last year a number of exhibitors did do fairly well. It is also true that a number of exhibitors have in recent months been losing money. Certainly there is no amount of money available which exhibitors now obtain which can be devoted to the production of films. [Interruption.] I say that there is no substantial sum of money available out of that part of the revenue which is taken by exhibitors which can be devoted to the use of the producer. It is true that there is probably some portion of the sum now taken by the distributor that can be devoted to that purpose. It is an absolute fact that the net return at the box offices is not sufficient to remunerate the exhibitor, the distributor and the producer.
  Mr. Levy: Can the hon. Gentleman give figures to support that view?
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman has himself given figures to show that the producer cannot get a return. The exhibitor is getting a return, but not an over generous one, and the distributor is, of course, getting a reasonable return.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech which avoided the main issue almost entirely, made hardly any reference to the

  2787
  question of tax, and yet it is true to say that the Entertainments Duty at the present time is four times as heavy on the cinema as it is upon live entertainment. In the main it takes 40 per cent. of the receipts. That is not the entire story, because in a large film production it is likely that as much as £7,000 will be taken in Purchase Tax on dresses and other materials. Therefore, if the seat prices cannot be raised—and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not agreeable to seat prices being raised—how does he imagine this industry can continue? What industry could continue if it received only 20 per cent. of the figure paid by the public for its products?
  Some idea of the immense difference in Entertainments Duty between 1939 and 1947 is revealed by the fact that in 1939 the Entertainments Duty on the film industry was only £2,500,000. In 1947–48 the film industry paid in Entertainments Duty £18 million. That was a burden which, I suggest, no industry could possibly sustain. If the average film takes £500,000, as it does, it nets the producer only £70,000. That is obviously well below a reasonable cost of production. Some hon. Members said that "The Third Man" was an excellent film. So it is. But how much will "The Third Man" lose for the producer so far as the British market is concerned? It cost £350,000 to produce. If we put the takings at £1¼ million, the producer will get back £300,000 which means that on the British market, at any rate, he has lost £50,000.
  Therefore, I say that the President of the Board of Trade must face the issue of whether he is going to make this industry pay or not, and he must face the issue of some form of tax remission. Many hon. Members have mentioned the question of whether a flat remission of tax would fill the bill. Obviously it will not. No flat remission of tax without qualifications will fill the bill, because it will mean that the majority of the increased return will go to the exhibitor. If we combined the system of a sliding-scale above and below the break figure, with a remission in tax, we could divert to the producer the amount required.
  Moreover, if we remit the tax, we must make some provision for the efficiency of the industry. If a portion of the tax is remitted to assist the producer, it is
  2788
  reasonable that Parliament and the country should be satisfied that there is absence of waste and extravagance, which has hitherto characterised the industry. I suggest that the procedure might be followed which was followed when we put an import duty on steel in 1932. We then set up an import duties advisory committee to report to the then President of the Board of Trade and satisfy him that the industry was not taking advantage of the protection it received. I suggest that if the President of the Board of Trade thinks of remitting tax as far as the producer is concerned, he should allow a sub-committee of the National Film Production Council to be established to study the production costs of the industry and report to him from time to time so that money is not wasted which might otherwise be saved.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that it is wrong to attempt in any way to put this money in some separate pool and plough it back into the industry. It is useless to say that we are going to give subsidies or some kind of assistance to an industry which must lose money. Surely the function of the Government ought to be to create conditions under which the industry can work at a profit, and not to imagine they can help it by the National Film Finance Corporation or any other method. I do not object to the setting up of the National Film Finance Corporation. I think it has served its purpose as a first-aid effort. It ought not to be regarded as the main prop of the industry and as a substitute for economic film production in this country. We want to see film producers going to the City of London and getting their money, which they will get if they are on a sound financial basis.
  The Plant Report is a report that, in the main, has been well received by exhibitors, producers and distributors. On the whole, they feel that it is a good report and that its provision ought to be taken notice of, but there are some suggestions which the House would be unwise to accept. The bidding-up suggestion for first runs is a device that has been tried out in the United States and has proved a failure. What would happen if we said we are to have bidding-up for first runs? The big circuits, with their additional economic resources, could always outbid if they

  2789
  wanted. It is not a method likely to succeed.
  I do not think for one moment that the circuits are as oppressive to the independent exhibitors as some Members have made out. I do not think they use their powers to the detriment of the small exhibitors, although I agree there is a case for saying that on first runs independent exhibitors who ought to be included are excluded. I suggest that we should get the industry together to try and include independent houses for first runs and perhaps exclude some of the present circuit houses. That could easily be done. There has been a suggestion made that there should be a removal of the ceiling of 50 per cent. as far as the hire of films is concerned. I do not think that the removal of that ceiling and bidding-up is a sound proposition.
  A very good idea, from the point of view of the producer and the industry generally, is a sliding scale, with an increasing advantage to the producer over the break figure. If such a scale were introduced it would give the producer a great deal more revenue and, at the same time, safeguard the exhibitor if the film was a bad one. In all these matters we must bear in mind the average film. It is no use talking about a film such as "The Third Man"; we must also bear in mind the average film, and realise that it must make a profit. The man who produces "The Third Man" must make a big profit if the industry is to succeed.
  We have come now to what is almost a crisis in the film industry, and something drastic must be done if the industry is to succeed. Today, the President of the Board of Trade has sounded no note of urgency at all; indeed, he gave the impression that things can go on almost precisely as they have done already. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest what should be done. I believe something can be done, and that if he will take advantage of the information given to him in these Reports, and get the industry together, good results can ensue. Despite the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the Philistine nature of the industry, I believe that at present distributors, exhibitors and producers realise that they must do something together or all sink together. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take advantage
  2790
  of the newly found unity in the industry to get all sides together and work out a solution.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is able, later, to make some form of tax remission he will be able to get the co-operation of the industry more easily. We on this side do not despair of the industry; it can be made to pay. In this country we can make films of excellent quality, but we ought to realise that the industry cannot be firmly established without the co-operation of the United States of America. It is useless for us to pursue a lonely furrow; we must try to get the co-operation of our American friends. In the past, largely through the mismanagement of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his predecessors, there has been unnecessary fraction between America and Great Britain. We must now devote our energies to seeking co-operation, because in the exchange of films between America and ourselves lies our hope.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) that the results so far have been disappointing and that we cannot expect any rapid and substantial increase in our revenue from America. But we must pursue that end as vigorously as we can. In opening the Debate the right hon. Gentleman made a disappointing speech, inasmuch as he gave no lead to the industry. In this hour of crisis the right hon. Gentleman must give a lead. Up to now we have had from him only a long history, coloured to suit his own purpose. Today, people in the industry are very disconcerted. Many who have spent years in the business, and have given it all the skill they have, are now out of work. The right hon. Gentleman must once more set the industry on its way. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough said there had never been a good time. There was a time, just before the end of the war and just afterwards, when the film industry was making enormous progress, when its quality surpassed that of any other nation and when many of us felt that we were really getting somewhere. We can recover that lost ground and we can go ahead. I hope that in his reply the right hon. Gentleman will give to the industry the lead which he failed to give in his opening speech.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Wilson: I can reply only by leave of the House. There are one or two things which I should like to say about the speeches to which I have listened. This Debate has, as I had hoped, proceeded mainly on non-party lines in the sense that there have been considerable disagreements on both sides of the House. Great interest has been shown in the film industry, at least on this side of the House, though I am glad that towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) the numbers on the opposite side of the House increased somewhat from the original figure of four Members who seemed to be interested in the industry at the beginning of his speech. I am sorry also that the hon. Gentleman regarded my opening speech as a disappointment to him, although I am bound to say that if it had pleased him I should really have begun to search my conscience and wonder what was wrong with my policy.
  When the hon. Gentleman said that my speech represented the confusion in which I found myself, and then went on to refer to what he described as internecine strife between some of my hon. Friends, I wondered about some of the equally contradictory statements which have been made on the opposite side of the House today. On most of the big issues there has been a lack of agreement on both sides of the House. Certainly, although the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who is one of the brightest stars in the Rank constellation, did not himself speak today, one might assume that he is in favour of the existence of the power of these circuits on which a good deal has been said on this side of the House. Then the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), in a most stimulating and entertaining speech, made it equally clear that he was completely opposed to the power of these circuits and seemed rather to suggest that he would welcome some breach in their power.
  The one really concrete proposal in the speech of the hon. Member for Buck-low was one which I should view with a good deal of suspicion—that we should approach this industry in rather the same way as the pre-war Government approached the steel industry, that if a subsidy had to be given—and he rightly
  2792
  listed some of the dangers of a subsidy—we should set up a kind of import duties advisory committee such as was in operation for steel. It would be out of Order to begin debating the steel industry once again in this House, but certainly the whole record of the I.D.A.C. in relation to steel and of steel in relation to the I.D.A.C. fills me with the gravest doubt about the validity of his suggestion.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) began his speech by reviewing Government policy, which I think he said was one of the three main difficulties with which the industry had had to contend. He said that he supported the establishment of the National Film Finance Corporation. We had his help and support when the Measure went through the House. I understood him to say that, looking back, he thought it was a wise decision and that this House had done the right thing. If there has been one thing on which there has been complete agreement on both sides of the House throughout the Debate, it has been in regard to the key position of the National Film Finance Corporation and the tributes that have been paid to it in what it has achieved in the very few months in which it has been in operation, not only in keeping the film industry afloat but also in bringing some measure of reorganisation, some measure of improvement, some measure of financial control and some improvement in business methods into a considerable number of organisations in the film industry.
  But the right hon. Gentleman went on to criticise, as did some of his hon. Friends, the 300 per cent. ad valorem tax, and he also criticised the quota. In my previous interruption I dealt with his suggestion that the United States negotiations had been misled on the subject of the quota. But I cannot think it is any good the right hon. Gentleman saying that I have been wrong in the quota provisions I brought to this House. I was required by Statute to base the figure on the production possibilities and prospects of the industry. On the facts before me 45 per cent., I would still say, was certainly right. In fact, the producers were pressing for 50 per cent. What happened was not that the quota was wrong in relation to the facts before the House, but that production undoubtedly failed to

  2793
  come up to the expectations of the producers. Is that a thing on which the right hon. Gentleman would feel it right to blame the Government?
  He stressed three main reasons for the difficulty: Government policy—I do not propose to follow him in that—the small size of the market, on which we would both be in agreement, and also entertainments duty. We have heard a lot about the entertainments duty from hon. Members on the other side of the House, and from some of my hon. Friends on this side. Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Tory Party, if returned, to reduce the entertainments duty and give it priority over other reductions in taxation?—because if that is not their policy then a good deal of what has been said falls to the ground. There was some reference made to the phrase, attributed to me by the right hon. Gentleman, a "sinister agreement" which was all due to the recommendations in the Plant Report. In the first place, I did not say it was a sinister agreement. I referred to "unaccustomed and almost sinister unanimity." While I impute no motives, and while in many respects I agree with the hon. Member for Bucklow, I would like to see a good deal more—
  Mr. Lyttelton: Not only agreement, but unanimous agreement.
  Mr. Wilson: I would like to see that. But I do suggest that when the two sides of the industry, and even more when the exhibitors join in this proposal, come forward with a policy for the industry which amounts to no more than getting something out of the taxpayer, that is something which, however much we welcome their unanimity, we should view with a certain degree of healthy suspicion.
  Whatever our approach, it would be wrong to suggest that this agreement, or unanimity or whatever we choose to call it, is due to the Plant Report, which has only been available to the public for about a week. There has in fact been a new heat on the Entertainments Duty propaganda since the publication of the Rank report. I cannot help feeling, and a number of my hon. Friends have suggested it today, that in Mr. Rank's statement at the time of the publication of his accounts, and in a number of things which have been said since, the Entertainments Duty has to some extent been
  2794
  used as a scapegoat for what has been an unsuccessful industrial production policy. And, of course, once that private enterprise, which has been singularly quiet about the Entertainments Duty in previous years, found this glorious new alibi under which the Government can be blamed for all their misfortunes, it was immediately taken up by the opposition Press who even forgot their criticism of Mr. Rank.
  I remember only a year ago the opposition Press in general, and "The Financial Times" in particular, were criticising Mr. Rank most vehemently for what was, by comparison with this year's balance sheet, a most encouraging and satisfactory position. But now the publication of the Rank balance sheet and accounts provided what was even more attractive to the opposition Press in a pre-election period, a stick with which to beat, not Mr. Rank, but the Government—which was a much more desirable thing for them to do.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question or two, and before he leaves this part of his argument, I hope that he is going to answer them. He is now addressing himself to the Rank accounts and avoiding discussion of the report. May I ask whether he accepts as accurate the computations of the committee which he himself appointed, as set out in paragraph 64 of their report or whether he rejects them?
  Mr. Wilson: I think I made it clear this afternoon that we accept most of the main conclusions of the Plant Report and most of their views. But certainly I should want a good deal more time before I could say whether I accept the calculations in that document and also I should need to know—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot would need to know before he could be so dogmatic about it—a good deal about what the balance sheets and figures of production in the industry mean.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am not being dogmatic. I am asking a perfectly straight question. The right hon. Gentleman appointed an independent committee on this industry. They have made categorical statements in paragraph 64 of their report. I want to know whether the Government accept those statements. It

  2795
  is not a question of being dogmatic. I am asking a question. I cannot allow the Pakenham technique to have full play.
  Mr. Wilson: I made it clear this afternoon, and the right hon. Gentleman took some interest in the sentence I used, that with the industry organised as it is, with the present market as it is, with the distribution charges as they are and with Entertainments Duty as it is—with all those things added together it is certainly true that British film production cannot pay its way at the present time.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept paragraph 64? Answer.
  Mr. Wilson: I am certainly not going to say tonight that I will—and I do not think that anyone else in this House is in a position to say whether they will—place the whole of the blame, as to a considerable extent the Plant Committee do, on Entertainments Duty.
  Mr. Baxter: Why should the Government at one moment look upon remission of Entertainments Duty as a very wise thing to do with the living theatre and as something that must not at all be done with the films?
  Mr. Wilson: That is a question which the hon. Gentleman has frequently put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that he can take it up again with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right moment comes on another occasion. Certainly, this is not the right time to be debating taxation policy in relation to the living theatre.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: May I put a question? I have been sitting here through a lot of this Debate. [Interruption.] I suppose one is still allowed to do that. What I want to know is whether we are to understand now, after two committees have reported, that we do not really know the facts about this industry? Is that the implication?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may. Frankly I do not.
  Mr. Lyttelton: May I ask one more question? I really am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again
  2796
  —I try to interrupt as little as possible—but if he does not understand the report or if he disagrees with it, why does the right hon. Gentleman put a Motion on the Order Paper asking the House to take note of it?
  Mr. Wilson: If, before interrupting, the right hon. Gentleman had let me finish my sentence, he would not have needed to put a question. I did not say that I did not understand the report. What I say is that I frankly do not understand in total—nor does anyone else in this House, except, of course, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham who signs the balance sheets and will understand them—the present financial position of the film industry. In the absence of a full understanding of the financial position of the film industry, the margin of error on whose accounts for any one year runs into millions, it is extremely difficult for me to say whether I accept in detail the financial and the statistical picture presented in this report.
  I should like to say a word about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien). I agree with him on the importance of the degree of agreement which we had on the production side of the industry, the Gater Report and methods of reducing costs, but I would not follow him in all that he said about dollar earning abroad. I do not think that for some period after the war, our method of exploitation of films abroad and our method of dollar earning was as successful as it might have been. I think there has been a costly experiment in trying to market films on too wide and broad a basis there, and it has been made clear, as Mr. Rank himself has found in the last year or two, that we can be much more successful with films on a "road show" basis, taking advantage of a long run in order to earn the maximum possible revenue. I think we have been much more successful than we were in the years immediately after the war.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the question of quality in the industry, and I was glad to hear him say this. I think it is only fair for me to say that it was he, 12 months ago, who warned this House and the industry about the policy of producing far too many relatively low-cost films without any regard for quality. The hon. Member for Altrincham and

  2797
  Sale (Mr. Erroll)—I am sorry that, in going out for something to eat, I missed what he had to say, and if I misrepresent him, he will probably correct me—drew rather heavily on his imagination, I understand, in drawing a picture of myself being 'phoned late at night by Mr. Eric Johnston. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he came to know that; he must have some reason for saying it, though it never actually happened. The hon. Member also drew a picture of me chasing all over the United States after Mr. Eric Johnston. I do not know why this should have happened. Certainly, I met Mr. Johnston in Washington more than once, and I fixed the date of the next negotiations with him. I met the leaders of the industry. I hope that these meetings do something to improve our relations. Certainly the right hon. Member for Aldershot drew attention to the importance of maintaining the best possible relations between this country, this Government and this industry and those responsible on the other side.
  I should like now to deal with what has been one of the most important suggestions made today by my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) and Devonport (Mr. Foot), who said that the Government, or rather the National Film Finance Corporation, should seek out and draw up a full list of available producers and directors and make it clear to them that the N.F.F.C. are prepared to finance their activities. I do not think that is really the right way to go about, it. Wherever a director and a producer are ready, willing and able to work together, then it may be that the N.F.F.C. is able to help, and the Corporation is most anxious and willing to entertain any such project for any such producer-director group.
  What was one of the most unfortunate things about the industry was the fact that a considerable number of producers, many of them, indeed, brilliant artistic directors, had unfortunately no sense for the business of organisation required in film production, and it is a most desirable thing in every case that there should be some suitable organisation in which both the artistic and the business side will be linked together. There have been—and these have been some of the brightest stories in the history of the British film industry—some very happy associations
  2798
  —I am thinking now of Ealing Studios—between a director and a producer—Sir Michael Balcon—and a business manager who worked with him. If they will come along to the Corporation, I have every hope that it will be possible to assist them in their growing volume of production.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the door is open to them, with or without a distribution contract?
  Mr. Wilson: It is impossible to say that in each of these cases, but in the work of the Corporation there has not been any general policy or standard of financial arrangement. Certainly, I would not say that, if they came without a contract or without a distribution arrangement, it would be impossible to get finance; but clearly the extent to which the N.F.F.C. participated in such a scheme would depend to a considerable extent on the prospect of the production ultimately getting distribution, including the possibility of its getting through the tribunal referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, which, I agree with him, has been largely something of a dead letter.
  Mr. Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend say who is going to adjudicate on the potentialities of the scripts concerned? As he knows, there is a lot of dissatisfaction at the managing director of the N.F.F.C. vetting scripts when he knows nothing about it, as he is only a business man and not a producer.
  Mr. Wilson: If that statement is true, I think my hon. Friend will find some parallels in the Rank organisation. With the exception of the noble Lord, a number of the people at the top of the industry could hardly be called practical trained men.
  Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me may I ask what on earth has a private organisation to do with an official one? The charge made against this organisation is that the director of an official organisation was not a business man. What has that to do with a private organisation?
  Mr. Wilson: I think the noble Lord's conception of the Rank organisation as a purely private organisation is completely outmoded. I quite agree that it is an

  2799
  organisation primarily responsible to its shareholders, but, of course, in its effect upon the future of this industry, of those who work in it, and of those who expect to see films in the cinema theatres, one cannot regard it as a private organisation.
  However, I should like to refer to my hon. Friend's intervention. The reason why I said what I did say is, of course, that it is a fact that the National Film Corporation has, to a large extent, taken over the job which the Rank organisation has been doing in financing a considerable number of producers, and it is relevant to compare the organisation at the top of N.F.F.C. with the kind at the top of the Rank organisation. But I would not agree with my hon. Friend that the N.F.F.C. has been approaching these problems in the way he suggests. The very fact that 50 films have been financed by that organisation suggests that it has approached these problems in a realistic and imaginative way. I think that in the last 24 hours the N.F.F.C. have announced their decision not to rely on their own business and amateur knowledge of films, but that they will call in as their adviser Sir Michael Balcon who is well known not only as the most brilliant, but as the most successful, of our British producers.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Who comes out of the Rank organisation.
  Mr. Wilson: There are a lot of very good men who have been in the Rank organisation.
  Earl Winterton: How very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to say so.
  Mr. Wilson: In fact, I might mention one or two who have left the Rank organisation and have worked under the aegis of N.F.F.C. There are Carol Reed, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat, the Boulting Brothers, Anthony Havelock Allen, Aubrey Baring, Ian Dalrymple, Harold Huth and Paul Soskin.
  Mr. O'Brien: Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members or the Minister to refer to an industry in terms of one man? The British film industry existed for 30 years before Mr. Rank's name was thought of, and will probably exist after his name is forgotten.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Minister make any reference to the industry in terms of one man. Anyhow, I imagine that it is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. Wilson: I said this afternoon that it was totally wrong to regard the industry and the Rank organisation as being in any sense coterminous.
  I should like in my remaining few minutes to sum up one or two of the conclusions of this Debate. I will conclude with the subject of Entertainments Duty when I come to it. I feel—and some of my hon. Friends have expressed some doubt on this—that one of the principal bottlenecks in the industry must be regarded as the number of producers and directors capable of producing the really big first-feature films and with experience of doing it. In my own view, it would be right for the industry to aim at the production of perhaps 12 or 15 really big first-feature productions—and when I say "big" I do not necessarily mean high cost—each of them capable of an international showing, an industry with a considerable volume of production sufficient to throw up the trained personnel, the stars as well as the directors and producers, and capable of maintaining that level of production until in due course we can hope to increase it.
  I think another important part in our industrial development will undoubtedly be what the Americans call co-production: that is the joint production effort between British film companies and American film companies, whether using blocked sterling or dollars or whatever it may be, which helps to assure a dollar market for films produced in this country. Some of the most successful films of the last year or two have been in this sense co-produced, and I am sure it holds out a substantial and hopeful means of maintaining and building up our industry, provided that we maintain our artistic independence.
  Finally, I should like to refer to what has been called the main problem before us—the financial position and the Entertainments Duty position. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham put forward certain detailed proposals. I welcome two points in particular about my hon. Friend's suggestions. One of them is that he recognises, and I am sure the industry recognises, that a special

  2801
  effort is needed by the exhibitor to give British films a specially good showing. His scheme was based on special incentives directed towards that. I also appreciate the fact that he looked at the problem of the British programme as a whole and not only at first features. He paid full attention to the needs of the second-feature and supporting programme producers. I think that is another attractive point about his scheme.
  But, in fact, as I am sure the House will realise, discriminatory taxation as between countries would almost certainly be contrary to our international obligations, and so, I think, would be the arrangement to hand back immediately after collection some part of the tax to those who were showing purely British films. In other words, the proposal is really no more than a subsidy from our national Exchequer. We have in this country for a very long time rejected the idea of particular taxes being earmarked for particular items of expenditure, with the exception of the Road Fund which, perhaps, is not a very happy analogy to follow. Therefore, it comes to a subsidy. The whole case that has got to be made out is and must be in terms of a subsidy to the industry, and, as I said earlier, in making out that case it is essential to convince the House and the country that that money would be provided with a real guarantee that it would not lead to further extravagance, or, to use my hon. Friend's phrase, which I prefer, that it would not lead to further waste and loss of that money.
  The House has agreed that the present economic condition of the industry is far from satisfactory, but I think most of us are agreed that whatever the taxation position at one moment or another, the financial position of this industry is not going to be made satisfactory purely by reducing taxation, much of which reduction would not find its way into production, and that before we can contemplate any question of a subsidy the industry would certainly have to put its house in order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That this House takes note of the Report of the Working Party on Film Production Costs and of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution and Exhibition of Cinematograph Films."

  FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Draft Sale of Food (Weights and Measures: Variation of First Schedule) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I know that the House has other business and I will not detain it long. The purpose of these regulations is simply to include under Schedule I of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, additional products. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question and to make one or two comments. I should like to ask which bodies he has consulted? Section 9 of the Act lays him under an obligation to consult with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and such interests as appear to him to be concerned. Perhaps he might be good enough to divide his answer to deal separately with farinaceous products and dried fruit.
  My second point is that among the articles which are included in Part III of the Schedule are farinaceous products. It so happens that some of those products are manufactured and packed by the same manufacturers or packers who pack products already included in Part III. The "bulk" of those products happens to be different from the "bulk" of the products already included in Part III in that the former articles take up either more or less space than the latter. In fact what happens is that the manufacturers order one type of package for both types of product and, because one of the products has to be packed with a certain net weight, the other product must, of course, because the bulk is different, have a different net weight. The Act as it exists at present imposes the necessity of products included in Schedule I, being packed in multiples of two or four or six or eight ounces, and if packers are to comply with the Act that means that an entirely fresh set of packaging material, and fresh machinery for filling and labelling will have to be ordered.
  I wonder whether the Minister is aware of that, and whether that has been taken into account by the Board of Trade and what representations have been made

  2803
  about it. It seems wrong that at this time we should call upon manufacturers or packers to divert their capital into the purchase of new forms of machinery merely to comply with this Act. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to say what representations have been made.
  10.3 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): This is the first time since the Act of 1926 was passed that the Board of Trade have sought to use their powers under the Act to vary the list of products set out in the First Schedule. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) raised two points—the first, that about consultations. As far as I am aware we consulted the following bodies—the Ministry of Food, the National Federation of Grocers and Provision Merchants' Associations, the Food Manufacturers' Federation and the Local Authority Association. Although certain contentious items were contained in our original proposals those have not been proceeded with and the proposals which I now make to the House in these draft regulations are completely agreed, I think, by all the parties with whom we consulted. I am not aware of any contention on the point at all.
  I recognise the point which the hon. Member made as important and one which, no doubt, a departmental committee will be looking into again, but I do not think it has arisen at all acutely in this case. I would not expect it to do so, since in the case of Part II of the Schedule we have merely included compound cooking fat, which is, for practical purposes, very much like lard; and in the second place, in Part III of the First Schedule we have included such things as semolina—we had sago in already—and we have included a number of dried fruits besides currants, raisins, and so on. I think the hon. Gentleman may rest quite assured that there is no disagreement about this at all, and that all parties are satisfied that this is the kind of step we ought to take.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 25, at end insert new Clause A.—(Restriction on use of Canning enclosure.)
  "No part of the Canning enclosure within a distance of sixty-five feet from the existing main entrance to the Middlesex Guildhall shall be used as a public carriageway."
  10.5 p.m.
  The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendment provides in different words for a proposal made by the Middlesex County Council and considered, when the scheme was being prepared, as a result of representations made by them, because plans were submitted to them at the same time as they were submitted to all other parties that were interested. The proposals of the Middlesex County Council have since been discussed by me with representatives of the Council, but I have not found it possible to agree to the suggestion which they have made.
  The effect of this Amendment would be to set back the western boundary of the new road some nine feet, and doing that would involve one of three serious consequences. First, it might narrow the road by the amount of nine feet. If it did that, then it would violate one of the main purposes of this scheme, and that was the improvement of the traffic arrangements in Parliament Square; and the proposal, for that reason, was not acceptable either to the police or to the transport authorities. If it were not done that way and the road were still to maintain its present width, then the eastern side of the new road would have to be set back by a corresponding distance, and that would have very serious consequences in two ways.
  First of all, the statues would have to be re-sited, and unless they were to be maintained under the trees—and it would be an entirely wrong thing to do, to site them under the trees—a wholly new scheme would have to be prepared to meet that arrangement. However, a far more serious consequence would be that certain of the trees that are being preserved in the scheme according to the way in which we have presented it, would be

  2805
  destroyed, and the life of the other trees would be seriously endangered, because carrying the roadway for a distance of nine feet nearer to their trunks than is being done would have very serious consequences for the roots of the trees.
  A third way of carrying out the scheme as presented by the Middlesex County Council and this Amendment is a realignment of the south-western corner of the Square whilst retaining the northwestern corner in the position it is now. That would, first of all, put out of alignment altogether the whole scheme, which is now rectangular; but it would also have a grave effect on the appearance of the pavement inside the Square, which has been laid in line with the entrance to the Abbey, as appears from the other side. Moreover, the traffic authorities tell me that even doing it in that sort of way would have serious consequences upon the interweaving of the traffic in the Square, and would therefore not be so effective in making traffic movement easier, as is required if we are to get the proper movement of traffic there.
  It is interesting to try to find out for what purpose this Amendment was put forward, because in another place no one who supported this Amendment gave any reason for making the Amendment. The only reason that has been put forward has been that the position of the road as indicated in the present plans would have the effect of increasing in the rooms of the Middlesex Guildhall the sound of the traffic outside. Acoustic experts of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have carried out the necessary experiments with regard to this, and they have said that they are convinced by those experiments that the change proposed in the plans we have put forward will have a barely perceptible effect on the Guildhall.
  The plans we propose involve the movement of the roadway 90 feet nearer to the Guildhall. Now, if the movement of the roadway 90 feet nearer to the Guildhall has a barely perceptible effect so far as sound is concerned, what will be the effect of putting the roadway only 81 feet nearer instead of the 90 feet involved in this scheme?—because that is the effect of this Amendment. In other words, the distance between the roadway and the Guildhall will be effected to the extent of only nine feet. In order to do that, which will have no effect for the Guildhall, a
  2806
  wholly new design would have to be prepared by the consultant architect; new discussions would have to be undertaken with the police transport authorities, the London County Council, the Westminster City Council and the Royal Fine Art Commission to get the whole scheme redesigned.
  In addition to that, because of these things being done there would be a very serious postponement of the starting date of this scheme. I suggest that we could not risk the non-completion of this scheme by the opening date of the Festival of Britain in 1951. If we put it back in order that a new scheme might be worked out, it means that the whole of this scheme is to be lost, and the benefits that would come for traffic purposes for the Festival would be lost as well. Acceptance of this Amendment would mean no gain to the Middlesex County Council, destruction of a number of trees and endangering of the lives of other trees, the marring of the artistic lay-out of the scheme as prepared, and the retaining of traffic chaos during the Festival period. These are things we ought not to do, in the general interests of the improvement of Parliament Square, and for those reasons I ask this House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Pargiter: I think that the Minister has made rather heavy weather of this matter, to say the least of it. Frankly, I do not think that the movement of the road by eight or nine feet would materially upset the scheme, or that it will make much difference if the statues have to be re-aligned in view of the fact that they have to be moved anyway. In my view, the only valid reason which the Minister has put forward is on the question of the trees. That does seem to me to be a serious proposition. If it were not for the trees, we might well ask for the road to be a good deal further away from the Guildhall than is proposed. The Middlesex objection is not a frivolous one.
  Middlesex Guildhall has been established on its present site since 1800, and it must be borne in mind that the present improvement could not take place had it not been for the somewhat extravagant action of the Middlesex County Council

  2807
  in buying the Westminster House site to prevent a huge block of offices being put on it. That was after the L.C.C., now in favour of the new road, had given planning permission for the buildings to be put there. Those are things which we are entitled to remember. Therefore, it is not so frivolous when the Middlesex County Council say: "We did this in order to preserve the amenities of the Guildhall and of the Square." If this road is to be moved 90 ft. nearer to the Guildhall, then the consequent noise must increase.
  The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research say that the volume of noise in certain terms is so much. One can always get experts to differ. The Middlesex County Council have an expert who differs from the experts of D.S.I.R. I think that we had better come back to the commonsense view that the moving of a heavy traffic road 90 ft. nearer to the Guildhall will materially increase the volume of sound in that building. Whether by moving it at one corner eight feet further back—81 ft. instead of 90 ft.—will make a material difference is open to some doubt. It will have the tendency to throw the traffic further away from the Guildhall on the radius of the Canning enclosure and thereby to some extent minimise the amount of noise.
  I want to come back to the particular point about the trees because I feel that is the valid part of the case. I think the Minister will probably agree that until the excavations have been got out for the road, it will not be known whether it is possible to save the trees. It may be that the excavations will be sufficiently close to the trees to damage the roots to such an extent that it will not be possible to retain any of them, or that more will be damaged than the Minister anticipates. In any case, the proposal to put the road there means the removal of two trees. The proposal of the Middlesex County Council would mean the removal of a third. So it is the question of one tree and the possibility of a number of tree roots being damaged as a result of the excavations necessary for the new road surface.
  I certainly hope that the trees will not be destroyed. I ask the Minister to consider when they have got to the stage of the excavations for the foundations of the
  2808
  new road, the possibility, if it is found that the trees or a number of them have to go—because it does not mean much alteration of the plan—of meeting Middlesex in this matter by moving the road a little further away from the Guildhall. That would seem a reasonable way whereby we might ask another place not to press for this, because, as far as I can see from the Debate, no arguments were adduced either way. If the Minister could give that assurance, it would be most helpful.
  If the Bill does not go through, the position will be worse than before, because, under the Metropolitan Street Works Act, the London County Council have power to build a road where they like in the Metropolis, and we should have no power to stop them—they could put a road right through the Canning enclosure. I concede that as far as the road is concerned we are probably on weak ground, but the question of the layout is another matter. The last thing we desire is to interfere with the layout of this scheme, nor do we wish unduly to delay the scheme. If the Minister can do something on the lines I have suggested, namely, examine the position when the foundations are being made and the question of moving the line so as not to damage the other tree, then everyone will be satisfied.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Howard: It was not my intention to intervene in this Debate, but I regret to say that the speech of a former colleague of mine was both ungenerous and unworthy. The House should remember that we could not have considered the possibility of a real improvement to Parliament Square but for the foresight and generous action in the years gone past of the Middlesex County Council. I hold no brief for their detailed points of view, but we should bear that in mind and therefore give sympathetic consideration to anything they advance.
  It is unworthy to put before the House a mass of intricate details and not deal with the point of substance in the minds of us all. Parliament Square is something that is very dear and important to us all. We all realise the desirability of improving it. We want to make certain that the improvement is the best we can get. It is perfectly clear that a great many

  2809
  people are far from satisfied that we have yet got the right improvement. I want the Minister to explain the statement he made, that we dare not risk the non-completion of this scheme by the opening of the Festival.
  If this Motion is carried and further time is given for consideration of the details, is it a fact that the traffic will be in such a state that the Festival of Britain cannot properly take place? If the Minister will give us a clear answer on that, we shall know where we are, but, failing that, the House should consider whether Parliament Square is not of such importance to all of us that it is worth while taking a little more time to consider whether we cannot get the best possible improvement, instead of rushing through a hurried compromise which satisfies very few people.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: No one would grudge the granting of Parliamentary time to the discussion of the future layout of what is the hub of the British Empire. It is a very sad commentary upon the negotiating powers of the Minister that we are here tonight discussing the question of whether the western carriageway of Parliament Square should in future be nine feet nearer or more distant from the Middlesex Guildhall, and, accepting what has been said by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter), the future of one plane tree. That is what we are discussing in this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) that the Minister made very heavy weather over this matter, since it is merely a question of whether this carriageway should be nine feet further east or west. To speak of the whole artistic layout of the scheme being marred if this Amendment were accepted is quite ridiculous.
  The Middlesex County Council have a very natural sense of grievance. It was they who saved this site from being covered by sky-scrapers in 1928, when they purchased part of the Canning enclosure for £370,000. So far as I know, until recently, after the Bill was presented, they have never been consulted about the future of Parliament Square. The scheme was agreed between the Ministries concerned and the Metropolitan Police authority as long ago as last May, the Bill was brought forward in the
  2810
  dying days of this Session, another place was given only 24 hours in which to consider it, and the Middlesex County Council were never apparently consulted.
  Mr. Pargiter: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair. The Middlesex County Council were called to a conference after the whole scheme had been prepared, but before the Bill was presented to Parliament. There was consultation at that stage, but we were told that no alterations were possible.
  Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I accept his correction. The Middlesex County Council were called to a conference but were told that no alterations in the scheme were possible.
  I think the Middlesex County Council, considering the public-spirited part they played in the whole of this transaction, have been badly treated. The Minister, if he had shown proper powers of conciliation and negotiation, could have got over this little difficulty of whether the carriageway should be nine feet to the east or to the west. I realise from my own experience the difficulty of getting an architect to change his plans once he has drawn them up, but I do not believe that the Festival of Britain would be in any way imperilled by the acceptance of this Amendment and I invite those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who think as I do, to go into the Division Lobby on this Amendment as a protest against the lack of skill which the Minister has shown in his negotiations on this matter.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Gibson: My local authority, the London County Council, have also been involved in this matter and have been consulted, although at what point they were consulted I am not sure. I do know, however, that they consider the proposals for the road improvement to be rather good ones, which will be of considerable assistance to traffic in Parliament Square. They are also very anxious to preserve as many trees as possible. The proposed alteration involved in the Amendment will, I understand, destroy some more trees, and we do not want to see that. Therefore, I think the Lords Amendment is wrong.
  I agree with those who say that the Middlesex County Council are to be

  2811
  congratulated and praised for the efforts they have made to preserve this corner of the Square. I do not think anybody wishes to denigrate in any way what they did to preserve the Square from a building which, no doubt, would have been built in a particularly ugly manner. The London County Council admit that the Middlesex County Council are entitled to thanks for the efforts they made to preserve this corner of the Square, but I think they are wrong in pressing, through another place, for this change in the Bill, which will produce a change in the road layout that will not give so easy and convenient a way for traffic and will endanger some more trees. I hope the House will oppose this Amendment.
  Mr. Wilmot: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question? If the House passes this Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment, will he try to get a settlement of this matter? Nothing or nine feet is not the only solution. We could go six feet, for instance. Surely some compromise between these public authorities is possible?
  Mr. Key: Speaking by leave of the House, I want first to answer the point that I was ungenerous to the Middlesex County Council in the statement that I made. On the Second Reading I paid my tribute to the Middlesex County Council and expressed my thanks to them. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did the same when the Bill was debated in another place. I felt that I should be saving the time of the House by not going over again those sentiments in dealing with this matter, but I can assure the House that my Ministry and I feel very grateful indeed to the Middlesex County Council for what they did. As a Londoner I am very proud of what they did to save Parliament Square.
  So far as the traffic arrangements are concerned, the real reason for bringing forward this scheme at the present time was because of traffic difficulties in connection with the Festival of Britain. The scheme might not have been considered for some time to come, if we had not been assured that it was essential. In my speech on Second Reading, I said that the police felt that unless the Parliament Square scheme could be carried out be-
  2812
  fore the Festival, it would be very difficult for them to agree to the choice of the South Bank for the Festival of Britain. It was because of that urgency that it was felt necessary to bring the scheme forward now.
  In regard to the discussions with people concerned in this matter, the outlines of this scheme and the plans prepared were presented to the Middlesex County Council at the same time as they were presented to the London County Council, the police and transport authorities, and the Council had exactly the same opportunities as other people to bring forward any point they wished. I had before me only this week a plan put forward by them a long time ago, involving this same proposal; it was considered and it was felt that it was impossible to do it. It has been said that this involved the destruction of only one tree. The truth is that it involved the destruction of two trees and endangered the lives of all the rest.
  Last July, on the request of hon. Members, models and plans of the scheme were placed in this House for hon. Members to inspect. No adverse comment was received by my Ministry from any hon. Member. Moreover, on the Second Reading of the Bill no hon. Member raised any objection whatever about the layout of this road. We gave careful consideration to this matter and consulted all the specialists concerned, who say that to do this would involve redrafting the whole scheme, and in view of its importance to the Festival of Britain, I feel that it is impossible for me to give way at all on this point.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: One of the Minister's remarks rather surprised me. In effect, he told the House that this Amendment is opposed because the police are against it, saying that they would not have agreed that the Festival of Britain should take place on the South Bank of the Thames if they had thought that this Amendment was to be made and accepted. That is the inference of the Minister's remarks.
  Mr. Key: I did not say anything of the sort. All I said was that the scheme was brought forward earlier than otherwise it would have been. I did not say anything with regard to this Amendment. The whole scheme was brought forward earlier because the police felt that

  2813
  improvement of the traffic arrangements in Parliament Square was essential for dealing with the Festival traffic.
  Mr. Nicholson: If the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have no reference to the Amendment, surely his whole speech was out of Order. However, I rise because of the appeal made by hon. Members from the other side of the House that the Minister should see whether this cannot be arranged by

  Division No. 305.]

  AYES

  [10.38 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Gibbins, J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Albu, A. H.

  Gilzean, A.

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

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  O'Brien, T.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Grey, C. F.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Bacon, Miss A

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Baird, J.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Pannell, T. C.

  Balfour, A.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Parker, J.

  Barton, C.

  Guy, W. H.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Beswick, F.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Pearson, A.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Binns, J.

  Harrison, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Haworth, J.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Randall, H. E.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Ranger, J.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Holman, P.

  Rankin, J.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Reeves, J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Burke, W. A.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

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

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Callaghan, James

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Carmichael, James

  Isaac**s, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Royle, C.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Scollan, T.

  Collindridge, F.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Collins, V. J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Sharp, Granville

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Keenan, W.

  Shurmer, P.

  Cook, T. F.

  Kenyon, C.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Cooper, G.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kinley, J.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Lavers, S.

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

  Daggar, G.

  Leonard, W.

  Snow, J. W.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Levy, B. W.

  Steele, T.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McAdam, W.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Deer, G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Diamond, J.

  McGovern, J.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Dobbie, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Dye, S.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Tolley, L.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

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

  Ewart, R.

  Medland, H. M.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Follick, M.

  Monslow, W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Foot, M. M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Forman, J. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

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

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Wilkes, L.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Moyle, A.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  agreement. I feel that it is wrong that the Middlesex County Council should at this stage receive a snub. The Middlesex County Council have been generous, far-sighted and public-spirited over this matter.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes. 77.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Williams, W. R. (Huston)

  Woods, G. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Mr. Popplewell and

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Mr. George Wallace.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Odey, G. W.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hope, Lord J.

  Prescott, Stanley

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

  Hurd, A.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bowen, R.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Renton, D.

  Bower, N.

  Jennings, R.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Byers, Frank

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Carson, E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Challen, C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Corbett, Lieut. Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Turton, R. H.

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

  Duthie. W. S.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Maude, J. C.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gage, C.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  York, C.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Nicholson, G.

  Major Conant and Mr. Digby.

  Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Clause 3. —(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS RESPECTS THE NEW GARDENS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 30, after "him" insert "and the memorial fountain if removed."
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment arises from the fact that while the Bill, as passed by this House, gives power to remove the memorial fountain and the statues, it provides for the re-erection in Parliament Square only of the statues, not the fountain. This Amendment is for the purpose of trying to secure that the fountain is erected either in one of the two gardens or in another site approved by Parliament. While moving that we disagree with the Lords, there is also in my name on the Order Paper an Amendment to effect pretty well the same thing, and the difference between the two is almost entirely one of form.
  The Lords Amendment seeks to say that Parliament should exercise control over the selection of the site, and we have conceded that; and under the procedure proposed in my alternative Amendment, a very full measure of control in this matter is given to Parliament, with whom
  2816
  rests the final word. It is, however, I submit, administratively proper that the initiative in selecting a site for the memorial fountain should rest with the Minister of Works and his officials. Hon. Members will agree that it is obviously his function, guided by his experts, to investigate what possibilities in the form of other sites exist, and to go into such questions as titles to land and so forth. In this particular case we have definitely agreed to submit to Parliament for its approval any proposals for a site which I am advised is suitable. By the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, Parliament has established a procedure appropriate for this matter; by this it is provided that Parliament shall examine the course of action which the Minister proposes to adopt. It is that procedure which is embodied in the Amendment that I shall move.
  Mr. Keeling: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Amendment provides for the affirmative approval of both Houses or for either House to disapprove?
  Mr. Key: It provides that the House may disapprove; that is the procedure under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. I shall give very careful consideration to any suggestions made by hon.

  2817
  Members of this House or by Members of another place, but I still say that the initiative should lie with the Minister responsible for the layout of the gardens and the erection of the statues.
  Mr. Peake: In the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has delivered, he has given the House no indication whatever that he appreciates at all the gravity of the step which he is taking and the principle which he is infringing by moving to disagree today with an Amendment which the Leader of the House of Lords and his own Parliamentary Secretary accepted in another place only yesterday afternoon. The Amendment to which the Minister now invites the House to disagree was moved in another place yesterday by Lord Simon, and the Leader of the House of Lords and the Parliamentary Secretary—I suppose I should not be in Order, Mr. Speaker, in quoting their precise words—said quite clearly that they would accept this Amendment provided that Lord Simon would agree to the omission of the words "within three months". Lord Simon indicated that he was prepared to do so. and thereupon the Amendment to which this House is now invited to disagree was agreed to in another place without a Division.
  We all know what Lord Ammon said about the Government in somewhat similar circumstances. It seems to me to be a remarkable thing that the Minister should now be inviting the House to reject what Lord Addison, the Leader in another place, accepted only 24 hours ago. It seems an amazing thing that within four or five hours of the acceptance of this Amendment in another place on behalf of the Government—to whom, of course, the principle of collective responsibility applies—the Minister should have tabled an Amendment to reject the Amendment which had been accepted by the Government elsewhere.
  I am not going to concern myself at all with the merits or the demerits of the fountain in Parliament Square. If either affirmative or negative Resolutions were capable of amendment in this House, when the appropriate Resolution comes forward, I am sure that I and many other hon. Members could suggest very many suitable places to which this memorial fountain could be most appro-
  2818
  priately consigned, but what we shall be faced with is that the House may only proceed by negative Resolution to reject the site selected for it by the Minister.
  I am not going to dwell upon the differences, important as they are, between the positive and negative procedures in this House. I only protest, and protest most strongly, at the rejection by the Minister today of what the Government accepted yesterday in another place. By so doing the Minister is deliberately endangering the future of this Bill. He regards the Bill as essential to the success of the Festival of Britain, but who can possibly blame another place if they should insist upon an Amendment which the Government accepted only yesterday afternoon? Is it not inevitable, therefore, that the Minister is deliberately going to imperil the passage of this Bill by insisting upon the substitution of the negative for the positive procedure in regard to the Resolution concerning the very unimportant matter of the future site of this memorial fountain? I really think that this is an intolerable position, and if the Bill is lost, the whole responsibility will rest upon the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wilmot: I hesitate to detain the House, but the future site of this fountain is not an unimportant matter. It is very important that it shall go a long way from Parliament Square, because it is a very ugly fountain indeed. I suggest that this is a last-minute opportunity presented to the House of Commons to indicate in no uncertain terms, both to another place and the Minister, that we want to see the last of the fountain. It would really be a scandal if Parliament Square were reconstructed and that appalling dim Gothic erection put back to mar what might be a very noble part of these precincts.
  This fountain has suddenly become sacrosanct. I just do not understand why another place should behave in the way they have done about this fountain. It is a most unsuitable structure in which to house a fountain. It would be a suitable thing from which to sell footwarmers and antimacassars in the precincts of St. Pancras Station, but it is not at all suitable for a fountain in Parliament Square. It is the dimmest piece of Victorian bogus Gothic that can be seen for miles around, and it ought to be taken away.

  2819
  Nor is it a memorial fountain. It does not commemorate the memorable event which it is alleged to commemorate. It was, in fact, put up by some well-disposed philanthropist who thought that the provision of drinking water in any part of the town was a public benefit.—[An HON. MEMBER: "So it is."] I do not disagree with that, but it was thought that somewhere in Parliament Square was a suitable place in which to have another tap, and unfortunately at that time of day, it was thought desirable to embellish a simple tap with all this Gothic masonry.
  It was only after Parliament gave permission to put this thing in Parliament Square that it was decided to affix to it a plaque or a tablet commemorating a most memorable event—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his version of this historical event. But that is mine. It is an afterthought that there was put on it a plaque commemorating the abolition of slavery. I suggest that a wonderful opportunity is open to us. We can get rid of the fountain and preserve the memorial at the same time. Why not put a stone plaque upon one of the pillars or in some other suitable place in the new square, to commemorate this great event, and consign the fountain to some very distant place where we shall forget about it for all time?
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) reproduce the entirely false piece of historical research which was given to another place yesterday on behalf of the Government. My information is entirely different. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Dictionary of National Biography under the title of Charles Buxton, M.P., a former Member of this House, he will find that the humble proposal of the predecessor of the hon. Member for Ealing West (Mr. J. Hudson) to erect a water-trough of some kind in Parliament Square for water drinkers in 1859 was. in fact, not proceeded with, and that the fountain, the present edifice, which was erected in 1863, so far from being the product of Wakefield the water-drinker, was designed and erected by Mr. Charles Buxton, a Member of this House.
  Mr. Keeling: No.
  Mr. Hogg: This Mr. Charles Buxton, a Member of this House, was a son of one of the principal persons responsible for the abolition of the slave trade. It was designed and erected, I think, at his own expense, in 1863 as a pious memorial to his father's work.
  To suggest that it is the futile outcome of drinking water and of a philanthropist who desired to put a water-trough in Parliament Square is false history and a vicious attack upon this edifice. The right hon. Gentleman claims to be an arbiter of taste—
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Wilmot: Only my own.
  Mr. Hogg:—which I am not. Victorian Gothic is now out of fashion, and I confess—as I say, I claim to be no authority in such a matter—it is not to my taste either. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember that tastes change. Gothic architecture was at one time considered to be the most beautiful of modern styles. What he now desires to put in may in due course be condemned by subsequent generations in terms more scathing than those applied to the drinking fountain, on the origins of which he has proved so ignorant. I am sorry that my hon. Friend should give him support. The Victorian Gothic which he dislikes may one day be restored to public favour. In those days the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) to consign it to a place which they dare not even mention—
  Mr. Wilmot: It is not a place from which it would be impossible to recover the statute if public taste changed.
  Mr. Hogg: I am seeking to save the hon. Gentleman from the opprobrium of posterity. Think what will be said about him and vandalism if Victorian taste is restored and this fountain is found to have been sent to some ignoble destination. No, Sir; this matter is not one to be settled so easily. Let the Dictionary of National Biography decide and let the pious work of a faithful son remain in an honoured position—at least 'somewhere selected by this House.
  Mr. Keeling: I agree with every word of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). For the Government to dare to

  2821
  alter—almost before the ink was dry on the paper—an Amendment which they accepted in another place, and which even incorporated some suggestions made by the Government themselves, is really carrying their contempt for another place too far.
  I want, however, to address myself briefly to the merits of that fountain. I regret to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), who opposed me at the last General Election, and the Dictionary of National Biography are all wrong. Thanks to the very efficient research department of the Library, I have been able to trace a contemporary account of the erection of this fountain. It will be found in "The Illustrated London News" of 10th March, 1866. The memorial was not designed by Charles Buxton, M.P., son of Thomas Fowell Buxton; it was designed by Samuel Sanders Teulon, a rather obscure architect who practised at Charing Cross. What has misled hon. Members and the Dictionary of National Biography is that Charles Buxton paid the bill.
  It has been said that it is an insult to the memory of Buxton and the other abolitionists to tamper with this fountain. It has almost been suggested that anyone who seeks to remove it is advocating the restoration of slavery. I have two observations to offer on that. The first is that it is really ridiculous to suggest that because one dislikes a memorial one is decrying the men whom it commemorates. It would be like saying that anyone who admires the Grinling Gibbons' statue of James II is affirming that James II was a great king. The second observation I have to make is that the enthusiasm for this fountain is a little belated. For many years it has been actually leaning to one side, neglected and forlorn. Why did these new-found defenders of it never ask the Ministry of Works to straighten it?
  I agree with the artist, Nicolas Bentley, who wrote in "The Times" this morning, that it is a noticeable enough eyesore to warrant removal at any time, that it is an indefensible monstrosity, appalling in its weakness of conception and design, and that it is no fit neighbour for Abraham Lincoln. So, also, in his well-known book "Open-Air Statuary," Lord Edward Gleichen wrote:
  2822
  "It is 19th-century Gothic, of polished pink granite, grey stone and white marble, surmounted at the angles by poor bronze statuettes of British rulers from Caractacus to Queen Victoria. Let us hasten away."
  However, I have no objection to the Government's proposal that they should be given a free hand to deal with this fountain subject to the approval of Parliament, but I make one proviso. Any proposal submitted to Parliament should have the prior approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission. This body is well qualified to advise, as it includes a number of architects and artists, at least one engineer, and half-a-dozen laymen. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that this will be done. Subject to that, I think the Government Amendment on the Order Paper is better than the Amendment which was agreed to in another place. That does not, however, excuse the Government's breach of faith.
  Mr. Nicholson: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman opposite poured such scorn on the 19th Century. I should have thought that he was a typical product of that era himself. I do not know why he poured such scorn on the memorials of the 19th century. Some day perhaps a memorial of a more utilitarian nature may be erected to him. I think it is dangerous when one particular age takes it upon itself to pour scorn on what a previous age has thought good. It is not a safe thing to do. Every single one of our national monuments has had scorn poured upon it and a proposal made to pull it down. I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who is unpredictable—do not like this monument and wants its destruction, irrespective of whether it is leaning right or left, and even if it is, like the Tower of Pisa, leaning to the right.
  But there is a serious aspect to this question. Whether rightly or wrongly historically, and despite the evidence of "The Illustrated London News," this memorial is associated with the abolition of slavery. There is something queer and anomalous about the House, even in a spirit of deplorable flippancy, agreeing to the removal of a memorial to the greatest and most disinterested action of the House and at the same time leaving a statue to Abraham Lincoln, who did not achieve a similar act until 30 years later.

  2823
  Parliament Square is the hub of the Empire. If we do sweep away this fountain, something should be done to commemorate that great and historic act which it commemorates. We have still vast Dominions and Colonies, and in many of them the abolition of slavery still remains as one of the most glorious records of British rule. I should deplore it if, in preparation for the great Exhibition of 1851—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I am behind the times—this memorial were to disappear, and I suggest that we should think twice before parting with a memorial to that great, historic and noble act.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to give my support in general to the Government's proposal. I know it is a rare occasion. I do not like the way they are doing this, but I think this is the right Government to do what is proposed. It has been suggested that this is not the moment to remove a monument—nobody is quite sure what it is a monument to—which may stand for something, but which is in doubtful style.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has suggested that we are not entitled to decide what is good style or good architecture; but whatever the age, there are three standards of good architecture—commodity, firmness, and delight. These three measures or guides can be applied to any form of architecture or structure, designed or built at any time.
  As regards commodity, nobody can guess whether this should be commodious for celebrating the abolition of slavery or for the free drinking of water. I cannot imagine any structure less adapted to either purpose. That is not a matter of taste, design or beauty. It is not commodious in any form. Secondly, nobody can say this monument is firm. It has been said by more than one hon. Member that it is leaning to the right or the left, according to the angle from which it is looked at. It cannot be retained on its present site in respect of firmness. As regards delight, it would be improper to repeat what has already been said. I believe that anybody who could find delight in a monument of that sort is either looking so far ahead or so far into the past, that he has no relation to the present at all.
  2824
  There is one over-riding reason why I think the present Government are the right people to remove this monument. I am taking the argument, which is popularly accepted, that this stands as something in memory of the abolition of slavery. If that is the case, surely nobody could think of any better Government in this country to remove a monument which stands for the abolition of slavery. If they are going to replace that monument with one which is to commemorate the reinstatement of slavery, not in a British colony but in this country, again I would support them. I think they would be the right people to do it. Hon. Members will see from the Order Paper that we are about to discuss the Control of Engagement Order, which is very near something for the abolition of which this memorial stands. On those counts I would say that this Government is right in claiming to itself the right to remove this monument in memory of the abolition of slavery.
  11.15 p.m.
  I make one more remark, and I do so seriously: if they remove this memorial, whether some other Government in future times bring it back or not, they ought to leave some memorial tablet there to show what they have done. That tablet should bear the simple words: "Here stood a monument for either free drinking or the abolition of slavery, but by a Socialist Government it was considered an embarrassing anachronism and shifted." Would the right hon. Gentleman please put words to that effect on the tablet? I hope we can get some reassurance from the Minister on this point, because that may alter my view either in support of him or against him.
  Mr. Pargiter: Might I suggest to hon. Members opposite that if this fountain were put at the foot of the Albert Memorial everybody would be satisfied.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Members for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) cannot have read the alternative Amendments which this House has to consider. Neither under the Amendment put forward by the Lords nor under that of the right hon. Gentleman can this fountain be destroyed. If the hon. Member for

  2825
  Farnham will refresh his mind by looking at the relevant documents, he will see that what I am saying is perfectly correct. Under both Amendments this memorial has to be kept. The question is, where is it to go? That is the only point on which there is an important difference between the two Amendments, one making the matter subject to a positive Resolution and the other subject to objection by a negative Resolution.
  There are two reasons why I advocate the acceptance of the Lords Amendment and disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The first is the serious point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). It is a very serious thing indeed that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House of Lords both accept an Amendment on behalf of the Government, thus avoiding a Division, and then the Minister next day asks us to disagree with the action taken by the Government only the previous day. On that I support my right hon. Friend.
  The second reason why I support the Lords Amendment as the better of the two—and here I speak as an interested party—is that when another hideous memorial, one of the Balzacette memorials on the Embankment, was removed to effect a traffic improvement, it was put down, without the slightest consultation with me. or others affected, in front of my house. I want to secure the maximum possible protection of anyone who might otherwise find that, when this memorial fountain is taken elsewhere, it is dumped in front of his home without giving him the slightest opportunity of objection. On the whole, a positive Resolution of both Houses gives better protection to citizens who might be injured by having this memorial suddenly placed opposite them.
  I agree, generally, with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that an absolute assurance should be given that the Royal Fine Art Commission will be consulted about the replacing of this memorial. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give that assurance; but, even though the assurance is given, I shall still think, for the reasons which I have given, that the Lords Amendment is better than the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Sir William Darling: I think it will not be inappropriate for a Scottish Member to make some observations upon this subject. If the English are removing their memorials and casting down their monuments, it may be that the Scots will have a word to say about it. If there is no place in London for a memorial in stone to one who was responsible in the main for the movement for the abolition of slavery, rather than that it should be erected in front of the doorway of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), we would prefer that it should be put in some Scottish place, for we cherish the memory of those who upheld the ideals of equality and freedom. In Scotland we have a noble Gothic monument in memory of Sir Walter Scott, in Prince's Street, Edinburgh. There are other sites where we might use this monument which it is proposed to remove.
  But I am not on my feet to make a reference to this particular monument, but rather to another almost adjoining it. Within Westminster Abbey, contiguous to the Square and possibly within the purview of the Minister's authority, is the Scottish monument called the Stone of Destiny. It has been there since the 14th century.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I am afraid the hon. Member is now getting out of Order.
  Sir W. Darling: While, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can make no reference to this monument, its proximity to the present condemned monument enables me to make a passing reference to it. I strongly support the idea that if it is of no interest to London that the memorial to one who was responsible for the abolition of slavery is to be removed, we in Scotland still cherish these ancient freedoms and will find for them hospitality—all the more so if they may be accompanied by the return of the Stone of Destiny.
  Mr. Peake: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Before the Minister replies to the Debate, with the leave of the House, may I put a point to you? The Minister has moved a Motion "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," and the Debate has covered two separate Amendments, one in line 30 and the other in line 31.

  2827
  The Amendment in line 30 might be thought to be concerned with the artistic merits of the fountain, whilst that in line 31 directly raises the important issue of procedure by way of affirmative or negative Resolution, a matter on which I feel strongly. Therefore I ask whether, for the convenience of the House, you will put the two Amendments separately.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was thinking, as the Debate went on, that the Amendments might be put separately.
  Mr. Key: There is only one thing which I need say, and that is that I give

  Division No. 306.]

  AYES

  [11.27 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Gibson, C. W.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Gilzean, A.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Albu, A. H.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Pearson, A.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Bacon, Miss A

  Grey, C. F.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Baird, J.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Balfour, A.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Most Side)

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Barton, C.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Randall, H. E.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Ranger, J.

  Beswick, F.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Rankin, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Haworth, J.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Binns, J.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Rhodes, H.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holman, P.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Bowden, H. W.

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

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Royle, C.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Sharp, Granville

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Shurmer, P.

  Burden, T. W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Simmons, C. J

  Burke, W. A.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Skeffington, A. M.

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

  Jones, D, T. (Hartlepool)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Carmichael, James

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Champion, A J.

  Keenan, W.

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

  Collindridge, F.

  Kenyon, C.

  Snow, J. W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Steele, T.

  Cook, T. F.

  Kinley, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)

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

  Lavers, S.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Leonard, W.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Levy, B. W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Cullen Mrs.

  Lewis, J, (Bolton)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Daggar, G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  McGovern, J.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McLeavy, F.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Medland, H. M.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Deer, G.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Diamond, J.

  Monslow, W.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Dobbie, W.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

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

  Dye, S.

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt, C. A. B.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Wilkes. L.

  Evans, John (Ogmore}

  Murray, J. D.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Ewart, R.

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

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Farthing, W. J.

  O'Brien, T.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Follick, M.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Paget, R. T.

  Woods, G. S.

  Forman, J. C.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Yates, V. F.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Panned, T. C.

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Gibbins, J.

  Parker, J.

  the assurance asked for, that we will consult the Royal Fine Art Commission before making any proposal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 31, at end, insert:
  "Provided that, if another site for the memorial fountain is agreed on by resolution of each House of Parliament, the memorial fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 75.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hinochingbrooke, Viscount

  Pitman, I. J.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Price-White, D.

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

  Hope, Lord J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Bowen, R.

  Howard, Hon. A

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bower, N.

  Hurd, A.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Byers, Frank

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Carson, E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Challen, C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. G. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Touche, G. C.

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Maude, J. C.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  York, C.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Nicholson, G:

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Nutting, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Odey, G. W.

  Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

  Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendments in page 4, lines 30 and 31, disagreed to; in page 4, line 29, by leaving out from the word "re-erect" to the word "either," in line 30. and inserting the words:
  "the said fountain, if removed by him, and such of the said statues as are so removed "
  instead thereof; and in page 4, line 31, at the end, by inserting the words:
  "Provided that, if the Minister by order appoints a different site for the said fountain not being a site within either of the said gardens, the Minister may re-erect the said fountain on that different site instead of in one of the said gardens.
  (2) Any power to make an order conferred on the Minister by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and a draft of any statutory instrument to be made in the exercise of that power shall be laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Key.]
  Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Gibson, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Key, Mr. Peake and Mr. Kenneth Robinson; Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Key.] To withdraw immediately.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 4. —(AUTHORISATION OF WORKS, ETC.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 41, leave out "in the gardens" and insert:
  "for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day."
  11.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. McCorquodale: Might I bring to the notice of the House how much more agreeable is the hon. Gentleman on this subject than was his right hon. Friend on the matters we have just been considering?
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I think that this Amendment is designed to meet a point which I raised when the Bill was in Committee of this House. I think it avoids the danger that the remedy of an injunction for nuisance might be excluded after the conclusion of the Festival.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several Special Entries.]

  CONTROL OF ENGAGEMENT ORDER
  11.36 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 5th December, 1949, entitled the Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order (S.I. 1949, No. 2251, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled."
  Although this is the third year in which this House has discussed the Control of

  2831
  Engagement Order, I want to point out to the House that a new factor has entered into our discussions; that is that the Supplies and Services Act comes to an end next year, and this is therefore the last time that it will be possible for us to renew this order under that Act. However, as I understand it, the position of that Act, according to the indicated intentions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, is as stated by the Lord President of the Council on 8th June of this year. The right hon. Gentleman then indicated that the Government had no intention that that Act should come to an end, and he said:
  "It is an essential basis for the organisation of economic planning and control, and therefore we shall place a revised and permanent version of that Act on the Statute Book if we are returned to power."
  In other words, the "little Bill," as the right hon. Gentleman described it some two years ago when it was introduced, has become an essential basis for the organisation of economic planning and control in 1949.
  The slow ooze of Socialism is seeping in. The unending series of crises grows steadily worse, and will continue to do so while Socialism is in power and more drastic measures must be taken to deal with these crises. Therefore, I feel that this is the occasion when, in view of this steady encroachment, we are entitled to demand from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance whether or not it is proposed to make permanent the Control of Engagement Order under the Act which it is now stated will be a permanent Measure. Even the unlikely possibility of the last words of the right hon. Gentleman, "if we are returned to power," do not take away from this point because the country is entitled to know before it goes to the poll and votes whether the Control of Engagement Order—that is, compulsory direction of labour applied to the working people of this country—is part of the permanent policy of the Government or not.
  If we cannot get that assurance, we on this side of the House are entitled to assume, and we shall certainly make the assumption and act upon it, that the control of engagements will be a permanent feature of the Socialist Utopia, towards which we have so notably retrogressed during the last four-and-half
  2832
  years. That is obviously a serious point affecting not only those covered by the order in question, but the Election which must come very soon. And we shall want an answer on it.
  But on the basis, which I assume for a moment, that it is not to be permanent, that the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer in that sense, and therefore that we can treat it as just one more of those expedients which the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked so feelingly on a short time ago, I want to point out that the Government's case for this order is that it is an unwanted and ugly child. I start, as I mentioned him last, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His words were only six months before this order was first introduced even:
  "There will be no compulsion of the individual in industry."
  That, of course, is just one of those flat statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which now convinces the whole world that the opposite will come into force, as indeed it has in this case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not alone. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) used equally heavy language. He said:
  "If we had told the electors that Socialism meant the direction of labour, I doubt whether we would have won the General Election."
  It will be very interesting to note—
  Mr. Blackburn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me the paragraph in HANSARD where I said it? He has taken it out of its context and used it most unfairly.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot agree with that. I quoted this remark of his in a Debate over two years ago. No one took exception to it then and I quoted it in exactly the same terms as I have done now. As I quoted it two years ago without objection, it is a sign of instability—
  Mr. Blackburn: The meaning of my words was that if we really were to use direction of labour and introduce positive direction of labour and operate it, then I agree it would be entirely contrary to our Election mandate.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's interruption because not only have I moved for the annulment of this order but I also moved an Amendment to omit the direction of

  2833
  labour from the purview of the Supplies and Services Act, and I was voted down by hon. Gentlemen opposite on all occasions. Really, in the friendliest way, I should recommend to the hon. Member for King's Norton, that he had much better stand on a "Street-car Named Desire" than on a band-wagon named "Party Solidarity." He said:
  "The Trade Unions, like everyone else—I am sure it applies to the Government and especially to the Minister—do not like this order. No one likes this order."
  So I do not think that my naming of it as an unwanted and ugly child, is any exaggeration, in view of the remarks of the sponsors.
  The argument for this order on the part of the Government comes to this: No one wants this order, and if we could do the job which has to be done without it, we should not have to come here and ask for it. These, in fact, were the Minister's own words—in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd November, 1947. This "painful necessity" argument reminds me of the very overworked phrase, "This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you." That really is a little out of date, It is, in my respectful submission, complete nonsense because there is an alternative, which, I will show in a moment, has not only been put forward by my hon. Friends but is also, apparently, part of the policy of the Government put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the quotations of which I have reminded the House, it is not difficult to realise why on one occasion the Government majority of 200 dropped to 45 when hon. Gentlemen opposite were not ready to support this monstrous order.
  Let me ask the House to consider one or two reasons why I agree with the Minister of Labour, the hon. Member for King's Norton, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in believing this to be a most regrettable order. One of the reasons is that it is not right that there should be control over the future occupations of men and women in this country in time of peace. I do not believe that it produces increased efficiency—and there, again, I do not rely on my own view, strong though it is. It could not have been put more clearly or frankly than by the Minister of Labour. He said:
  "A man who is forced to go into a shop which he dislikes is not going to be of very much use to his shop, his fellows, or himself."
  2834
  When we look at the statistics on this matter, we find that in 24 cases out of every 25, the order has been used to keep people in the ring-fenced industries, mining and agriculture, and more and more hon. Members in all parts of the House are beginning to realise that it is keeping out of these industries people who would have otherwise gone in. The poor recruiting figures, which ultimately made the Government give up even their very tenuous efforts towards placing people in the right places in the labour force, have undoubtedly been influenced by that fact.
  Mr. JohnLewis (Bolton): As the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to poor recruiting figures, will he say how his remarks apply to the agricultural industry, having regard to the great increase which has taken place since this Government came into power?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am referring to the great difference between the targets set by this Government in 1947 and 1948, and then abandoned in 1949, and the results achieved in that industry. The same applies to mining. I have given the figures constantly. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the manpower Debates he would know them and have had them brought to his attention—I would not say ad nauseam —but he would have my point in mind without any unnecessary interruption tonight.
  Mr. McGovern: I am very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's line of argument. Seeing that he expresses his antagonism to the direction of labour, is he in favour of the direction of troops into the power stations of this country?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, I certainly am. The Government have never had to appeal in vain to the Opposition when they say such action is necessary in order to maintain an essential service owing to an unfortunate strike. We are prepared that the troops should be so used. That of course has nothing to do with the matter under discussion tonight. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, who in the non-political sense I feel is an old friend, is returning to that cunning power of interruption which we, who had sat with him so long, used to relish in the past when applied to the party opposite.

  2835
  If the hon. Gentleman will just consider for a moment, he will see that the point he has put to me, which refers to an emergency which the Government themselves have admitted and proclaimed, is different from a course of action which, even on the basis that it is not going to become permanent, has now been in operation for two years and will continue for another year. Therefore it cannot be described as a temporary expedient to meet a temporary situation. On the other hand, if the Lord President of the Council is going to make the Act permanent and make this compulsion permanent at the same time, then the temporary argument disappears altogether. On either argument that interruption, charmingly delivered by the hon. Gentleman, has got nothing to do with the position which we are discussing tonight.
  The next point I put to hon. Gentlemen, as one which is recognised by everyone who has had to consider this order, is that, operating as it does only on people who fall out of work, it is a strong encouragement to people to stay on in unnecessary trades rather than become subject to the chances of control. This order is now being introduced for the third year during a period when all parties have agreed that there was going to be, and there is in fact, full employment. It is not being suggested for a period when there is unemployment, or when unemployment rises to 2,750,000—as under the Government of hon. Members opposite, when it took us some months to break the rising trend of unemployment and to succeed in reducing it to 1,500,000, as we did.
  Mr. Awbery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a case against the direction of labour. We are not discussing that. We are discussing the Control of Engagement Order, and I want him to take note of the explanatory note, which says that it provides for the engagement of persons for employment through the Ministry of Labour or approved employment agencies, not the direction of labour at all.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is assuming an innocence which I find great difficulty in according to him. Does he think there is no compulsion when you say to someone who has fallen out of work, "Here is job one, two, or three or
  2836
  maybe four. You can have a look at them, but if you do not take any of these jobs, you know we have the power of direction "? If that is not compulsion the hon. Gentleman and I are not talking the same language.
  Mr. Awbery: Is it not the same power that you had for many years not to direct labour, but to stop a man from receiving his benefit?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is changing his ground. He put a fair point to me, and I gave him a fair answer. I do not believe he would say that what I have described is not compulsion.
  Mr. Awbery Mr. Awbery rose —
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I always like to give way, but the hour is not the earliest, and I hope the hon. Member will not make me give way unless it is something of great importance.
  I want to deal with the matter from the point of view of alternatives. If I did not mention that, hon. Members would be entitled to say that I had made a destructive case but had not attempted to say what I would do. I believe that what should be done is that this order should not be brought into effect, but that this House should seriously try to follow out the policy of disinflation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said is necessary, a policy of encouraging the movement of labour, in particular, to those industries which, like the export industries, are essential and will continue to receive priority in raw materials and the like.
  That is the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:. Hon. Members opposite cannot say that it is one that is encouraging unemployment or poverty. It is what their own Chancellor has said is necessary. We on this side say that the alternative to making a real effort to put into operation this suggested policy of disinflation, is tightening up the strait jacket economy with more expedients such as direction of labour and increased restrictions, and eventually coming to the inevitable breakdown and mass unemployment that will result.
  This is the serious point. If the Government persist with a policy like this and suggest that it may be permanent in our national economy, then it becomes very difficult for us to believe that they are sincere in their support of the Chan-

  2837
  cellor of the Exchequer in the measures of disinflation which he says are necessary at the present time. We say that we cannot control inflation or produce a healthy economy by placing more restrictions on labour and sitting on the safety valve of this country. We are not alone. It was only six months before this order was introduced that the Labour Party conference, as the hon. Member for King's Norton has pointed out on other occasions, by an overwhelming majority chose a wages policy rather than direction of labour.
  In 1947 the Government changed their minds, but since the White Paper on personal incomes we have had at the same time some efforts towards a wages policy and a direction of labour. In fact, the straps of the strait jacket are being drawn tighter with every Government policy. I ask that the Government return to the spirit of 1947 and 1948, when, I admit, we had most fruitful debates. The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and all of us on both sides tried our utmost to get the labour force of this country into the proper places. At this hour I am not going to reiterate the suggestions we discussed, but hon. Members opposite will admit that I gave mine and they gave theirs. I think it was a disaster, and a tragic disaster, that the Government in 1949 gave up that trial, which they had carried on for two years.
  If this is going to be permanent, then I say it requires an even stronger opposition, because, as I have said in answer to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, any argument about it being a temporary expedient to meet a temporary situation disappears entirely if it is to be a permanent feature of the pattern of British society. Any suggestion that it has not been used to a great extent up to now, of course loses its validity if it is going to be part of the coming pattern of our society, because then it will come into common use.
  We are left with this position. The re-introduction of this order is a confession that under Socialism there will be permanent inflation, a permanent crisis which can only be dealt with by restriction. We say that that is a confession which this country ought to refuse to make. I expected the Home Secretary to be here, but if anyone is entitled to an
  2838
  evening off, he is, and I make no complaint, otherwise I should have let him know that I intended to raise this point, but I did not think of doing it because he is constantly here. I should like to remind the House of what he said only last month:
  "The answering of the problem of the balance of payments will involve us, I have no doubt, before it is solved in some measures of direction that have not hitherto been applied. We are making an appeal to good will, and I hope good will will be forthcoming, but if good will is not sufficient to ensure our survival, it may be necessary to direct the policy of planning over a wider range than we have at present applied it."
  These are the words of despair.
  No serious attempt has been made by the Government to deal with the problem of disinflation, which they themselves announced must be dealt with. The alternative is restrictive measures of this kind. We on this side of the House shall be voting for a real chance being given to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, a policy which he knows is necessary for us if we are to have any hope, but which Socialism will never allow him to put into effect. It is for that reason that once again we have brought before the House this Motion to annul this order, and we shall vote for the policy of freedom for the workers to select the work to which they wish to go, and for the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has put forward. [Laughter.] Hon. Members can laugh at freedom now. In the great days when their party was starting, they wuold not have dared to laugh at freedom. I prophesy that in two months they will not laugh at freedom again.
  12.6 a.m.
  Mr. Blyton: I listened to the talk of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about freedom, but the only freedom that ever I got was the freedom to starve or accept the job which the employment exchange offered to me. He talked about no direction in peace time, but direction in peace time has always been the lot of the unemployed under the Administrations formed and supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The unemployed did not get a chance, because when they went down to the employment exchange they met the vacancy officer, who told them to go to

  2839
  a particular job. If they refused, then their benefit was disallowed. At the end of six weeks the same job was offered again, and by the sheer result of starvation, men had ultimately to go to outlying districts to work. The result was that in the years between the wars the coalfields of Kent and Yorkshire were filled with men directed from the north-east. It ill becomes the Opposition to talk about freedom in relation to this question.
  This order offers four jobs to the people, and the Defence Regulations only enter into it on the refusal of the fourth job. That is a better system and better treatment than the unemployed ever had when they went to the employment exchanges in any period during the 20 years between the wars. I spent my time dealing with these things in the courts of referees. I know that if the men refused a job they went to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and they were then told that they could not get help because they had failed to maintain their wives and children, by. refusing jobs offered to them by the employment exchange. The whole pressure of those Acts was direction of labour by starving the men into submission. Therefore, I hope that whenever the Election comes, we shall fight the Tories on this issue. I am satisfied that the movement of opposition to the trade unions will fail, because trade unionists will never forget the treatment at the hands of the Opposition.
  I entirely agree with and support the section of the order with which this Prayer is concerned. But I would ask the Minister to consider the question of the ring fence. The ring fence has now been in operation for two years, but that ring fence is not watertight. If a man becomes a nuisance in a pit, if, for instance, he undermines discipline, the consultative committee has no power but to give him, his notice as having a bad effect on the men in the pit. The consultative committee in my own area have had to give men notice because of chronic absenteeism. They have had to do this as a means of trying to deal with the problem. That means that if a man wants to get out of a pit he can do so, through the ring fence provided under this order, by becoming a nuisance. But the man who plays the game is kept in the pit.
  2840
  In addition to that, it is known that the National Union of Mineworkers has asked for this ring fence to be lifted from the industry as an encouragement to recruiting. We now believe that men will come into the pits if the ring fence is lifted, and that we shall then get more men prepared to try working in the pits if they can leave that work should they desire to do so. Purely from the standpoint of the effect on recruiting, I put forward this point of view.
  I ask the Minister to maintain the Control of Engagement Order, but to lift this ring fence to encourage young men to come into the pits. I know they are allowed a three months' probation period, but three months is not a long time in which to make up your mind whether you like an industry or not. I know people who worked for five years in this industry, and who then became fed up and left the pits. I plead with the Minister, seeing that the Mineworkers Union themselves think that this fence should be lifted as an encouragement to recruiting, to give this matter every consideration.
  12.14 a.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: In following the hon. Member who has just spoken, I find myself in a difficulty, because he and other hon. Members on that side of the House have spoken from time to time on this order and have indulged in what I consider to be a "wriggle" upon the matter, saying that in the order there is no direction. This the Parliamentary Secretary himself said only two years ago—that it was merely a question of control of engagement. Yet, the main substance of the speech which has just been made with reference to the ring fence, and about an industry of which the hon. Member knows so much, has been against the whole fundamental principle of this order.
  Mr. Blyton: If the ring fence is lifted, and the man goes out of the pit, there is still the Control of Engagement Order at the employment exchange.
  Mr. Marshall: In my opinion, I think the hon. Member has had a "wriggle" again; and in the substance, and the tone, and the song of his speech, he does not agree with this type of thing.
  In 1947 I spoke on this order, and in 1948 I tried again, but on that occasion I could not speak owing to the fact that

  2841
  the Closure was moved. But in that year I was still very clear in my mind as to my passionate opposition to it. In an interruption of the Parliamentary Secretary on this order I mentioned the question of force, and he will no doubt recall what he said to me. He said that if the Government did not have this Order, which was the instrument by which persuasion could be exercised, they might have to rely on force. That fact, he said, ought to be faced. Surely, that is a very serious issue indeed. Here we have a build-up, and something of this sort must come to pass. The very essence—I emphasise, the very essence—of the whole of Socialist administration is, ultimately, that more and more we shall have to direct men, and as British men and women all over the world refuse to be directed, one comes to force.
  Then, let us consider some purely technical points; there are certain arithmetical calculations, which nobody can actually calculate, but on which one can have one's own opinions. The points I make are, first of all, that one takes a man who does not wish to be directed. He may have a job he does not like, and which, furthermore, is a job not of very much use to the country; but he goes on with it, because, if he comes out of it, he is within the scope of this order. I ask hon. Members seriously to think how much production is lost through that set of circumstances. There are men who do not like the work in their particular industry; they might be very good producers in another industry, and very good citizens, but they stay: and how can one calculate the loss of production because they stay?
  I do not want to delay the House at this late hour, but I would, in passing, point out that this order, as we have seen before, has a habit of coming up at this late hour—[Interruption.] It does come up for consideration at a late hour. I say that if one takes the principle of this order, and the principle imposed under the Act which this order implements and helps, one is really discussing whether it is better to have a form of society which is persuaded by different forms of leadership freely to give its labour for the production which is desired, and is primarily based on the individual character of the man or woman concerned, or whether one wants to use
  2842
  the argument which was used in Nazi Germany.
  The hon. Member who spoke just before me came very near to the point I am going to make, namely, that because something was bad a good many years ago, it does not much matter how bad this thing is now. It was the argument that was heard again and again in Germany, that the Hitler regime had solved the unemployment question in Germany, but it led, and must lead, to the direction of men, and is against the very principles, liberties and ideals of this race of ours. I feel tonight and I have always felt that every principle we hold and everything which matters to our ideals of democracy should make us oppose this order. Surely in these last fading days of this Parliament, hon. Members in every quarter of the House should search their own consciences and then go into the Lobby for freedom and democracy by voting against this order.
  12.21 a.m.
  Mr. Frank Byers: I shall also try not to detain the House long, but I feel that this is a most important occasion. This is the third time that we have sought to annul this order as it has come up annually. I want to start by disagreeing with one of the things said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). He implied that he wanted an assurance from the Minister that this would not become a permanent feature of our economic life. I think that we have had the assurance already that it is a permanent feature of our economic life. I said in November. 1947:
  "It is no use saying that this regulation is going to end in 1948. It was brought in because the country was in an economic difficulty and it is going to remain while the country is in that difficulty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd November. 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1391.]
  I also said that it would become a permanent feature of our lives because the Government, seeking for powers of direction, were on the wrong track, and by being on the wrong track, they would wreck the economy, and, in doing so. destroy individual freedom.
  Mr. Pannell: What did the Liberal candidate say at Bradford?
  Mr. Byers: I have no idea. I was not on speaking terms with him. I want

  2843
  to bring the House away from the usual slanging match which goes on on these occasions when we tend to get into the habit of arguing that because something was wrong in the old days and this is wrong now, both of them are all right. It does not make sense. I have condemned unemployment and the inability and incompetence—refusal in cases—in tackling that problem when the Tories were in power. I can say that as a Liberal because we put forward a plan, "We can conquer unemployment." We have a good record on that [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that plan, prepared in 1929, was the basis of the Coalition White Paper on full employment, and that was recognised. It was recognised, because the people who helped to bring in that plan were Keynes, Walter Layton and some of the best economists of the country; but nobody would listen to it. We can speak on this quite objectively.
  Mr. Pannell: What did the Liberal Party say at Bradford?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member has not been in this House very long, and I do not want to pose as an old and wise person. I will extend to him the same courtesy that I would like him to extend to me. I know that in his maiden speech he made a vicious attack on me, but I am not proposing to reply. I think perhaps he might stop interrupting.
  The point I want to make to the Minister is that I am sure that he believes that it is morally wrong in peacetime to compel people to go into particular jobs. No amount of sympathetic administration—and there is sympathetic administration—can make the maintenance of a wrong principle right. I hope the Minister will agree with me that this is a bad principle. In saying that I should like to refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Laughter.]
  Is there going to be laughter from the Labour benches when one refers to that? One rather expects that laughter. But this is a Declaration to which His Majesty's Government have affixed their signature and the signature of His Majesty's Government on a document of this sort has always been something which matters. Article 23 says:
  2844
  "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, … "
  and so on.
  That is the Declaration of Human Rights—"to free choice of employment." By no stretch of the imagination can this Control of Engagement Order, which we have been asked to approve, be called the "free choice of employment." It is, in fact, a direct violation of a universal Charter of Human Rights. Let that be recognised. May I ask the Minister to tell us whether he regards this as a deliberate breach of the Charter of Human Rights and whether the Cabinet have taken this step since the Charter—after all this is the first anniversary of the Charter—came into force, and whether this is the first deliberate attempt to do something which is quite contrary to the spirit and letter of that Charter?
  Has that step been taken with full Cabinet responsibility, because if it has not, it is a very serious matter. I believe that the Labour Party is doing a very grave disservice to this country in accepting this bad principle on the ground of economic expediency. Doing it on the grounds of principle is bad; and on the grounds of economic expediency, I think we have seen enough of this order, and the ring fence, to realise it is doing more harm than good. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr Blyton) made a similar speech two years ago which impressed me tremendously. He has been quite consistent in saying that one cannot put a ring fence round an industry and still hope to get sufficient recruits.
  I think the Minister of Labour should pay particular attention to the hon. Member to whose speech in 1947 I referred, and I put that to him. I have heard young men advising their friends, "In no circumstances touch the mining industry or agriculture because once you get in, you can't get out, and you have got the police on your track." I have heard that said, in rural areas, by boys, who have been in the mines or are in the mines.
  Mr. J. Lewis Mr. J. Lewis rose —
  Mr. Byers: Just a minute. I am talking about the fact that one can find in the rural areas people who are keen to do their bit in the mining industry. They get a three months' probation period. Something may go wrong with a young man's life. He may want to go out

  2845
  after 18 months. He may meet a girl who lives in some part of the country where there is no mine. It may be unpatriotic, but at least it is understandable. That man becomes a criminal because he wants to do his courting.
  Hon. Members: Shame.
  Mr. J. Lewis: How can the hon. Member account for the fact that during the period between the two wars, under the control of the Tory Party order, 280,000 people left the agricultural industry and that under the Control of Engagement Order, 80,000 people, in spite of that Order, have gone back into the agricultural industry? What deterrent is it?
  Mr. Byers: I thought the hon. Member was going to interrupt me on courting. But I think if we are to assess the economic needs of the country, it is not a question of comparing the figures under the Tory Party before the war with the figures now. What we have to compare is the figures of achievement with what we require for the target. This is not the only deterrent.
  There are other factors stopping people from going into agriculture, such as housing, which is very important. It is not the only one, but when it is coupled to a bad principle I am certain that if one has this ring fence system and Control of Engagement Order, men think twice before entering an industry because they know they cannot get out. Here we have a system by which a man is not allowed to leave an industry until he has made such a nuisance of himself that he has to be forced out. I should have thought it absolutely vital to do away with that ring fence in those two industries. It is of no use saying "We would lose a lot of men." If we say that and, at the same time, say there is no infringement of liberty, we cannot have it both ways; because if there is gong to be an exodus, then we are keeping men in an industry against their wills. That is a bad principle, and one which I do not propose to adopt.
  I have said time and again that the undermanned industries are largely those in which conditions have been bad—in which pre-war conditions were bad and in which conditions today are not good enough. I would prefer to see improved conditions, to attract men and women,
  2846
  but while the Government have the Control of Engagement Order they are trying to force people into an industry and there is no necessity to improve conditions in that industry.
  I would make one final plea to the House and say: Do not let this, which affects human, personal lives and concerns principles of human rights and liberty, develop into a debate in which one side says "Unemployment was the compulsive force before the war and now we have the Control of Engagement Order." In my view, both are bad, and our duty as responsible Members of Parliament is to see if we cannot devise a system in which there is full productive employment without resort to compulsion—either of the employment exchange or the Control of Engagement Order.
  12.33 a.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: I am happy to have the opportunity of speaking after the Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) because I think few people would deny that the Liberal Party is one which believes in liberty, and that the Liberal Party as a whole have a good record in this respect. For that reason I think it a pity that he spoiled a careful and thoughtful speech with what I can only described as cheap sneers at the Labour Party. It was good to hear him speaking on this subject because I must confess that when I heard the Tories speak on this subject, at this time, my own reaction was: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
  I think that the cries of protest and the laughter which come from this side of the House when Tories speak of liberty arise because few of us believe that the Tories believe in it themselves. When the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) worked up to a crescendo about the way in which people are led and persuaded freely to go to their labour, and spoke of the ideals and principles of labour and advised us to look to our consciences, it seemed to me that here "Charity begins at home." The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said that his memory was good. I wonder if it is good enough to go back to the places to which my memory will go in dealing with the relation of the Government to the workers.

  2847
  I believe that the number of people who have been affected as yet by this Control of Engagement Order is very small. On the other hand, in the years between the wars in my own country, the Principality, no less than three-quarters of the working population at some time or another between the years 1921–1938 were in the process of moving to find some other place where they could work. When it comes to the question of examining consciences, the consciences of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were responsible for the conduct of affairs and who now stand up in Debates such as this, must be very troubled because in South Wales then the suicide rate of disappointed people was higher than it has ever been in the history of our people.
  I do not wish to continue in this strain, but I beg the House most sincerely to agree with me that we should not have to put up with this kind of humbug and talk of the way in which Tories are concerned about working people. In the main the Greeks on this occasion bear gifts in vain, because the people of this country, and especially the working people—of whom I know something more than hon. Gentlemen opposite for* at least I have lived amongst them on the miserable pittance allowed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite as adequate means—do not fear this thing. They do not fear the Control of Engagement Order in the hands of a Labour Government, because it is held kindly and used mercifully. I believe that the people have a wider appreciation, although they may not be able to express it. of the philosophy that underlies it.
  However, it is right that when we are dealing with an order which on the surface may seem to attack the liberty of the subject, to give some attention to whether or not it is as bad as the hon. Member for North Dorset would suggest. Liberty is a delicate plant. It is a plant whose growth is difficult to see. It is a plant that can easily be destroyed—[Interruption.] I am glad to have the agreement of hon. Gentlemen opposite although they cheer too soon. On the other hand, it is necessary to say that the first duty of a Government is to see that the widest possible liberty is given to the greatest number. It is possible, in the name of liberty to
  2848
  destroy liberty for the greatest number, and that is precisely my indictment of the Tory Governments in the interwar years. In the name of liberty, they made it impossible for the mass of people to have liberty.
  On the other hand, it is quite possible that, by the restriction of the liberty of a small minority—and it is well to bear in mind that this is mainly a restriction on the liberty of those who, for one reason or another, are most unwilling to make a free contribution to the welfare of the nation—
  Mr. Byers: Is the hon. Gentleman referring then to miners and agricultural workers, whom we know not to be free? Are they being sacrificed in the interests of the community?
  Mr. Williams: The point I am trying to make is this. In so far as this order touches people, it touches only a minority of people, and even a minority of the people working in mines and agriculture. It is just not true to say that the majority of people who are working in mines and in agriculture feel it as a yoke about their necks. I have no love for engagement orders or direction of labour. I do not welcome this one. But it is surely necessary for a Government sincerely to weigh alternatives, and to say that, in a situation such as that in which we find ourselves now, this alternative is better than another.
  I believe that in the situation in which this country finds itself, it is better, more just, more true to the fundamental belief in liberty, that a small minority of people shall be controlled in order that the great majority of people shall have a greater opportunity of freedom and liberty. I believe that, on the same principle as that on which hon. Gentlemen opposite maintain that it is essential for the greater freedom of this country to maintain National Service, it is better, in an economic situation such as we are now faced with, that a small minority shall be controlled, than that our economy should break down.
  This is a residue that has been handed down to us from years and years of mismanagement and neglect of two fundamental industries. Hon. Members opposite may sneer, but that does not alter the facts. I believe that, faced with the problems we are faced with in these two industries through years of mismanage-

  2849
  ment, these two industries should be protected so that they may play their part in building up the economy of our country. I have tried to make a serious contribution to this discussion. I have only one word to add; my only regret is that when the Government saw fit to control engagements, they did not at the same time see fit to control the use of money.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The hon. Member has spoken about the large number of suicides in Wales, and associated it with unemployment. Would he associate the fact that we now have a record number of people certified insane, and have never had so many people in our mental asylums, with this engagement order?
  Mr. Williams: It is impossible for people who go insane to give their reasons for it, therefore it is impossible to say. Those who committed suicide said they did so because life was no longer worth living under a Tory Government.
  12.45 a.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Both the hon. Gentleman who spoke last and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) used the tit-for-tat argument. They said that because between the wars there had been some unemployment and that had resulted in an economic direction of labour, the Government of the day were justified in using this control to enforce a parallel servitude in industry. The hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams) went further and implied that it was right to turn some men in a so-called essential industry into machines so that they should obey automatically the will of their superiors in Government and that somehow through that process the economy of the country was going to be raised. If he thinks that by applying the principle which he so much admires to cover the whole of the industries of this country, then by some miracle we are going to get a resourceful nation that will be an effective competitor in world trade, I am amazed at his simplicity.
  I wish to raise only two points, one affecting liberty and the other technical progress, which so far has not been mentioned in this Debate. On the point affect-
  2850
  ing liberty, I may go straight on from what I have been saying about the speech of the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt at all that of the two stimuli to effort, direction of labour or the application of the price mechanism, the latter is much the milder. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to recognise by now it is the aim of all three parties to achieve full employment. We fundamentally believe in this aim. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must also recognise by now the fact that we on this side of the House are the principal authors of the authoritative economic White Paper on full employment.
  There is no question that a more humane society arises through the association of full employment with the price mechanism than through the association of full employment with direction of labour. It is our aim on this side to achieve that combination of full employment and the price mechanism and we are well forward in so doing, far better forward than the party opposite. I think at the next General Election the people of this country are going to approve the Conservative intention to combine these two things because by that we shall achieve a much freer society than the combination put forward by the party opposite.
  The only other point I have time for tonight is one on technical progress. I have no doubt at all in my mind that if the Supplies and Services Act, together with the direction of labour and the financial and other Socialist controls that go with it, had been applied to industries and services during the 18th century there would have been no Industrial Revolution, and that if they had been applied to industries and services in the 19th century, we would not have today any of the appurtenances of the modern age. I have no doubt that if this business of direction of industry and labour persists, we shall begin to fall behind the United States and other countries where they have a greater degree of freedom. It would be out of Order for me to mention those industries and services which I have in mind; but there is a range of 12 or 15 where the United States, since the war, has made bounds forward. We are now miles behind them in those industries and services.
  Mr. Stubbs: What about the unemployed?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Our falling behind is directly due to the freezing of the economy which comes about when these wholesale Socialist controls are applied. The Control of Engagement Order is part of this vicious system. If a man is not free to leave an industry and go into another industry, is it not possible that the industry into which he might want to go is retarded in its progress? There must be many men today who are tied to the coalmines who, if they were perfectly free to leave the mines and go into other industry might, out of their knowledge, zeal and brainpower contribute to the growth and development of those industries.
  But here we have a Government which says, "We are concerned with a particular industry and wish to make it appear important. We have just nationalised the coalmines. There are 40 or 50 representatives of mining areas on our benches and we will apply full scale controls to that industry so that it shall appear to be prosperous and well staffed, filled with social capital and amenities of every sort and kind. But you never can tell that by so doing you are not denying other forms of industry of prime motive power—atomic energy, oil, hydro-electric energy, and perhaps other forms of energy not yet discovered—the vital opportunities to develop and go ahead. I believe that it is just as fatal in this century to apply these techniques of wholesale control to industry as it would have been fatal to Britain's technical progress in the twentieth century to have applied them in the past.
  Mr. Stubbs: Will the noble Lord answer my question?
  Mr. Rhys Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that when the Minister replies this Debate is closed?
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. I want to hear what the Minister has to say, and I should have thought that hon. Members would also wish to hear it.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Up to now we have heard a considerable re-hash of speeches of previous Debates, with copious quotations from HANSARD. There have been one or two new points put forward. I think it would be to the advantage of the House if I were to
  2852
  devote myself to the new points. I am sorry that I could not follow the noble Lord who preceded me. I listened to him with great care, and I was wondering whether, out of his great knowledge and personal interest in industry he was speaking with any knowledge of the matter. But he will forgive me if I cannot follow his remarks about liberty and technical progress. I will only say that the noble Lord indicated that if direction of labour were continued it would lead to an absence of technical progress in the factories, and that we would fall behind in the market. That is no compliment to the employers. We are as far ahead in technical development as any other country. The noble Lord has been to America and has made speeches there, some of which have been reported in this country. Whether he was assisting the Americans to understand our problems or not is a matter for debate.
  There are several things I should like to speak about. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) spoke about the ring fence. There has been a lot of argument whether that ring fence is regarded as successful or not, but at any rate it has been maintained until the present moment at the request of the industries. Both the industries are now satisfied that they are able to carry on without the ring fence. Therefore, we propose to abolish the ring fence round these two industries as from 1st January. Do not let there be any misunderstanding or suggestion of any sort of trickery, because removing the ring fence does not mean moving the workers in these industries outside the Control of Engagement Order.
  Mr. Carmichael: They support this.
  Mr. Isaacs: I know that. The ring fence is taken down. We will see then whether there is any justification or foundation for the allegations that the men did not want to go into those industries because they were afraid they would be kept in them. Many men have gone in and I shall quote a few figures in a moment to show the extent. At any rate, that change operates from 1st January.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who opened the Debate, kept somewhere near the question under

  2853
  discussion, and he asked about this order being permanent. He referred to the fact that the Supplies and Services Act, under which this order is made, comes to an end this year. We have put in this order that it comes to an end on 10th December when the "Act comes to an end. I do not know whether there is any intention of repeating these orders. Speaking for myself as Minister, without anybody having any intention or authority to gainsay it, I would say there is no intention of making this order permanent. We could have made it permanent for the period of operation of the Supplies and Services Act when it was first introduced into the House three years ago. But we made it clear that if we found it necessary to ask for its continuance we would come to the House year by year and get the necessary authority. The fact that we did that, is an indication that we had no intention of trying to tie it up for longer periods than 12 months.
  Lord John Hope: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it possible for the State to own the means of distribution, supply and exchange and also to direct labour?
  Mr. Isaacs: Of course, it is. The hon. Member can have it whatever way he likes, but I am saying, speaking as a Minister for the Government, there is no intention in our minds of making this order permanent.
  Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth) rose —
  Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can catch Mr. Speaker's eye he can make his own speech. I am at the moment trying to make mine, and to answer the questions which have been put to me.
  This order will be continued to the end of this period. If it had not been for the situation in which this country finds itself through its economic problems this order would not have been repeated this. year. That is quite definite.
  There was some question of what we have done under the order. The House should understand the immensity of the task that the Ministry of Labour, through the employment exchanges, is carrying out. In the 12 months ending 26th October, we have actually filled through our Ministry 4,063,000 vacancies in this
  2854
  way—2,842,000 men and 1,221,000 women. These are going into industry, and we have to decide how many are going into first preference vacancies. First preference vacancies are jobs which are considered essential for the nation's welfare. They may change a little from time to time. We have filled vacancies of first preference category to the extent of 360,000 men and 137,000 women, giving a total of 497,000 in all.
  As an example of whether this has had a sound effect let us take cotton. The total placings in cotton were 41,500; of this number, 24,300 were inexperienced persons in this industry, and the balance of 17,200 represented people who went in—I do not say that they were directed—but who went in because they were told that they should take the work because it was first preference.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: They were terrified.
  Mr. Isaacs: If workers were terrified of me, who knows something of industry, what would they feel about the noble Lord?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke Viscount Hinchingbrooke rose —
  Mr. Isaacs: One thing I can tell the noble Lord is that the working class people can "take it" as well as "give it," and he might "take it" as well when he is trying to "give it." The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) made a reference—and I must say I thought he got very eloquent about it; I thought the Election had already begun—to men who stayed in an industry when they wanted to get out of it, and who were, therefore, unproductive. All I can say is that that is not a compliment to employers; I do not think that employers would keep a man who was unproductive. They do not keep men when there is no employment for them, or when they are not giving satisfaction.
  Mr. D. Marshall: I would like to make myself quite clear; my point was that if a man does not like the work which he is doing, that man, up to a point, cannot tell if he is in fact producing to the maximum capacity. But as a matter of fact he certainly will not be doing so.
  Mr. Isaacs: I do ask the hon. Member not to believe that one.
  Mr. Marshall: It is true.
  Mr. Isaacs: It is not, because if the bloke himself does not know, the overseer down below knows, and believe me, employers do not usually appoint overseers who do not know the capacity of their men.
  May I come to the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this Debate? There has been reference to whether this order is (permanent. It has to come before the House again, whatever the circumstances in the House next year. This order ends on 10th December. I cannot, of course, say whether I shall be the Minister or not, but I am quite certain that, so far as the Ministry over which at present I have the honour to preside is concerned, the officials of that Ministry will express themselves, if the Minister asks for the information, in terms that this order should be dropped unless the needs of the country should make it essential for it to be continued. That is exactly what we are doing now.
  Then, I take up the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised; and let me say that it was surely the first time that we have seen him "knocked off his perch" by an interjection. I do not say that in any unkindly way because, with his great skill and affability, we know that he always puts his case very fairly. But he says his party would support any line of action necessary to maintain essential services; that is just what we are doing. We must maintain coal production, cotton, agriculture, and production for export. What has been our experience? Some hon. Members say that this is theoretical, and that although we may not force people to go into jobs, it is wicked to have the power. Twenty-nine persons have actually been directed. Let me tell the House that I have made most careful and meticulous inquiries, and visited many of the officials throughout the country who are concerned with the operation of this order, and they say that seldom is there complaint with the instruction to take the work offered.
  We want the order because there may be many instances of this kind. There may be a job of vital importance which has to be filled. There may be a man in the locality who has the skill to fill it, but he is unemployed and is anxious to take some other job for the time being. We have to have that job filled. Just as we had to take men from their homes in
  2856
  the war in the time of the country's needs, the country's needs remain today and we should therefore retain this order.
  What complaint do we have? We have had meetings of the National Joint Advisory Council, employers and workers' representatives, regularly since the order first came into force. There have never been any complaints from them as to its harshness or unfairness. Each year they have advised the application of this order in the interests of the country. Have we had any complaints from the trade unions? Not a solitary one; and they are the people who represent these men.
  Have we had complaints from any individual? So far as I can recall, only one, at the beginning of the scheme. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) smelt it out and put a Question on the Order Paper. I am glad that mistake happened because it brought home to officials of the Ministry throughout the country that the order had to be obeyed very strictly and meticulously. That is the only complaint which has come to me at the Ministry. No other complaint has ever been made in this House. People will say, "Even though you are working it as nicely as all that, it is still wicked to have that power," but we believe that the interests of the country come first. We believe that many of us may have to put up with things with which we would not normally wish to put up if the country's need requires us to do so.
  I do not want to return to passing the matter backwards and forwards and saying who was to blame, but I must be forgiven if I refer to the fact that in the past there was another form of direction. There was the "genuinely seeking work" clause. I have known people go tramping round an area and knocking at the door of a firm and asking the firm to state that they were seeking work so that they could get benefit. We do not want that kind of thing again. We do not want this kind of direction to be maintained, but it is one of the consequences of circumstances that we must try to get labour into those spheres and services where it is most needed.
  We have not been unsuccessful in doing that. It is true that there are first preference vacancies which we have not filled. That is because of one of two

  2857
  reasons, either that there was not a man of that skill unemployed anywhere—there has been no attempt to take men out of firms—or else there were men unemployed, but in other areas, whom we could not ask to take a job in another town. We have had no difficulty about that. We have had many men quite willing to take a job in another town provided that we could find accommodation, and we never send a man into another town unless we can find accommodation.
  It is the same old Debate with the same old arguments, the same old answers and the same old reasons that the needs of the country at the moment make it necessary that we should call upon everybody to do the best they can in the job in which they are most fitted so that a greater measure of freedom can come as soon as our present troubles disappear.
  Mr. Byers: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the point I put to him? Did the Cabinet deliberately decide to extend the Control of Engagement Order notwithstanding that they had signed the Charter of Human Rights? It is an important point. Is this a deliberate attempt to abrogate the Charter of Human Rights?
  Mr. Isaacs: No. Sir. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of that because I asked for a note on it. In the Charter of Human Rights there is a clause which deals with emergencies. If the present policy were permanent it would be a violation of that Charter, but as it is an emergency we are able to act under it.
  1.10 a.m.
  Colonel Dower: There are one or two points I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have in many ways found very sympathetic; he meets Members of this House with great courtesy in their efforts and inquiries. Why has he not answered the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who said the Lord President of the Council had given an intimation that this was going to be part of the general policy of the Government? We on this side of the House feel that we do not know what the Government's view is about this.
  2858
  We notice that every time we speak against it, we are opposed, but the right hon. Gentleman should make it clear whether he associates himself with the statement by the Lord President or whether he does not.
  There was one speech which every Member should read; and that was by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), who, I am sure, believed every word he spoke and who was not trying to make political capital. I have taken part in these debates on direction of labour, in one form or another, right through the war when there was not a Socialist Government in office, and I have been told, time after time, and first of all by the present Foreign Secretary, that at the very first available moment, this was going to be wiped out. Yet we have speeches like that of the hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams), who said that the minority could be thrown to the wolves. Without trying to make political capital out of this—and I assure the House that I am not—I believe that the other side will have to talk among themselves and come to a definite conclusion as to what their policy is on it.
  Mr. Percy Wells: Will the hon. Member accept that principle in regard to National Service?
  Colonel Dower: What is necessary in wartime, I will never agree to in peace time. The right hon. Gentleman says it has only been necessary to direct labour in twenty-nine cases. He says that with pride. I am very pleased there have not been more. I should like to ask him, when one hears Labour Members saying that* the Labour workers are in favour of this, whether, if he had had to direct them in 29,000 cases, he would not have had a lot of trouble? One does not hear much noise about it in 29 cases, but if it had to be done on a big scale, it would show him that the majority of workers are opposed to this. I am perfectly convinced that they are.
  I do not think we did badly at Bradford. If the Party opposite lose 5,000 votes in their majority in all their seats, they are out. I sincerely ask the right hon. Gentleman this. There are things worth a great deal more than organisation and regimentation. There are things worth a great deal more than money. I

  2859
  can assure hon. Members of that. [Laughter.] I dare say hon. Members opposite do not think so and that may be why we have to wait for an Election for a long time. I hope the Minister, as soon as he can, will deny what his colleague said who gave the impression that this is to be part of the permanent policy of the Government if another Socialist Government is returned.
  1.15 a.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I took part in a Debate on this subject a good while ago and will therefore have little to say tonight, especially as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has made two important concessions, and I want to thank him for that. The Minister has told us that the ring fence is to be abolished in coalmining and agriculture, the two industries in which it operates. That is a very substantial step towards personal freedom. He said, also, that the Control of Engagement Order is not to be made permanent. That is very satisfactory, too.
  I cannot understand some of the arguments put forth from both sides of the House in relation to the Control of Engagement Order. I am not moved at all by what the Conservatives say about personal freedom, when they always support military conscription. Of all the foul offences against personal liberty, conscription is by far the worst. Then, on this side of the House the strange argument was advanced that because the pressure of poverty and unemployment directed men to labour, we must not complain against this form of direction. The direction arising from poverty has been abolished because a Labour Government has come into power, and it is argued that you must, forsooth, agree to a new compulsion because you have abolished the original. That argument will not avail—and certainly will not avail in the General Election campaign.
  The Minister told us that the number of cases of objection to the Control of Engagement Order is very few. Strangely enough, two have occurred in my own Division. I give them briefly. A coal-miner felt that he was not strong enough physically to continue to work in the pits. Incidentally, I worked in the pits myself for 10 years. As is often the custom in Lancashire, this miner wanted to start a
  2860
  poultry run. He applied for the right to leave the mining industry. What happened? Before he could be allowed to leave, the Minister employed a doctor to examine him, and in the end it was not the employer, the Coal Board, or the Ministry of Labour which determined whether he could come out: it was the medical certificate that sealed his fate. His request was granted—but we must note how this Control of Engagement Order and the direction of labour work out in actual practice.
  Take the other case. A man leaves a pit in my constituency. He then enters the Fighting Services and when he comes out of the Army he gets a job in an engineering shop in the Midlands. He works there for some years, comes back to my Division, and because he once worked in a pit he is directed into two pits. He refuses to work in either. Lo and behold, the Minister of Labour suddenly finds that when he worked in a pit it was a clay pit not under the control of the Coal Board. Consequently, the Control of Engagement Order did not apply to him and he is now an engineer. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, what is the cost to the Ministry of Labour of the doctors who certify whether people shall work in coal mining or not.
  I have spoken in this House on the rights of man on several occasions and, unfortunately, I have had to criticise my own colleagues in so doing. I am much encouraged by two events. During the war I stood almost alone against the foul policy of unconditional surrender, and the House of Commons almost howled me down. A few years later, however, I find that a new House of Commons agrees with me. I then challenged military conscription and my own Labour colleagues disagreed with me. Now. however, even our military commanders are doubting whether military conscription is worth while imposing at all. While thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour for what he has said, let me add that if we press the matter a little further, the Control of Engagement Order itself will come to an end.
  It has been said on the other side of the House, and I challenge that statement, that direction of labour is part and parcel of Socialism. It is not. Every single "ism" is determined in the end

  2861
  by the interpretation put upon it by the "ists," and I object to the interpretation that is implied by some of our own people that because there is a Socialist State there must of necessity be control and direction of labour. As one who pleaded for Socialism long before many Members in this House were born, I wish to make it clear once again that I support the ownership and control of every material thing necessary for the life of the nation, but I have always presumed, from Keir Hardie downwards—and if he were here tonight he would most certainly support my point of view—that the adoption of Socialist principles would provide more freedom for the workman than capitalism. And if Socialism does not mean that it will fail, and a new generation will arise in this land to establish a society where personal freedom is paramount.
  I have been in Germany since the occupation. Our Government controls part of Germany. I do not think that a Control of Engagement Order is imposed in Germany. Just imagine a people we defeated in war being more free to chose their jobs than our own people who conquered them.
  Sir Ian Fraser: On a point of Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who speech I desire to enjoy, but could you consider, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, giving instructions that the loud speaker system be amplified a little. I do not know whether it is owing to the failure of the current, but it is very difficult to hear.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter, I think, which can be left to the authorities concerned.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not serious about my voice. I thought I had mastered the art of making myself heard long ago. I hope hon. Gentlemen on both sides will forgive my pursuing this point about the interpretation of Socialism. I hope I shall not be thought to be blaspheming when I say that the Architect of this universe planned and regulated the world. He made the earth, moon and stars, divided the earth from the waters and so forth—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is the Control of Engagement Order which has nothing to do with the sun or the moon.
  Mr. Rhys DaviesThat was what I was coming to. But the Almighty never imposed a Control of Engagements Order. He made man free, and I am here to say once more that whatever Government is in power, my voice, for what it is worth, will be raised in favour of the rights of the man to choose his own job and determine his own fate.
  1.25 a.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman, and I assure him that I had no difficulty in hearing him, indicated with complete justification that he would always raise his voice when these issues were under discussion. He did not on this occasion indicate the rather more material consideration, how he proposed to cast his vote. On the last occasion this matter was before the House he gave a very clear indication of his attitude:
  "I can say in passing, having helped to build this Labour Party, that if we sat on the other side of the House tonight and a Tory Minister did what my right hon. Friend is proposing, every Labour Member would go into the Division Lobby against it."
  And he added with considerable cogency:
  "I should like to say one thing more. I have been in politics and in this House for a long time, and I have long ago decided that what is wrong when we are in Opposition cannot be right when we are the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 20.]
  I hope that those hon. Members opposite who have not spoken tonight, and I believe there are some who agree with what has been so eloquently said by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), will be equally prepared to carry to the logical conclusion the sentiments he expressed on the last occasion.
  A visitor from another planet would have been a little surprised at our proceedings tonight. [An HON. MEMBER: "He would be out of Order."] I can assure the hon. Member that a visitor from another planet, not being within the jurisdiction, could not possibly be out of Order. We are dealing with a grave social and economic question, not in the discussion of a Parliamentary Bill, but simply on the initiative of the Opposition to annul a piece of delegated legislation. Whatever hon. Members may think of the merits or demerits of the matter, none will dispute that it is a grave and important one. It seems to me a gross abuse of the powers

  2863
  of delegated legislation that such a matter should be dealt with in this way. It carries the inevitable consequence that, whereas we spent an hour and a half earlier discussing the location of a plane tree in Parliament Square, a matter of this kind has to be discussed in the middle of the night. That is the wrong way to deal with a matter of this gravity.
  The Minister of Labour said he had heard nothing but the old arguments and the old speeches. Whether that be true or not, one is entitled to make the comment that the right hon. Gentleman himself even now did not grasp the two points some of us have been putting for three years: first, that compulsion is an extremely inefficient method of effecting the necessary re-distribution of labour; and secondly, that even if it were efficient, it is subject to considerable moral disadvantages. He did not address himself to either argument but the right hon. Gentleman made an announcement of considerable importance about abandoning the ring fence round agriculture and mining
  The report of the Ministry of Labour for last year issued last month informs us that of the 302 directions which were issued during the course of the year, no fewer than 288 were for the purpose of maintaining this ring fence round agriculture and mining. Now the right hon. Gentleman is abandoning that. We are surely entitled to ask him why it is necessary to retain, for the sake of apparently no more than 14 directions a year, this elaborate structure of compulsion. Is it really worth while to face all the difficulties and rouse all the antagonisms which this system inevitably will arouse for the sake of directing 14 people in the course of a year? Clearly it is not. Before this Debate closes I want to get from the right hon. Gentleman some clear indication of what it is that he really has in mind.
  I would like to read a few lines from his report for 1948 at page 21. Having given the figures which I have quoted, the right hon. Gentleman goes on:
  "The slight extent to which it is necessary to use the power of direction to induce persons to go to essential work was evidence of the success of the policy of relying upon persuasion in the first instance and of reserving the power of direction for use only in the rare cases where persuasion failed."
  What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman is using the word "per-
  2864
  suasion" perfectly frankly and in its normal significance? Does his use of persuasion mean one person equally situated persuading by reason another to do something which he wishes him to do, or does he by persuasion mean a suave and carefully concealed threat that if the advice is not accepted an act of a coercive nature will follow? That is what we want to know.
  The right hon. Gentleman has again and again denied there is any coercion behind this persuasion, but if that is true, if that is the essence of the matter, surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to maintain all this elaborate machinery for the sake of directing 14 unfortunate persons in the course of a year? Must it not be the case that when the right hon. Gentleman used the word "persuasion" in that report, he used it in the sense in which it is used in many totalitarian countries, in the same sense in which the Jews were persuaded voluntarily to hand over their property in Nazi Germany—the polite request masking the power behind the request. It is surely wrong for the right hon. Gentleman not to be frank about this. Which of these two alternatives is he pursuing in maintaining these powers? To direct 14 people a year or as a power in reserve to back the persuasion of his officers if their eloquence for any reason in any case should happen to fail?
  There is another point on which I think we should say something before we part with this order. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no intention of making this order permanent. He said very much the same thing when he introduced it two years ago, in column 1361 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd November, 1947. Let us test it. He told the House that this is the last time he can use this power under the present Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council said at Blackpool in May that it was the Government's intention to introduce a new Supplies and Services Act on a permanent basis. Is it intended to include in that Act power to make orders of this kind?
  If it is intended deliberately to take powers to do this again, then the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he does not intend to make the order permanent has not very much value. Surely it is a

  2865
  test of the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government's intentions in this matter, whether or not they are intending to take permanent power to make orders of this kind in a new Supplies and Services Act. Surely we are entitled to be told that. I am glad to see the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) in his place. He and I had a controversy in the columns of "The Times" on this very issue some months ago. The hon. Member for King's Norton was confident that no power of this kind would be included in the future Act. I sincerely hope that on this point, at least, the hon. Member is right. I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I say that one wishes to have assurances of this sort of thing not from an acolyte however zealous but from the high priest; one must have an assurance from the Government. Until we are told that if this Government has power to pass a permanent Act it will exclude any power to make orders of this kind, no assurance about the absence of any intention to make the order permanent is worth the HANSARD in which it was reported.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that this weapon of compulsion was used to get people into the right places, and that it had been successful. The facts as stated in the Economic Surveys, which the right hon. Gentleman's own Government published, do not confirm that. Each year we have had the manpower targets, impressive figures indicating the Government's intention, as to the redistribution of manpower: how it has fared with these targets at the end of the year. Every time, and in every vital industry, the Government have failed to reach the targets.
  Let me give an example which comes to mind through the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), in connection with the mining industry. In the figures which were produced for the mining industry in 1947 the target for the end of that year was 730,000 men on the colliery books. At the end of 1948, a year later, it had only reached 726,000. If one takes the figures from the Ministry of Labour Gazette one sees that at the beginning of September this year it had fallen to 717,000, and that at the end of the month it had fallen a further 4,000. When, three years after setting the target he has not only failed
  2866
  to achieve it, but sees the projectile moving directly away from the target, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that this is a successful method?
  I believe that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring is right when he says that the ring fence around this industry has proved to be a deterrent to recruiting; that it has discouraged people from going into an industry which, if they found they did not like it, they would be unable to leave. I believe it is because that fact has now come to his own understanding that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to abandon it on 1st January. Will not the right hon. Gentleman follow that to its logical conclusion? If people are deterred from entering a particular industry because of the ring fence, may they not also be deterred from leaving perhaps an unessential job because they may find themselves not free to choose the next job to which they will go?
  Surely the principle which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is tacitly accepting now with regard to ring fence industries applies equally to others. If he appreciates that freedom in the redistribution of labour is not only morally right, but the most efficient way, cannot he apply the same principle when he comes to the rest of the order? If he does that he will change the whole psychological atmosphere. It will allow those who desire to change a job to do so in freedom; it will give more flexibility of labour, and it will give greater opportunities to re-distribute labour into industries in which it is sorely needed. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the failure which this method of the direction of labour has been, judging by the targets which he and his own Government have set. Surely, after three years' experience of that failure it will have occurred to him that there must be something wrong in the method he has used. He will be running no risk in abandoning a method which has failed if he seeks now to apply the principle of freer distribution of labour.
  The hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams), who is not now in his place, said he did not think that when the word "freedom" was used by Tories, the Tories were sincere in its use. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used that line of argument. All of us in

  2867
  this House are entitled to believe that each other's views upon public matters are wrong or unsound or illogical, but to deny to an hon. Member, as the hon. Gentleman did, sincerity of conviction upon an issue of this kind is not only unnecessarily offensive, but it is an extraordinarily dangerous line of Parliamentary argument. I would assure the hon. Member for South Hammersmith if he were here—I hope he will read it in HANSARD tomorrow—that I personally feel on this issue as strongly as I have ever felt on any issue in my life. I believe a great many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House feel the same.
  We feel it is utterly wrong in these circumstances to do what is done here—to deprive the people of the right to select the work by which they seek to earn their living. It is not an answer to say there have been and are other limitations upon that right. All we are seeking to achieve is to give to the people the right to seek the work of their choice without legal interference by the State. We are under no illusion that that confers absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is probably not to be found on this side of the grave. What we are seeking to do is to remove any legal barrier in the way of those who desire, however foolish it may be, to try

  Division No. 307.]

  AYES

  [1.46 a.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Dobbie, W.

  Kinley, J.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Lavers, S.

  Albu, A. H.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Levy, B. W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Baird, J.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  McGovern, J.

  Barton, C.

  Ewart, R.

  McLeavy, F.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Beswick, F.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Monslow, W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

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

  Bramall, E. A.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  O'Brien, T.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Grey, C. F.

  Paget, R. T.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Burden, T. W.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

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

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Callaghan, James

  Haworth, J.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Carmichael, James

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Collindridge, F.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pearson, A.

  Collins, V. J.

  Holman, P.

  Popplewell, E.

  Cook, T. F.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Porter. E. (Warrington)

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

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pritt, D. N.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

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

  Proctor, W. T.

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Randall, H. E.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Ranger, J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Rhodes, H.

  Deer, G.

  Keenan, W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  out their abilities and capacities in the work of their own choice. I cannot put it better than in some words which I should like to quote to the House:
  "Any sort of compulsion on the individual in his choice of a civilian job in peacetime involves an infringement of essential human liberty, which is utterly incompatible with the views of democracy and Socialism."
  Those words are those of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and he used them in his recent book "The Socialist Case." He expressed himself with that lucidity and clarity of expression which we have learned to expect from him, and I am sure the words were sincerely written. I am sure they are true, and I ask hon. Members opposite, such as the hon. Member for South Hammersmith, who cannot be persuaded by any arguments from Tory mouths, to bear in mind when they go into the Division Lobby the fine, expressive, logical and cogent words of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 69.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Whiteley. Rt. Hon. W.

  Royle, C.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wilkes, L.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Sharp, Granville

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Woods, G. S.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

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

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Watkins, T. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Steele, T.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Wilkins.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Galbraith, T. G. D, (Hillhead)

  Odey, G. W.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Comma-Duncan, Col. A.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. O.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

  Hope, Lord J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bowen, R.

  Howard, Hon. A

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Bower, N.

  Hurd, A.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Byers, Frank

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Carson, E.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Turton, R. H.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maude, J. C.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  York, C.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

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

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

  Question put accordingly,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order dated 5th December, 1949, entitled the Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order (S.I., 1949.

  Division No. 308.]

  AYES

  [1.52 a.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Odey, G. W.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

  Hope, Lord J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bowen, R.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Bower, N.

  Hurd, A.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Langford-Holl, J.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Byers, Frank

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Carson, E.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Touche, G. C.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Turton, R. H.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maude, J. C.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  York, C.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

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

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Beswick, F.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Albu, A. H.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Burden, T. W.

  Baird, J.

  Bottomley, A. G.

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

  Barton, C.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Callaghan, James

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Carmichael, James

  No. 2251), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled."
  The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 131.

  Collindridge, F.

  Hughes, H. D, (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Collins, V. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Cook, T. F.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

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

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Royle, C.

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Keenan, W.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Daggar, G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Sharp, Granville

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kinley, J.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enheld)

  Lavers, S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Levy, B. W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Deer, G.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Delargy, H. J.

  McGovern, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dobbie, W.

  McLeavy, F.

  Steele, T.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Monslow, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Ewart, R.

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Forman, J. C.

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

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  O'Brien, T.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Paget, R, T.

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

  Gibson, C. W.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Gilzean, A.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Grey, C. F.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Pearson, A.

  Wilkes, L.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Popplewell, E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Haworth, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Willis, E.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Woods, G. S.

  Holman, P.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Randall, H. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Houghton, Douglas

  Ranger, J.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Wilkins.

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

  Rhodes, H.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr R. J. Taylor.]
  2.0 a.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In spite of the lateness of the hour, I make no apology for raising a subject which so vitally affects the people of Lancashire as the threat of Japanese competition. When we last discussed this matter in the House on 2nd March we were told by the Government that there were no grounds for alarm and that we did no service to Lancashire by implying that around the corner there was this terrific threat. Within two months, however, the United Textile and Factory Workers were reporting to their annual conference at Blackpool that, during the year, they sent a message to the Textile Workers' Union of America about the Japanese threat. That message contained these words:
  "In the last two or three years nothing has shaken the confidence (which was but slowly returning) of the Lancashire cotton operatives so much as the recent announcements of the re-growth of the Japanese industry and Japan's re-entry into the export market with alleged low-priced fabrics."
  2872
  I do not think it is any good pretending that the Japanese threat is only a remote one. It is of no use to panic about it, but we must keep our feet on the ground and get the Government to tell us what steps they are taking, if necessary in agreement with the United States, to save Lancashire from a recurrence of the hardships which Japanese competition caused in the past. I am speaking particularly tonight of Lancashire cotton, but my observations apply equally to silk, pottery and bicycles produced in other parts of the country.
  Today, textiles play a bigger part in the Japanese export programme than ever before. The latest statistical supplement of the "Cotton Board Trade Letter" refers to
  "an enormous expansion in Japanese exports, which surpassed in volume exports from the United Kingdom and the United States during the second quarter "
  of 1949. Events in recent years have meant that Japan can no longer look for outlets in some markets which were open to her before the war. Particularly would markets in China, Manchuria and Korea be less open to her than in the past. There is a conflict there between Communist and Japanese ideology; there is a deep bitterness against Japan

  2873
  on the continent of Asia; and Japanese pre-war investment in the cotton industry in China means that China is probably independent of supplies from the Japanese textile industry.
  Japan is having to look for new outlets for goods and is turning her eyes to places like Indonesia and the British Colonies—to markets vital to the industry in Lancashire. Last year there was an enormous increase in Japanese exports to Indonesia, to which about half of her total textile exports were directed. Figures for the first quarter of this year suggested that this invasion of the Indonesian market might be a temporary phenomenon, but latest figures show that the seriousness of the position is continuing.
  At the same time the Japanese threat to our markets in the British Colonies appears to be growing. The irony of the situation is that we are pouring millions of pounds of British money into schemes of Colonial development and the inhabitants of the Colonies are spending the money on Japanese goods. I should like to read an extract from a letter, dated 28th November, sent by the East African representative of a Lancashire firm. He writes:
  "The Uganda Government expect the coming cotton crop to exceed 400,000 bales for the first time. The price will be satisfactory and it is safe to assume that there will be considerable consumer activity in the range of trade goods, and particularly textiles. In spite of this, we are unable to book a single order, even for ready stocks at old rates. The reason for this is that British prices are not competitive and ample supplies are forthcoming from India and Japan."
  The writer goes on to quote the prices of Japanese piece goods and compares them with the prices of comparable Lancashire goods.
  The general conclusion is that Japanese goods are available at about 1s. a yard below the cost of British goods. Figures which I have obtained in regard to West Africa show that Lancashire cloth available at 2s. a yard has to face competition from Japanese cloth at 1s. 3d. The East African agent from whom I have already quoted goes on to say:
  "We know you will be sorry to learn that the products of British manufacturers, including Japanese cloth processed in England, are being freely offered at anything up to 1s. a yard below cost."
  All this is taking place at a time when Japan, not having devalued the yen,
  2874
  might expect to be at a disadvantage in sterling markets. Even more recently a letter dated 30th November contained these passages:
  "Whilst we quite agree that on world-wide basis Japanese competition might not constitute a threat to Lancashire mills for some time to come, there is no doubt whatever that competition is a growing reality in East Africa."
  And again:
  "You ask us whether we can find any importers who have received substantial quantities of Japanese goods at prices which would rule us out of the market. The answer is 'yes'."
  To give another quotation:
  "In prints up to the end of August Japan had supplied approximately 4 million out of a total of 7 million yards. By the end of September we believe that the figure will prove to be 6 million out of a total of 9 million yards."
  The figures I have received today in a further letter tend to confirm the accuracy of that estimate.
  The other Colonies—Gambia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Jamaica, Trinidad and Aden—all imported more Japanese textiles than in 1937 in spite of a tremendous decline in Japanese exports. In the first quarter of this year Tanganyika, although imports of Japanese cloth showed a slight decline on pre-war figures, was importing seven yards for every yard from Britain.
  Mr. Stanley Prescott: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, would he support the pleas from this side of the House for a revision of the Congo Basin Treaties and the exclusion of Japan in future?
  Mr. Greenwood: I hope to touch upon that matter later. Since General MacArthur freed the Japanese textile industry from earlier restraints, the "big ten" combines are going all out and the position in East Africa may be repeated in other markets. "The Times" on 26th October said:
  "The pattern of Japanese trade will now presumably revert to that of before the war."
  It is true that competition today is less unfair than before the war; wages have gone up, there are holidays with pay, and welfare facilities are being provided. Nevertheless, at the exchange rate of 1,000 yen to the pound, Japanese workers are receiving 2s. 9d. a day and women 1s. 6d.—only a fraction of what is earned in Lancashire.

  2875
  We do not know whether improved wages and conditions will survive the occupation, or whether, when Japanese industrialists are removed from Western influence, they will revert to those subsidies, low wages and unfair methods which brought financial disaster to Lancashire firms in the past and unemployment and under-employment to hundreds of thousands of operatives. "The Times" in the same article on 26th October reported:
  "Japanese leaders are now pressing also for permission to lower the standard of living of Japanese workers to pre-war levels. Their demand may well be granted."
  That is the danger which hangs like a cloud over Lancashire at the present time. I did not agree with the Secretary for Overseas Trade when he said in a recent answer in the House that there was no evidence that Japanese competition was harming Lancashire or that a fear of Japan was preventing workers going into the industry. From what I know of Lancashire I believe that the Japanese threat is retarding re-equipment, preventing recruitment, and discouraging firms from setting up marketing organisations overseas. It is no good closing our eyes to these things. You cannot prevent the storm by refusing to read the barometer.
  There is a good deal of suspicion in Lancashire that we are not getting a square deal from America in this matter. It is difficult to prove it, but equally difficult to dispel the suspicion.
  Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman will be so kind as to meet me after the Debate, perhaps I can give him some evidence.
  Mr. Greenwood: I know the hon. Gentleman has made several efforts to convince the Government on that score. I hope he will be more successful in the future.
  Mr. Prescott: Now that I have the hon. Member's support I hope I shall.
  Mr. Greenwood: The Textile Factory Workers' message to their American comrades which I quoted earlier also included this passage:
  "There is a widespread feeling that the United States, who are in effective control of Japanese economy, are too much influenced by American cotton growing and marketing
  2876
  interests, and influenced too little by American cotton spinning and weaving employers and operatives."
  I do not think that is an over-statement. I have heard some Lancashire interests suggest that America has been a good deal more tender in its attitude to the Japanese cotton industry than in its attitude to the light engineering industry, which is a more serious competitor in American export markets. It seems that in the drama of the Far East America is playing the part of both Red Riding Hood and the wolf. I welcome the decision to send a joint mission to Japan. Until we know all the facts it is impossible to assess the importance of the problem, or to know what steps are needed.
  The "Manchester Guardian" has summed up the problem as follows:
  "The Japanese should not have to rely so heavily on cotton exports that they are bound severely and suddenly to damage our trade by desperate measures to expand their own at any cost."
  I ask what proposals the Government have to make to that end. We cannot, nor should we wish to, smash Japanese industry. That would be bad economics and worse ethics. The Japanese have to live, but the people in Lancashire have to live too. From the long-term point of view the solution lies in international Socialist planning, but tonight I want to confine myself to the more immediate steps we can take, and to ask the Government three questions.
  First, are the Government sure that strong and democratic unions are being built up in Japan which will be able to maintain wage levels and working conditions when the Occupation Forces withdraw? Secondly, will the Government consider initiating discussions for an international trade convention excluding from the area of the signatory powers goods produced under conditions which do not conform to an internationally accepted standard? Thirdly, what steps will they take to exclude from British Colonies Japanese goods marketed at a price less than the cost of raw materials and labour represented in similar Lancashire goods?
  Those are the questions I want answered, and that Lancashire too wants answered. The cotton industry has done well since the war. The people of Lancashire suffered from Japanese competition in the inter-war years. During the war they played their part in defeating

  2877
  Japanese imperialism. It would be a tragedy if they were to be the first victims of a reborn Japan.
  2.14 a.m.
  Mr. John Lewis: I am sure the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important question even at this late hour. Those of us who represent cotton constituencies know how seriously this matter is regarded by both sides of the industry, who know that the livelihood of the people concerned depends on a guaranteed market of some kind in the future. Japanese competition is always in the minds of those responsible for the well-being of the cotton industry, and they do not regard the answer which the hon. Gentleman who is to reply tonight, gave me in the House last week, as any encouragement whatever, or as showing that the Government fully appreciate some of the factors concerned.
  My hon. Friend who is to reply indicated that he was not aware that recruiting was in any way affected by fear of Japanese competition. From my close connection with trade union officials, I can assure him, that recruitment has been to a large extent, affected by a fear that the cotton industry in Lancashire may not hold out the prospects it does at the present time because of Japanese competition. We know that in the next year or so there is little likelihood that the Lancashire cotton industry will be affected, but we shall be faced by a competitive market in two or three years' time.
  In my view there is only one possibility of being able to overcome the difficulties with which we shall be faced; that is on the basis of quality rather than quantity. I am not sure that the present tendency in the cotton industry shows the likelihood of our being able to get into foreign markets with high quality goods, because we are concentrating in the main on producing the maximum output irrespective of quality. The tendency to which I refer is the changing over from mules to rings
  May I briefly outline what I regard as a serious blunder that we are making in the industry at the present time? We know, and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony
  2878
  Greenwood) will agree, that it is impossible to get high quality cotton goods by using ring frames. We are seeing every day mules being rendered obsolete and rings being installed in order to obtain maximum output. Like many of the trade unions concerned in the industry and like some employers, I regard that as a very serious error. If we are to face Japanese competition we must concentrate on putting the industry in a position in two or three years' time to produce quality goods where prices will not be the sole factor.
  I think hon. Members will agree that no useful purpose will be served by making further representations to the MacArthur Administration, because we have very littte hope that they will do anything about it. To my mind, this tendency to replace mules by rings is a grave mistake. I feel that at all times we must have regard to long-term policies in the cotton industry—by that I mean two or three years' time, when we shall be faced with serious competition. Quality alone will be the decisive factor in obtaining markets.
  I ask the Government to give serious consideration to this question and say whether or not steps should not be taken in the near future to prevent mules being scrapped, because there is not the labour in the ring spinning side of the industry to make up for the output which will be lost by the scrapping of mules. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the taking of early steps to advise the cotton industry what to do in these circumstances. At the moment millowners are concerned only with increasing output. I maintain that the essential consideration now should be planning for the future on the basis of quality rather than of quantity of output.
  Mr. Frescott: On a point of Order. Would it not be possible to call one member of the Opposition?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had a conference with Mr. Speaker and was told exactly what the position was.
  Mr. Prescott: The only conference I had with the Chair was confidential.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was within my hearing and within the hon. Gentleman's hearing as well.
  2.20 a.m.
  The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I ought to make it clear from the beginning that the Government are keenly alive to this threat from Japanese competition in all fields of industry. Having said that, it would be wrong to ignore present circumstances. It is in that sense that answers to questions have been made. The Japanese export trade at the moment is small. No one can deny that. It is small through various causes. We know that the Japanese have not recovered from the economic collapse which resulted from the war. We know, too, that with lower production she has to provide for a much larger population. We know, also, that as far as the sterling area is concerned, because of balance of payments difficulties, she is restricted in the trade that she can do with us.
  But having said that, one must acknowledge that she has to close the gap between her consumption of food and raw materials and what she earns in the way of foreign currency by means of exports. Therefore I think that one way in which we can take a reasonable part in seeing that the development of Japan's export trade does not unfairly hamper our own trade is by making sure that there is no kind of development which is likely to make Japan again a potential enemy with strength. The other way is to make sure that what is being done at the moment by the Supreme Commander in the area will, as far as possible, achieve those conditions which will enable Japanese competition to be fair.
  I should not like, at this stage, to make any responsible reply, on behalf of the Government, to the three points which have been put, because I think the industry itself ought to have an opportunity to study the position at firsthand. Reference has already been made to the Anglo-American mission which, we hope, will tour Japan with a view to finding out what is involved as a result of the competition of Japan in world trade in cotton textiles. But it is, perhaps, as well to see where there is a real threat to our trade and how the problem is being tackled. I think that all will agree that the real basis of Japan's competitive power in world markets is her lower cost of labour compared with that of the Western nations.
  Mr. Preseott: Child labour.
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall come to that in a moment, although it is to be noted that the present Administration has done away with child labour.
  Mr. Preseott: With respect, it has not.
  Mr. Bottomley: It intends to do away with it. In an overcrowded country it is going to be a long time before this development can be brought about in the way we should want, such as the growth of trade unions and the abolition of child labour. But what the present administration has done is to foster the growth of genuine trade unions and to raise general labour standards. Under the provisions of the Labour Standards Act, which was introduced in 1947, the bargaining power of the workers in Japan has been strengthened.
  Let me say what has been done in connection with the recent decision to abolish floor prices. That decision was inevitable because of the automatic increase in the prices of Japanese goods due to devaluation, while the yen remained at the same rate vis-á -vis the dollar. It was inevitable that there should be some change. It was bound to come sooner or later whether devaluation intervened or not. Floor prices were originally imposed in order that General MacArthur could be sure that in a sellers' market the Japanese would not lose the foreign exchange which they had to have. With the present position it was inevitable that there should be some adjustment.
  With the removal of control, General MacArthur followed it with the statement that the Japanese Government would be instructed to sell all goods for export at prices comparable with those of goods sold on the home market or at cost of production plus a reasonable profit. The Japanese Prime Minister has reinforced that. He has stated that exporters should not quote unnecessarily low prices, and should not—and this is an important factor to those who represent Lancashire constituencies—frequently alter their quotations. He also said that the Japanese Government had incorporated in their Foreign Exchange and Trade Control Law, regulations that exporters must declare in their export declaration forms that proper regard had been paid

  2881
  to the laws and regulations against unfair competition of the country of destination, and that severe measures would be taken against exporters who exported goods at unreasonably low prices.
  It will be necessary to watch this development for some time before we can be in a position to say what really will be the effect on prices, but the actions of General MacArthur and the Japanese Prime Minister to date have shown that they are trying to lay down regulations which will enable production to be carried on under fair conditions, and especially to enable the removal of some of those conditions working for unfair competition which operated pre-war.
  Mr. J. Lewis: My hon. Friend says that production is to be carried out under reasonable conditions. Surely in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has pointed out, it is quite obvious that the wages of 2s. 9d. per day cannot be called fair competition in wages. Would my hon. Friend say if he thinks that in those circumstances General MacArthur and the Japanese Government are doing the right thing?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that an effort is being made to bring about reasonable standards, and let me repeat that, if I can have cases given to me of where Japanese goods are being sold at a rate in the Colonies or elsewhere which
  2882
  is unreasonable or unfair, I shall be very glad to look into them. That is a statement which I have made before, and if the hon. Member will send the material to me and let me have full notice, I can at least examine these cases. The occupying authority has laid down what is really meant. It is up to us to interpret it. But comment has been made that the MacArthur administration encourages the growth of the textile industry and not others, because the textile industry is one with which we, rather than the Americans, are concerned. It would be wrong if that impression were left in the minds of hon. Members.
  What General MacArthur has done is to try to diversify industry; the light engineering industry, for example, has developed much more than previously in Japan, and General MacArthur is trying to be fair and to see that certain standards are achieved. We do pay a good deal of attention to international understanding whereby we can get reasonable standards operating. His Majesty's Government is a firm believer in the International Labour Office.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock a.m.

  SPANISH CIVIL WAR (BRITISH CLAIMS)
  SPANISH CIVIL WAR (BRITISH CLAIMS)
  TIBET (CHINESE SUZERAINTY)
  TIBET (CHINESE SUZERAINTY)
  TIBET
  TIBET
  AUSTRIAN TREATY
  AUSTRIAN TREATY
  CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  ITALY (PEACE TREATY)
  ITALY (PEACE TREATY)
SUDAN
  Arabic
  Arabic
  Gezira Scheme
  Gezira Scheme
  BAHAMAS (GLIDED-MISSHE STATIONS)
  BAHAMAS (GLIDED-MISSHE STATIONS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (WORKERS' PETITION)
  BRITISH GUIANA (WORKERS' PETITION)
  MALAYA (PENANG, PETITION)
  MALAYA (PENANG, PETITION)
  SARAWAK (ATTACK ON GOVERNOR)
  SARAWAK (ATTACK ON GOVERNOR)
ROYAL NAVY
  Recruiting Service
  Recruiting Service
  Campaign Stars and Prize Money
  Campaign Stars and Prize Money
ARMED FORCES
  Courts-Martial Procedure
  Courts-Martial Procedure
  Welfare Arrangements
  Welfare Arrangements
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Advertisement (Cost)
  Advertisement (Cost)
  Sweet Ration (Old Age Pensioners)
  Sweet Ration (Old Age Pensioners)
  Babies' Rusks
  Babies' Rusks
  Civic Restaurants
  Civic Restaurants
  Herring
  Herring
  Fish Surpluses
  Fish Surpluses
  Dried Eggs
  Dried Eggs
  Meat Storage (Refrigerated Ships)
  Meat Storage (Refrigerated Ships)
POST OFFICE
  Delivery Delays
  Delivery Delays
  Staff Associations (Recognition)
  Staff Associations (Recognition)
  Wireless Licences
  Wireless Licences
  Telephone Applications
  Telephone Applications
TELEVISION
  Development (Advisory Committee)
  Development (Advisory Committee)
  Stations
  Stations
  Skegness, Wragby and Woodhall Spa
  Skegness, Wragby and Woodhall Spa
  Macclesfield and Congleton
  Macclesfield and Congleton
ROYAL ALR FORCE
  Auxiliary Squadrons (Jet Aircraft)
  Auxiliary Squadrons (Jet Aircraft)
  Cranwell (Written Examination)
  Cranwell (Written Examination)
  Meteorological Staff (Allowances)
  Meteorological Staff (Allowances)
  Pageants
  Pageants
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  United States Assistant Secretary's Visit
  United States Assistant Secretary's Visit
  Ministry's Staff
  Ministry's Staff
  Suez Canal Zone (Conditions)
  Suez Canal Zone (Conditions)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Air Accident, Prestwick (Inquiry Expenses)
  Air Accident, Prestwick (Inquiry Expenses)
  Flying-Boats
  Flying-Boats
ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH
  ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH
  ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH
EDUCATION
  Finance (Roman Catholics)
  Finance (Roman Catholics)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
HOUSING
  Furnished Houses (Rent Control)
  Furnished Houses (Rent Control)
  Fibrecored Steel
  Fibrecored Steel
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Nurses Prize Fund, Weymouth
  Nurses Prize Fund, Weymouth
  Spectacles (Urgent Cases)
  Spectacles (Urgent Cases)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MANAGING DIRECTORS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MANAGING DIRECTORS)
  PETROL ALLOWANCES (HIRE CAR)
  PETROL ALLOWANCES (HIRE CAR)
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety Campaign
  Road Safety Campaign
  Coach Facilities, Framlingham
  Coach Facilities, Framlingham
  INLAND REVENUE (PROSECUTIONS)
  INLAND REVENUE (PROSECUTIONS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Leverhulme—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I think I ought to offer a few words of explanation of the reasons for the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It has been the practice in earlier years for the House to order meetings of the House during prorogation for the purpose of hearing and determining appeals. The House may remember that in June last an Order was made referring all appeals to an Appellate Committee for hearing. That Order was limited to the present Session, which, of course, comes to an end with Prorogation. It is not possible on this occasion to order the House to meet as a House for the hearing of appeals, as I understand that the preparations in the Royal Gallery for the State Opening of Parliament will create so much noise during the period of prorogation that the House could not sit in the Chamber we now occupy. I have therefore put down this Motion in order to allow the Appellate Committee to continue to sit in a Committee Room for the purpose of hearing appeals during that period. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in pursuance of the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and the order of this House of the 1st June last, leave be given to the Appellate Committee to meet after the prorogation of Parliament for the purpose of hearing such appeals as have been referred to them.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

REPAINTING OF TRAINS
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the desirability of curtailing expenditure at the present time, any directions are to be issued to the Railway Executive with regard to their programme for repainting trains in new colours.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, this is a matter for the British Transport Commission. I have referred it to them and they will no doubt get in touch with the noble Lord.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not a mistake to paint too many trains red, in case that colour is not favoured by a future Government?

SHIPS FOR STORAGE
2.36 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state how many tankers are now being used for the storage of oil or motor spirit; how many ships and their tonnage now being used for the storage of refrigerated meat; how long these ships have been requisitioned and on what terms; and for how long it is anticipated that they will be required.]
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, only three very old Government-owned tankers have been used for the storage of oil for Government purposes. I understand that British-controlled oil companies also use a few old tankers for the storage of their oil. All these vessels are quite unsuitable for other purposes. No tankers are under requisition. There are eleven ships, the gross registered tonnage of which is nearly 86,000 tons, at present being used as refrigerated storage for 38,000 tons of meat. These ships have not been requisitioned, but have been chartered for a period of three months with power for

1521
extension by mutual agreement amongst the parties, at a monthly cost of £3 10s. 0d. per 100 cubic feet of refrigerator space. They will be ready for redelivery during January and February, 1950.
EARL HOWE: I am not clear whether the noble Lord gave me any figure for tankers. With regard to the use of refrigerator ships for meat storage, would the noble Lord not agree that the use of these ships ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible, since it is a most uneconomic way of using merchant ship tonnage?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In reply to the first part of the noble Earl's supplementary question, the number is three. I gave this number in my reply. With regard to the second part, that matter is under consideration. As I said in my reply, these ships will be ready for re-delivery during January and February, 1950—the near future.

DURATION OF WAR-TIME CONTROLS
2.38 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can indicate which wartime controls they intend or expect to terminate before the next General Election.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the noble Earl's question presents an equation containing, several variables and I fear that its solution at the moment is beyond me. I can, however, say that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, while maintaining those basic controls which are essential for our economic recovery, for industrial efficiency, or for full employment, to relax or eliminate any controls which are not essential to secure proper distribution of materials which are still scarce. Many relaxations have already been announced in accordance with this policy, and the process of reviewing the controls and weeding out those which need no longer be retained continues all the time.

GROUND-NUTS AND OIL SEEDS SCHEME
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON rose to call attention to Government plans for the production of ground-nuts and other oil seeds; and to move resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is essential that there should be an independent expert inquiry into the operations of the Overseas Food Corporation in Tanganyika with special reference to the future. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in this tangled story of the Tanganyika experiment, as disclosure succeeds disclosure and as resignations and dismissals succeed each other, I think there is a risk of the traveller getting; lost in the bush and failing to see the wood for the trees. I hope to-day, therefore, to try to put the matter in a true and fair perspective. From time to time before the Food Corporation made its Report Mr. Strachey made a series of optimistic but I think not very informative speeches; and now Mr. Strachey has "softly and silently vanished away" having cancelled all his engagements. I hope that the First Lord, who, I understand, is to speak immediately after me, will be able to give the House the reason and purpose of this sudden and unexpected journey.
The circumstances, certainly, were very unusual. The new Deputy-Chairman of the Corporation had just returned from East Africa. After a short and, I am sure, deserved rest, he was looking forward to meeting the Minister and reporting on his tour. The last thing the Deputy-Chairman expected (indeed, I think he said so) was that the Minister should suddenly play Box and Cox with him and fly away as soon as the Deputy-Chairman had flown home. "Curiouser and curiouser," why did not the Minister, in this sudden flight, take with him the Chairman of the Corporation—the Chairman upon whom he relies so completely, the Chairman in whom he has such complete confidence, the Chairman in whom, as he told another place last month when refuting charges made from the Liberal Benches there, the executive staff in East Africa had assured the Minister they had equal confidence. Will the First Lord to-day in this House confirm the assertion made by the Minister in time other place that the executive staff in East Africa have that confidence in the Chairman? I think

1523
that is a fair question which demands a straight answer.
In any event, why did the Minister embark on this sudden Odyssey at all? There must have been some new development, some very special reason. The departure itself was very hush-hush; I understand that the place in the aircraft was taken in an assumed name. But however hush-hush the Minister's movements may have been, I think there can be no security objection to the First Lord telling your Lordships to-day why the Minister has gone. Before the Report came out we knew that the Government had spent £20,000,000 or more, and were on their way to spending another £8,000,000 or £9,000,000. In these circumstances, the Report of the Corporation was anxiously awaited and now it is in our hands. I am sure your Lordships have studied it.
The first thing we all naturally looked at in this Report was the accounts. Your Lordships will remember that the Overseas Resources Development Act, which was passed early in 1948, lays down in Section 16 that the Corporation are to keep proper accounts and that in the keeping of those accounts and their presentation the Corporation must conform to the best commercial standards. When we look at the accounts, which your Lordships will find on pages 66 and 67, we are faced with an auditors' certificate such as I think none of your Lordships could parallel in any responsible public company. May I read it to the House? The auditors, a distinguished firm, write this:
"We are unable to report that, in our opinion, proper hooks of account have been kept by the Corporation and that we have obtained all the information and explanations which, to the best of our knowledge and belief, were necessary for the purpose of our audit."
In the case of any ordinary public company, under the Companies Acts, a qualification by the auditors on a balance sheet in those terms, or even in more moderate terms, would certainly cause the company to be investigated by the companies department of the Board of Trade. Is it surprising that there is to-day such a wide demand for an inquiry into this Corporation and their activities?
When one turns to the Report, it makes as sorry reading as does the balance sheet. Expenditure is as vast as results are meagre. I observe that Mr.
1524
Strachey in a recent speech—I think not in another place but on a public platform—sought to draw the parallel of the Welsh Steel Company. He said, in effect: "How unfair and unreasonable it would be if this great steel company had spent millions of pounds in erecting a great plant and no steel was as yet forthcoming! You would not blame it." Surely that analogy is hardly accurate. If that steel company had built its works in the wrong place, and if it had ordered the wrong sort of plant, then I think the shareholders of the company would have been rightly critical, and probably the chairman would have got the sack. The Minister seeks to excuse this rushed expenditure on so vast a scale because he said he had to get ground-nuts quickly; but he has not done so. There are no ground-nuts—or hardly any. It is very important, as I said, that we should see this matter in its true perspective. The Tanganyika venture must be justified, not as a short-term but as a long-term enterprise—or not at all. For that long-term enterprise, proper surveys and trials were essential. For a short-term plan of quick production, Tanganyika was a bad bet and an unnecessary gamble. If quick extra production was needed, the obvious place to go to was Northern Nigeria. I speak now in the presence of perhaps the greatest Governor that Nigeria has ever had. I shall be most interested to hear—I have had no consultation with him—whether the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, agrees with what I am going to say. No one could speak with higher authority.
Nigeria and French Senegal have always been the great producers of ground-nuts in Africa. The soil is right. There is a large population accustomed to growing hundreds of thousands of tons of ground-nuts as a peasant crop. In Nigeria there is an admirable railway running up to Kano and running out from Kano through Katsina right up to Sokoto which serves the whole groundnut area. At the end of the railway there are admirable port facilities. There are none in Tanganyika. The port of Lagos, with its deep-water quays, its great cranes, and its large up-to-date port facilities, could take any increase in its stride. That was the place to go for a quick, increased production. I venture to say that £1,000,000 or less spent on artificial manures would have greatly

1525
increased the production in Northern Nigeria on the existing farms. These farmers are skilled people. They are well accustomed to the use of manure. In the city of Kano itself, the whole of the sewage is treated and bagged, and these little farmers of the Kano province vie with one another to buy this manure and put it on their soil. They would have welcomed the chance of using artificials.
Then there is the French Niger Colony adjoining. That exports through Kano 30,000 or even 40,000 tons, all of which comes down as a matter of course to the Kano rail-head. I have no doubt that that could have been expanded too. If further production were needed, you have only to pass across into the adjoining Province of Bornu, an orchard bush country where clearance would be relatively easy. It is a cattle country where there is food for the people, which is free from the tsetse fly and where it would have been the easiest thing in the world, if it were necessary, to construct a spur line from the Kano railhead. But I do not believe you would have needed that; the roads would have been sufficient. During the last war, when I was the responsible Minister out there, we carried on those roads vast quantities of petrol much longer distances right on to Maidougari, to the great airfield at Maidougari in the eastern corner. It was petrol which serviced thousands and thousands of aeroplanes every month. Instead of going into Nigeria and intensifying production in Nigeria, where the people would have been only too anxious to help, large accumulations of groundnuts were left on the ground because the rolling stock had not been ordered in time. What a glaring example that is of the lack of co-ordination between the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Food! I go further and say: What a glaring example of the subordination of the Colonial Office to the Ministry of Food in the Colonial Office's own territories!
Here for one moment I must pause to deal with the rather odd intervention of Dr. Dalton in this controversy. My Lords, naturally extravagance on this vast scale struck a sympathetic chord in the doctor's breast and so he generously entered the fray. At Darlington on November 20 last, he is reported to have said:
1526
"The Tories have talked of vast pyramids of ground-nuts lying idle in West Africa."
He says that the reason for that was the, of the British iron and steel industry to provide steel for railways and rolling stock for the transport of groundnuts. I think Mr. Strachey (himself, I fancy, a scholar of Eton) must have exclaimed "non tali auxilio." Of course, Dr. Dalton's explanation was as untrue as it was extravagant. Everybody knows that the steel industry has exceeded every target set by the Government. The only reason why the rolling stock was not there was because the Government failed to order the engines and rolling stock which they knew were necessary in 1945. I think Lord Milverton was still Governor at the time the Nigerian Railways had tabled their detailed requirements in 1945. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have given the orders on a priority basis. The amount of steel, of course, was relatively very small. Here was the short-term solution ready to hand. We should have been continuing the wartime effort. Millions of people in Nigeria—Emirs, chiefs, peasant farmers—only waited the call and the encouragement. There was, therefore, no need to rush the Tanganyika project and, by so doing, to prejudice the proved experience in Nigeria. Nor is there any excuse for the reckless and wasteful expenditure which has taken place.
My Lords, the Report itself, the apologia of the Corporation, shows on almost every page how costly and disastrous has been this lack of preliminary surveys and proper pilot experiments in clearing the land, and growing and harvesting ground-nuts. Let me take but a few examples, although one can multiply them from almost every page. In paragraph 34, the Corporation, through the Chairman, say that the ground proved unexpectedly untractable. Then I call your Lordships' attention to these words:
"Unfortunately, the roots of the Kongwa thorn proved unduly obstinate."
My Lords, what a revealing statement! Then a few paragraphs further on, in paragraph 73, we find this:
"Through abrasiveness of the soil in dry weather, the wear on machines was very rapid."
Then in paragraph 76, we find that the cost of clearing was ten times the original

1527
estimate. I must refer your Lordships to paragraph 76, which says:
"The original White Paper estimate of the cost of clearing per acre was £3 17s. 4d.; in the first year, the comparable cost of clearing an acre was calculated as being ten times this figure. Much of the difference was due to the tasks proving more difficult than was anticipated. Other reasons for the disparity were the lack of experience in African bush clearing."
Why were you not conducting a pilot experiment before you spent twenty million pounds? I quote further:
"The unserviceable condition of the heavy tractors."
Tractors not tried out. No repair shops were established to repair them. The Report goes on:
"The lack of proper equipment to deal with the peculiar root system at Kongwa."
Why did you not investigate it to find out whether it was peculiar or ordinary? It goes on:
"Windrowing flattened bush when green and so bulldozing an excessive quantity of soil into the windrows, and root ripping in the height of the dry season, with resultant wear and tear on moving parts."
These were difficulties which were, of course, going to be encountered. The charge here to-day is: Why did you spend £30,000,000 in going into this unknown country, when you ought to have proved these difficulties and found out whether it was an economic proposition, and whether you had an answer to these things or not?
Then one finds one more quotation in Paragraph 63, where it says that the majority of the Valencia nuts remained in the ground and could be harvested only by hand gleaning. There have been people who say that unless the soil is light and sandy—and this soil when it cakes is as hard as a billiard table—the only effective way of growing ground-nuts economically is as a cottage crop. I do not know about that, but the experiment should have been made; it should have been proved before these millions and millions of the taxpayers' money were poured out. But all this vast expenditure was undertaken before any of these necessary experiments were made. No proper water surveys were made before the settlements were sited and largely built. If your Lordships look at paragraph 186 you will see that even to-day, in spite of pipelines and a costly tanker service, the
1528
Kongwa township is restricted for water to nine hours a day. It has been alleged—and I ask the noble Viscount if it is true—that the carriage of water to Kongwa is costing sixpence a gallon.
Then there is the extraordinary story of the sawmill in the southern area. Is it not a fact that a second sawmill (there was already one there) was erected at a cost of £250,000, in an area in which the Tanganyika Forestry Service had decided long, before that the timber was not worth exploiting? Is it not a fact that if that sawmill worked to capacity the timber would be exhausted within two years? But as a final excuse for it, it is said that it is so valuable because the sawmill—which certainly need not have been on that scale; I understand it is running only one day a week—will cut timber for the construction of the local township. I ask this question: Does even that excuse hold good to-day? Is it or is it not the fact that, because it is unsuitable for lack of water or some other reason, in all probability the site is going to be changed and that the southern headquarters may be twenty or thirty miles away? If so, that argument no longer holds. May I put a question about the contractors? The expenditure on contractors seems to be very lavish. Is it true that all these contractors are on a time-and-line, or cost-plus, basis, so that the higher the cost, the larger the profit?
My Lords, Kongwa, where all this money has been spent, is now to be limited to 90,000 acres. You will find that stated in paragraph 143 of the Report. The contractors are being given notice to discontinue. We are to concentrate in the southern province, and we are told—I daresay the decision was quite a right one—that this is the result of experience at Kongwa. I have tried to see how dearly that experience has been bought, what these 90,000 acres at Kongwa have cost so far. The Schedules on pages 70 to 74 of the Report give part of the cost. If you take buildings, land clearing and agricultural equipment, vehicles, plant, machinery and stocks attributed in the Report to Kongwa, these alone total no less than £3,600,000. But that is not all. To this must be added some part—and I ask the noble Viscount if it is not a major part—of the figure of £9,000,000 which appears in the balance sheet for development and land clearance. These figures are figures of the cost for

1529
Kongwa to only the date of the Report—last March—when the whole of the 90,000 acres had not been cleared. Since then further large expenditure has been and will be incurred, in order to get the full area of 90,000 acres.
When this expenditure was undertaken at Kongwa, there must have been some estimate of what the Kongwa acreage would be. No one in their senses—and I would almost say no one out of their senses either—would have dreamt of anything like that expenditure of millions and millions of pounds to get 90,000 acres. What was the acreage which the Corporation envisaged for this vast expenditure? They must know, and we are entitled to know also. Will the Government tell me this? How much has been spent at Kongwa, the only asset for which is the 90,000 acres? However defective the accounting system may be, the Government must know approximately how much they have spent on Kongwa. I ask that we should know it too. And do we even yet know that Kongwa can produce ground-nuts commercially? Is it or is it not true that this Kongwa area may have to be wholly or mainly pastoral?
To sum up, let me compare the figures of the prospectus with the performance (not accomplished, for nothing like this has been accomplished) which is now hoped for—what I might call the substitute prospectus. According to the original prospectus, expenditure of £24,000,000 or £25,000,000 would give 3,000,000 acres to 3,250,000 acres of cleared land. That is in the Blue Book. Now it is hoped that an expenditure of £50,000,000 will give 600,000 acres of cleared land; in other words, one-fifth the acreage at double the capital cost. I wonder what would be said of a private company which had such a record. Mr. Strachey talks about reconstruction as if it were a normal thing every company ought to go through. I thought this was a new model. What would be said of any private enterprise which had to come to its shareholders and say: "We must give you a new prospectus—one-fifth of what we promised or hoped for, or led you to expect, at twice the capital cost"? Even if 600,000 acres are won at this cost in clearance and capital works of all kinds, what guarantee is there that ground-nuts can be grown commercially?
I particularly ask the attention of the Government to these propositions. I do not put them forward without having taken very expert advice. I challenge the Government to deny these propositions, which go to the root of the matter and are the acid tests. I want the opinion of the agricultural experts known on this matter. My propositions are these. The first is that you do not really know to-day in any of these areas what you can grow commercially or on what scale. My second preposition is that you do not know yet whether you can cultivate this land economically by mechanical means to grow ground-nuts. My third proposition is that you do not know whether, if you can grow ground-nuts, you can harvest them effectively on these soils by mechanical means. These are fundamental questions questions which the pilot experiments should have answered before millions of pounds were spent.
It so happens, that I have just seen in to-day's issue of The Times a letter from Mr. Rosa, which no doubt many of your Lordships have read and which entirely confirms the propositions which I have just put. Let me read one extract from that letter:
"Large-scale operations carried out at speed are doomed to costly failure, as past experience has shown, and for the same reasons as in the past."—
I invite particular attention to this—
"that the answers are not yet known to the two vital questions of how to clear bush cheaply and quickly and how to make these large-scale agricultural operations economic."
Now we are asked to rush ahead. Nearly £30,000,000 has been spent, a further £20,000,000 is being drawn on. Was there ever a case on the proved facts where there is greater need for preliminary effective pilot experiments before we engage in more large-scale expenditure? Was there ever a case where there is greater need for an expert, impartial inquiry as to what the real situation is today, and what we should do in the future? It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government do not welcome this inquiry. Mr. Strachey says that he has confidence in the reconstituted Board and the Chairman. After what has happened, I think he must be about the only man who has. And what confidence can we have in Mr. Strachey?
It may be thought that I am a prejudiced critic, but I do not think that any spokesman of the Government will challenge the premises which I have advanced to-day and upon which my argument is based. Let me quote a critic who is certainly not biased against the Government, one of great repute whom they have often cited in this House in their own defence. I quote an article from The Economist for November 26. In it these words occur:
"Mr. Strachey permits the independent observer to draw only one conclusion, namely, that he would rather cling to office even if it means performing every doubtful mental antic that a highly educated intellectual can devise, and stooping to the ignoble policy of shuffling blame on to subordinates."
It is said, finally, that an inquiry would undermine the morale of the men on the spot. I assert that it would do nothing of the sort. I believe those men would welcome it. Their morale has been sorely tried by the way they have been treated. I am full of admiration and sympathy for these front-line troops. But, I ask, should they ever have been engaged in this particular offensive—this Passchendaele offensive? Certainly they should not have been sent "over the top" without preliminary reconnaissance and with inadequate equipment. Their advice and representations have been ignored. They have been dragooned into silence. Therefore we ask to-day for an impartial expert inquiry. That inquiry would have to deal with the past in so far as it affects the present and the future, but what is vitally urgent to-day is an expert inquiry which by the quality of its personnel and its independence will command confidence, and which should report what the real prospects are and what we can do in future to rescue this ill-starred enterprise. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is essential that there should be an independent expert inquiry into the operations of the Overseas Food Corporation in Tanganyika with special reference to the future.—(Viscount Swinton.)
3.11 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I certainly cannot complain about the approach of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to this question in his speech
1532
this afternoon. I rather expected a demand for heads on a charger, as has been the usual practice of members of your Lordships' House on the opposite Benches, and of members of the Opposition in another place, and I am pleased that we can approach this important matter in a spirit different from that which I had expected. I have felt for some time that many of the points raised in your Lordships' House, and in another place, have seemed more like pre-Election movements than serious attempts to deal with the issues before the House.
Before dealing with the points which have been raised by the noble Viscount, I would like to state my personal interest in this scheme. As noble Lords will remember, I held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time when Mr. Samuel, managing director of the United Africa Company, had the original conception of the scheme. He brought it to the notice of the Minister of Food and myself. I thought at that time, and I still think, that it was a fine and far-reaching conception, worthy of further closer examination. Mr. Samuel was not prompted by any member of the Government to go to Tanganyika, or to submit a scheme at all. But he did, and it was thought worthy of examination. The proposals were worked out and submitted to His Majesty's Government, who agreed with the recommendation, and the Wakefield Mission were appointed to make the necessary inquiries.
In face of the speech of the noble Viscount, I think it is necessary to give a little of the history of this scheme. One would imagine from the remarks which fell from his lips that no preparation was made. I would that he and your Lordships' House would understand the circumstances of the situation. There was a great shortage of fats. In this country alone, apart from the other countries of the world, the shortage in 1945–46 was equivalent to 1,250,000 tons of nuts. Indeed, in a speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Overseas Resources Development Bill the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said the scarcity of fats amounted to the equivalent of 4,000,000 tons. It was under circumstances such as these that His Majesty's Government considered the scheme, after it had been inquired into by the Wakefield Mission. That Mission was made up of

1533
men who had great experience in Africa. Mr. Wakefield himself had spent sixteen years of his life in Tanganyika, dealing with agricultural problems. Mr. Martin was the plantations director of the United Africa Company. Mr. Rosa, a person to whom reference has been made by the noble Viscount, was a Colonial servant, and a very good one. These three men were sent out to Africa, and they brought back a report which far exceeded the report originally submitted by Mr. Samuel. In his report Mr. Samuel estimated that something like 2,500,000 acres of land in Tanganyika could be used for the purpose of growing ground-nuts. The report submitted by the Wakefield Mission suggested that 3,250,000 acres of land in Tanganyika could be used for growing ground-nuts.
As the Government were not entirely satisfied with the findings and the recommendations of the Wakefield Mission, the report was submitted to the Colonial Economic Advisory Committee, a committee of distinguished persons who had considerable experience in industry. Its members included Sir Frank Stockdale, now the late Sir Frank Stockdale, a distinguished Colonial agriculturist—indeed, I do not think that any better Colonial agriculturist lived in his day. The Advisory Committee strongly advised that the recommendation of the Wakefield Mission should be adopted—it is true that they warned of certain difficulties that might arise—and after discussion the Government accepted their advice, though being themselves of the opinion that the scheme would probably have to be revised because of difficulties which were likely to arise. In circumstances such as these, the Government took a risk; but it was a risk that any Government would have taken. Not only did the Government take that risk, but the whole scheme was submitted to Parliament. Parliament accepted that the recommendation should be worked out and operated, that a public corporation should be set up—as was in fact done—and not a single person in your Lordships' House or in another place raised any objection to the scheme. The noble Viscount himself on two occasions during the course of one of his speeches said that he wished this scheme every success. I want to be fair to him: he did say that he doubted how soon nuts would be produced, and I think
1534
he said that a nut in the basket was better than a nut in Africa, or something of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in an excellent speech—I think it was his maiden speech—took no exception at all to the scheme. Indeed, the basis of the scheme itself was that Tanganyika was to be the Colony where this scheme should be tried out.
It has been said that everything was rushed. It is true that His Majesty's Government felt there was some urgency about commencing the plan and putting it into operation. What did His Majesty's Government do? I think they did the right thing. They did not wait for the Corporation to be set up, but asked the United Africa Company whether they would act as managing agents. The "United Africa" is a name to be conjured with in Africa; it is an organisation which has done an enormous amount of work. It cannot be said that that company has had no experience in dealing with the agricultural problems there—not so much on the productive side, it is true, but on the buying and sales side. For sixteen months this company undertook the responsibility. The Corporation did not come into existence until twelve or fifteen months afterwards. So, for the first year or fifteen months, it was the United Africa Company, the managing agents of the Government, who undertook the responsibility of dealing with the initial problems. I am not going to lay any blame at the door of the United Africa Company. They were faced with a very difficult job. Here were miles and miles of bush—I think it may be said, thousands of square miles. They went into Tanganyika (not that they did not know Tanganyika and the soil) and went, of course, to the Governor. Certain sites were suggested, and the Governor—again, I have no doubt, advised by his agricultural adviser—seleted this site of Kongwa.
I am not going to refer at great length to what happened during the course of that sixteen months. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to the cost-plus basis of contractors' prices. I had quite a lot to do with the cost-plus question during the period of the war, and I know what it means. I do not know whether any other system could have been adopted in the early stages of the scheme for the clearing of the, bush. It is true that the managing agency had to collect

1535
a considerable amount of material. They had their organisation not only in Africa but in other parts of the world, and there was a considerable amount of surplus war material which became available at the time. The result was that they were able to collect a considerable amount of machinery, some of which was good and some not so good. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, referred to a battleship scraper the other day. I made inquiries about that, because I wondered how it got there. The secret of it was that it was in a dump which was purchased. Everything in the dump had to be taken, and that was included as part of the bargain.
There were the difficulties. I thought the noble Viscount was a little hard upon the Corporation, because the Corporation has been in existence for only about twenty months.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is it not a fact that, though the Corporation took over in February, 1948 (I think it was), the chairman-designate, and the General who is now the chief executive on the spot—I forget his name—went out in the autumn of 1947?
VISCOUNT HALL: That may be so, and I have no doubt that they had consultations. But they did not undertake the responsibility. The responsibility of the managing agency was handed over on February 29, 1948. Until that time the responsibility was with the managing agency.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And the Minister.
VISCOUNT HALL: And the Minister. But I dare say the Minister left the matter very largely to the men on the spot. The question has arisen as to why Nigeria was not chosen—I certainly know the value of the ground-nut crop there.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount unnecessarily, but I want him to deal with the proposition which I put, and not the one he is putting. What I said was that Nigeria should have been used for quick development, to get ground-nuts quickly, while the pilot experiments were being carried out in Tanganyika.
VISCOUNT HALL: I hope the noble Viscount will allow me to deal with the matter in my own way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: So long as the noble Viscount answers the case that is put.
VISCOUNT HALL: I was going to attempt to answer the case. I do not want the noble Viscount to come across to this side and answer his own case, as it appears he would like to do. Take the position in Nigeria. Tanganyika has a population of 6,000,000 people, and Nigeria a population of 20,000,000 to 22,000,000. No large-scale experiment could be tried—indeed, no large-scale experiment was submitted from Nigeria, not even under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act. If Nigeria could produce additional ground-nuts to those which she was producing, then it was for Nigerian Government to make the approach to His Majesty's Government. When I was at the Colonial Office I sent a request to Nigeria, in common with other African territories, begging of them to produce as much of the necessary fats for export purposes as it was possible to produce. Nigeria did respond to that, but there was no suggestion—I know the limitation of the railway, and the difficulty about locomotives—that assistance anything like the scale of this scheme, or indeed any assistance under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act, should be given to her.
I am not complaining. Nigeria has made a magnificent contribution to the ground-nut problem, and even at the present time is sending something like 350,000 tons of nuts. We wanted nuts from whatever part of the world we could get them. A very large proportion of our imports came from India. For the seven years from 1938 to 1945, the average imports of ground-nuts from India amounted to no less than 518,000 tons: in 1947 it was 12,000 tons and this year it is less than 1,000 tons. That is an indication of the seriousness of the position, and wherever ground-nuts could have been grown, provided there were the necessary facilities to bring them down to the port, then every effort should have been made in the territories to grow ground-nuts.
The noble Viscount dealt with the estimated cost of clearing the bush. As he said, it is true that the actual cost of clearing the bush is something like ten times that of the estimate. But who gave the estimate? The estimate was prepared by the Mission. I think most people,

1537
particularly agriculturists in our own country, were rather surprised at the very low estimate. I am not speaking as an agriculturist, but I doubt very much whether land in this country from which trees have been removed could be cleared, with even the most modern equipment, at anything like £3 17s. 0d. an acre. It is true that the price was about £30 an acre, but it has been reduced from £30 to about £14 an acre, and it is hoped that the cost will come below even that figure. The noble Viscount also asked me about the sawmill. I have made some inquiries about that, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give him a reply. There is some difference between the figures which he mentioned and the figures that I have been given, but the difference is so marked that we have asked the Minister of Food, whilst he is out in Africa, to furnish us with accurate information, both with regard to the site and with regard to the cost of this saw mill.
The noble Viscount then referred to the possible abandonment of Kongwa, and asked why the headquarters were placed there. The noble Viscount is quite right in saying that, so far as Kongwa and the other northern site is concerned, they will each be limited for the time being to something like 90,000 acres of crop area. In the southern region it is hoped that by next year we shall have nearly 100,000 acres under crop.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Under groundnuts?
VISCOUNT HALL: Ground-nuts and sunflowers—it will be a rotation crop—and possibly a certain amount of maize.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: A two years' rotation only?
VISCOUNT HALL: I am afraid the noble Viscount "has me beat" there. I could not say whether it is a two or a three years' rotation, but it is now deemed necessary to have this rotation of crops, and it is to be carried out on all these cleared lands. It will mean that by 1953 there will be 400,000 acres cleared in the southern area, 100,000 acres in Kongwa and 100,000 acres in Urambo. At that time there will be a thorough examination of the situation.
1538
The noble Viscount dealt with the accounts. One is bound to admit, when one reads the Report, that the auditors' certificate is very disconcerting. I do not know that it is a subject for hilarity.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not joking about it—I think it is awful.
VISCOUNT HALL: But it was an example which, unfortunately, was followed by what was regarded as a very efficient company. The managing agents said that the Corporation took over a situation which gave rise to a considerable amount of concern, and I think that, on the whole, a year was scarcely sufficient time to clear up the muddle which existed when the Corporation took over. Now, whatever the views held by noble Lords opposite, I believe it can be said that the Chairman of the Corporation, Sir Leslie Plummer, with the Corporation and the staff, have done a fine job. His drive and enthusiasm, with the assistance of his colleagues, have carried the scheme forward. They have had a very difficult task. A thought should be given to the conditions under which the Corporation took over twenty months ago. They inherited a legacy from the managing agency which carried a heavy responsibility. I cannot at this stage go into the rights and wrongs of whether the previous mistakes and muddle could have been avoided. There is no doubt that the managing agents had a difficult task, but it remains true that they handed over the work to the Corporation with many of the worst problems unsolved and with a very inadequate accounting system.
I am not going to deal with the accounts, because the balance sheet has made them quite clear. The noble Viscount, I know, intends to press this point and he has pressed very strongly for an inquiry. But what does he hope to gain by an inquiry? And what form is the inquiry to take? Es it to investigate what has happened in the past? If so, all the information on that matter is contained in the Report, including (on page 75), a very frank letter written by Mr. Webster, a director of the United Africa Company, giving his view of the situation. If the noble Viscount wants an inquiry to deal with the future, my right honourable friend in another place has explained the programme of the Corporation; and the

1539
Corporation intend to carry out that programme. So far as accounts are concerned, when this matter was debated in another place the Minister of Food said that if there were any need for a further inquiry into the accounts the Public Accounts Committee, which is a very competent Committee, is fully empowered to examine the accounts and to send for persons and papers. I understand that this Committee have already commenced an examination. No, my Lords, we have no need for an inquiry, and His Majesty's Government have no intention of setting one up. The project has not gone according to plan. It has had to pause in order further to examine the situation. I am sure there is no one who would wish that this great project would come to an end just because it has run into difficulties. This has been described as a pioneering venture. What that means is that the best way of doing things must be learned from experience. There is no one who knows anything like as much of the work that is going on in Tanganyika as the people who are working there. What a futile business it would be to ask the experts to undergo an inquiry by people who must inevitably be far less versed in the difficult jobs which they are carrying out in East Africa! An inquiry would have the most unsettling effect on the men who are doing the job, and doing it remarkably well.
His Majesty's Government have reaffirmed their belief in the scheme and have strengthened the hand of the Corporation's Chairman, in whom they have the fullest confidence. The appointment of Sir Eric Coates, who is highly efficient and has a fine record of public service, and Sir Donald Perrott, who is also well known, has strengthened the Board. Our concern now is to restore that confidence in the scheme which has been shared by nearly all of those who have been connected with it from the start, and which has, unfortunately, often been weakened by so much political and ill-informed criticism. For it is a fact that these repeated political attacks on the carrying out of a project which carries the support of all Parties have made difficult the successful development of the enterprise. There was no disagreement with the ideas and ideals of this scheme, and it ill befits noble Lords opposite to carry out this campaign because those
1540
who have undertaken the difficult task of initiating this project have run into difficulties.
The noble Viscount asked me about the Minister's visit. He thought there was something mysterious about it. There is nothing at all mysterious about it. It was felt by Mr. Strachey that a visit from him would be very timely—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: When did he get this feeling?
VISCOUNT HALL: Some time before Saturday. The reason for the visit was, I think, obvious. All these comments and hostile statements are calculated to cause misgiving among the people out there who are doing the job under exceedingly difficult circumstances. The Minister has thought it right to go out to East Africa to reassure the staff there that the Government are determined to carry on with the scheme on the lines announced in another place on November 21, and which I confirm to-day. I am glad to say that the latest telegram which has been received from him is very reassuring as to the staff and their morale.
There is one point which I have been asked to make clear. It is a point which the noble Viscount mentioned, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I deal with it. The Minister of Food has asked me to submit the matter to your Lordships so that it can be cleared up. On November 21 the Minister of Food said in another place that on his visit to Africa last June he had been careful to interview privately and alone the senior members of the executive, and to ask them their opinion and attitude, and that their replies had not borne out the allegations made by the Opposition speakers that there was a general lack of confidence in the Chairman and in the leadership of the Corporation. The Minister realises that people outside Parliament and in East Africa might have read this statement as an assertion that he had solicited a positive expression of confidence in the Board and the Chairman of the staff in East Africa. This was certainly not what the Minister wished to convey. He would not, of course, have put a direct question to the staff in the form "Have you confidence in the Board and Chairman of the Corporation?" It would have been quite wrong for him to do that, and I do not suppose there was any misconception in another place on this point. If

1541
there has been a misunderstanding, the Minister regrets it and will certainly be prepared to make his statement more precise. His object was to ascertain the general condition of the morale of the organisation, and he took a full note of a meeting with the executives and the Chairman collectively in which Professor Phillips expressed himself along the following lines. Although there had been a period of strain, things were settling down considerably. The men were realising that the management were not rushing ahead regardless. They were trying to think and plan. Previously people were sceptical about statements which had been made by the management. In the Southern Province people felt that the sound planning was going ahead. At Urambo the spirit was excellent—it had always been good there. There had been a general improvement at Kongwa. As the management settled down to plan with a clear consistency of purpose, morale would continue to improve. The management were agreed that it was works and works alone which made morale. He thought that if the Minister could make a definite statement about continuity of employment, the improvement in morale over recent months would continue steadily. Mr. Raby expressed views which are similar to those which were expressed by Professor Phillips.
It is too early to say whether, even by 1954, some capital reconstruction will have to take place. The Minister of Food has rightly pointed out that if the scheme is to pay it will depend upon the price of ground-nuts and other crops which will be grown in Tanganyika. I believe the cost of ground-nuts is higher to-day than it ever was it is up to an average of about £50 a ton—about £20 a ton higher than it was in 1946. The Corporation are determined to make this scheme efficient, but the fact is that we need more food, and even if it turned out that we had to subsidise the agricultural land in Tanganyika, this in itself would surely not make the project wrong. Would it be any different from the policy of subsidising our own home agricultural products? I feel that noble Lords will have no doubt about the rightness of that policy. As I said earlier on, I regard the Tanganyika scheme as a fine and far-sighted conception.
1542
The scheme will not only bring benefits to this country; it will bring untold benefits to the lives of the Africans and through them to the whole world, which will be the richer from their higher standard of living. I have seen questions asking whether the money which has been spent in East Africa on the ground-nuts scheme is going to be spent in the way best calculated to help the native population. I can say emphatically "Yes." This scheme will provide what the people of all nations need most. It will also provide for the Africans a means to help themselves to a better standard of life, where they will not have to see their children suffer starvation and disease, where they can learn to produce their physical needs with implements suited to the conditions, and where they will learn slowly but surely the happiness which comes from getting things, not by receiving good at the hands of others, but by exerting themselves. The contribution that this country is making will give the Africans a start in the right direction. Let them benefit by the use of our experience in mechanisation and organisation. It is a fine conception that, by helping the Africans in this way, we help ourselves and the other people of the world.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, may I ask one question of the Minister? When he referred to £50 a ton as the price of ground-nuts, was he referring to some local price in Tanganyika, or to a world price or to the price we pay in England? Because my information is very different.
VISCOUNT HALL: No, I referred to the average price at which they are bought in this country.
LORD HAILEY: In this country?
VISCOUNT HALL: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The world price?
VISCOUNT HALL: Yes. It is the average. It varies between two different levels, but the average is about £50 a ton.
3.55 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I had no intention of dealing with Nigeria this afternoon because I had hoped to put forward—and I still intend to—a rather different point of view. This will take up all the time that I can reasonably

1543
allot to myself in this discussion. But as I have been referred to, and as I am able to say definitely from personal experience what might happen and what did happen in Nigeria, I will begin by saying that I fully and entirely endorse everything that was said by the noble mover of the Motion on that subject, as to the potentialities and the failure to make use of Nigeria. I cannot help feeling—I am sorry to introduce that note into this debate—that although the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, talked a great deal about the welfare of the African and the shortage of fats in the world, those considerations are irrelevant to our debate this afternoon. I do not propose to argue the question of the welfare of the Africans. I think we are all in favour of doing what we can for them. The question with which we have to deal is whether this particular experiment in producing fats on a big scale has or has not been properly handled.
Before I pass to that, may I say that it is a matter of common scientific knowledge that, had the British Government, who surely are the source from which that suggestion should have originated, chosen in their need of fats, to spend £1,000,000 on superphosphates for Nigeria, that would have increased the crop by 15 per cent., which on a simple calculation would have meant an increase of 50,000 tons of ground-nuts per annum. As regards Mr. Dalton's false statement (I have no hesitation in describing that quite bluntly as a false statement), when he blamed the iron and steel industry for the failure of the Nigerian railways to remove the nuts, I happened to be there at the time, and I know that the reason was that we could not get the Ministries in London to take any notice of our requirements. I can remember that, simultaneously with the Ministry concerned in London mislaying our indent for a certain number of locomotive spares—for we had sixty locomotives out of action for want of spares (our indent was mislaid in London, not by the Colonial Office but by the Ministry concerned)—I received a message saying that the Prime Minister himself was taking a personal interest and that I must expedite the export of ground-nuts. My reply was that I could not repair the engines with the good wishes of the Prime Minister, and that if I could have only some of the
1544
locomotive spares which one or more authorities of that magnitude could have produced, the matter would have been solved.
May I pass now to deal with the question as I wish to deal with it? I do not wish to say what might have been done in Nigeria. I do not wish to say whether or not the Corporation are a competent body. It is not for me to make those criticisms. I wish to deal with the responsibility of the Minister, which I think is the key point in this matter. I picked up my paper this morning and I saw that according to the The Times correspondent, Mr. Strachey had made a statement in Nairobi that he had gone out there in order to improve the morale of all classes of employees of the Corporation. I should have thought that anything more calculated to have the reverse effect than a visit from Mr. Strachey could not be imagined. I should have thought that by staying in London and announcing either his own resignation or that the Government had decided to take the management of this scheme out of his hands and place it in more competent hands, he would have done far more to stimulate morale. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sitting opposite will try to reprove me for lack of Liberal principles.
LORD STRABOLGI: Lack of any principles.
LORD MILVERTON: Doubtless the noble Lord is a very good judge of that.
But may I digress for a moment, to speak of Mr. John Morley, whose Liberalism I suppose is beyond question. In speaking to President Theodore Roosevelt on one occasion, Mr. John Morley said:
"To think that I left literature, where there is nothing but the first rate, for politics, where there is nothing but the second best"—
or, shall we say, allowing for devaluation, third rate. That will be the tenor of my remarks this afternoon. However much you may get away with third-rate management in politics you cannot run a big business with third-rate management. It is bound to eventuate in the disaster which has occurred in East Africa. Whatever one's views about the wisdom of our ever having embarked on this scheme or about the way in which it has been conducted, we are now irrevocably committed, and we must do all we

1545
can to ensure its success. But can anyone, least of all the men on the job, have any faith in a scheme, whatever may be the intention of its originators, which has been conducted not as a project for the rapid production of vegetable oils, not even as a piece of general Colonial development, but primarily as a stunt for the glorification of the Minister and the Government? In such circumstances, what chance had the Corporation, or the managing agency before them, to carry out successfully what the country believed to be their task? The failure to realise the Minister's promises and forecasts is surely less a criticism of them than of the flamboyance in the beginning of the ministerial promises!
In the face of this failure the Minister discovered that he had lost confidence in two members of the board of the Corporation. One of the dismissed men, Mr. Wakefield, has publicly stated his case. His statements, which have so far not been denied by the Minister or the Corporation, would suggest that his technical advice, which was presumably the cause of the Minister's lack of confidence, was not so much technically unsound as politically unpalatable. The other dismissed man, Mr. Rosa, has evidently decided not to make public at any rate his defence, which is perhaps hardly necessary since his defence is implicit in the contradictory remarks of the Government's own spokesmen. Speaking in another place, the Minister implied that he had no confidence in Mr. Rosa's ability to clean up the financial and accounting mess, which was presumably the reason for his dismissal. Yet in winding up the same debate, the Government's other spokesman was at some pains to explain that, thanks to the inspiration of the Corporation's Chairman, there was in fact no financial or accounting mess at all. At this point may I ask the Government with all the emphasis at my command, why accounts were not kept? I do not think we have had an adequate answer to that. In my long and considerable experience of spending public money I have never known anything like such recklessness as has been condoned by the Minister of Food.
May I cite one or two more examples? Speaking in another place, the Minister stated that the Corporation inherited from the managing agency a clearing target for
1546
the 1949 planting season of 82,000 acres, which the Corporation thought was too ambitious and brought down to 50,000 acres, a figure which turned out to be within 1,000 acres of the acreage actually cleared. Mr. Wakefield's statements to the Press, which have lever been contradicted, show that the Corporation in fact set themselves a much higher target than 82,000 acres but progressively reduced that target until, at the end of the clearing season, when it was no longer possible to clear any more, 50,000 acres was accepted not as a target but al a fait accompli. There is nothing particularly discreditable to the Corporation in having cleared no more than 49,000 acres in time for the 1949 planting season. But why then attribute to the Corporation a prescience which they did not possess and to which they lay no claim whatever in paragraph 72 of the Annual Repot, where reference is made to this clearing target of 82,000 acres? The Corporation make no reference to having proceeded to reduce the target to 50,000 acres. Why then must the Minister introduce all these unnecessary and quite misleading frills?
Again, when referring to the 49,000 acres which were cleared in the 1949 season, why did the Minister omit to make the very material point that a large part of that acreage (some 23,000 acres, I am informed) required no clearing at all, because there was no bust there? I imagine he felt that the solid achievement which he was describing would then have appeared not quite so solid. Later on in the same speech, the Minister claimed that the Corporation had succeeded in the first year in reducing the cost of clearing from £30 per acre to approximately £14. Where did he get these figures; and how did he get them? I personally do not understand what they can mean. Nowhere in the Corporation's Report can I find these figures mentioned; nor am I surprised at that, for it is claimed that it was not possible to introduce proper cost accounting during that year. Without proper costing how can figures of this kind be obtained? Surely even the Minister would not make so positive a statement on so unrepresentative a basis as mere sample costings or experiments.
Again, if these figures mean anything, they presumably mean the over-all cost of clearing; otherwise, if he wished to be honest, the Minister would have had to

1547
qualify them in some way. Yet I find it hard to believe that the Corporation, which make no such claim, could have reduced to £14 per acre their over-all cost of clearing—by which I mean the direct cost-plus, adequate provision for repair and maintenance, overheads, depreciation and idle time. If one relates this figure of £14 to the tractor performance figures given in paragraph 81 of the Corporation's Report, it will be found that the operating cost works out at 52s. per tractor hour. Is it likely that heavy tractors, many of them past their prime, can be operated at an over-all rate of 52s. per tractor hour when they are engaged on exacting work of this nature which causes such high tractor mortality, and in a region where the Corporation themselves have to provide all the necessary and very costly repair, maintenance and supporting services? Perhaps the Corporation have discovered not only a new way of clearing bush but also a new and much cheaper way of operating heavy tractors! Yet if that were so, the Minister would hardly have resisted the temptation of claiming credit for so remarkable a discovery because, after all, modesty is one of the few failings with which public opinion would never charge him.
Again in the same speech, no doubt in order to allay widespread and growing uneasiness over the continuing high level of expenditure on the scheme, the Minister said—and this was another strange statement—"All the high initial expenditure has been incurred." This remark, too, bears all the hallmarks of that wishful thinking to which he has accustomed us. Initial expenditure, in this context, clearly cannot mean capital expenditure, for what other than capital expenditure is the heavy expenditure which will still have to be incurred on clearing a further 500,000 acres and on the necessary support installations and services? Presumably his expression "high initial expenditure" must mean expenditure on capital equipment and, possibly, also on non-recurring developmental work. How can this be reconciled with the facts? It has already been officially disclosed that during the eight months since the end of the Corporation's first year further advances have been made to the extent of £8,000,000. The rate of this expenditure—£1,000,000 a month—is only slightly lower than the average for the first
1548
thirteen months of the Corporation's life, and is almost double the average for the managing agency period, the launching period of the project, when "initial expenditure" would obviously play a very important part. What then does the Minister's statement mean? It would seem to mean nothing, which, I venture to suggest, is what it does mean. But it was, nevertheless, designed to divert attention from a very disturbing trend and to induce a belief that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. It is worth noting that none of these exaggerated and misleading statements and claims is contained in the Corporation's own Report. Were they true, surely the Corporation would have used them, for they would have been telling points in their favour. The reason, no doubt, is that these, like so many of the Minister's statements, are merely examples of that poetic licence which he allows himself when dealing with the East African scheme.
There is, admittedly, little object in digging up the past, except to profit by its lessons. But are we learning those lessons? The responsible Minister, in his complacent review in another place, showed no signs of wishing to learn any lessons or even of admitting that he had any to learn. Whatever the reasons may be, whether good or bad, the fact is that the ground-nuts scheme in East Africa has failed dismally up to date to reach its objectives. We are therefore confronted with a new situation. What should the new objectives be, and how best can they be realised? To recognise that the scheme has failed is not to deny any credit to those who work for such attainments as have been made. But I suggest that we should not lose our sense of proportion. Let us forget the original estimates and judge achievement by absolute, and not by comparative standards. By any rational standard, even one that ignores profitability and gives full weight to those advantages, not assessable in terms of money, which flow from developments of this kind, achievement has been distressingly small for the money spent.
Let us not deceive ourselves or he deceived on this point, for deception will render a great disservice to the scheme and will merely discourage all those who are working so hard over there. Of the £23,000,000-odd spent on the scheme to

1549
March 31, 1949, over £9,000,000, less the value of some 50,000 acres of cleared and not very fertile land, had been lost. That a part of this expenditure of £9,000,000 may have been necessary to render possible the creation of the other and more tangible assets is not denied; but the fact remains that this money is represented by no earning asset and is, therefore, lost. It is an alarmingly high proportion of the total expenditure. The remaining assets (approximately £14,000,000), with the exception of such part of the movable plant, equipment, machinery and stores as is realisable, and of a little under £1,000,000, represented by cash, debtors and the investment in Queensland, will also be completely worthless unless the scheme as a whole can be made viable, a stage which is still very far off. That is the problem.
Great play has been made, from time to time, with the fact that the Corporation's expenditure includes the cost or the financing of public works which are of value to the Territory as a whole and not to the Corporation alone. How important financially is this factor? It would seem to me to have been grossly exaggerated. Expenditure on new railways, and the new harbour at Mtwara has been put in the Corporation's balance sheet at just over £953,000. Other public works which might be deemed to be of value to other users as well as to the Corporation are not shown separately but are, presumably, included under the heading of "buildings and installations." Unfortunately, no analysis is given of this item in respect of the Southern Province of Tanganyika, where the heaviest expenditure has been incurred. In the other two areas, Kongwa and Urambo, the net values of air landing strips and roads and bridges total just under £72,000. If the same proportion is applied to the gross figure for the Southern Province, we get a figure of approximately £115,000. So we get a total of about £1,200,000, a part of which must represent items of common user value. This may be a useful contribution to the economy of the Territory, but it does not go far towards explaining away the expenditure of £23,000,000. In the light of these facts, can anyone honestly pretend we have had value for our money?
Supporters of the scheme have sometimes countered criticism by pointing out
1550
that under private enterprise development in these backward countries is bought at the price of a chain of bankruptcies which enable the last person to succeed. Whether or not that is the pattern of development of finance under private enterprise—and I must say that in my experience all over the world it has not been—it is certainly true that any private undertaking which had spent as much as the Corporation and had so little to show for it would have been in the bankcruptcy court long ago. However, it is not too late, even now, to consider dispassionately this problem, a problem which is almost as old as enterprise itself: should we cut our losses or should we put up more money in the hope of bringing the scheme to a self-supporting stage? No one can seriously entertain closing down the scheme at this stage, for, even though financially that might still be the more prudent course, it would be too harmful to Tanganyika, to Colonial development and to Britain's prestige. But if, for these reasons, we are committed to proceeding with the scheme, at least we are entitled to seek an assurance that in the course chosen for the future we have the best one in all the circumstances, and that the additional money will be used to the best advantage. That assurance is altogether lacking. There is no confidence, either public or private in the judgment or the capacity of the present Minister of Food.
The responsible Minister has given in another place a shadowy outline of the plan for the future. He has spoken airily of clearing 600,000 acres by 1954 within the limit of the Corporation's present borrowing powers. But not even he is prepared to say that a project of that size, costing some £50,000,000, would be viable, although he thinks that if all goes well it might be. It is fair enough to argue that no one can forecast with any assurance the Corporation's operating account five years hence, but is it reasonable or even honest to ask the taxpayer to double his stake in this so far most disappointing and speculative venture on nothing more than a general assurance from a Minister all of whose past assurances in this field have been proved wrong by events? I say that it is an insult to Parliament and to the country for a responsible Minister to treat so lightheartedly, and indeed, so frivolously, the expenditure of such vast sums of public money.

1551
When the scheme was first put to Parliament we at least had the original White Paper to support the then anticipated expenditure of £25,000,000. Wrong as those estimates have turned out to be, the White Paper was at least an honest attempt to make available to Parliament a reasoned and reasonably detailed plan based on the fullest data that it had been possible then to assemble. We are now told that a further £25,000,000 is to be spent, and all we are given by way of explanation is a brief outline of a plan and a statement that it is acceptable to the Minister and to the Government. In the light of the same Minister's complete failure in the past to assess or control this situation, I cannot help wondering how even the Government's supporters can so ignore their responsibilities to the people as to accept his vague and unreliable assurances. With the considerable fund of knowledge of operations of this kind which presumably has been built up during the past three years, it should have been possible to-day to prepare a plan based largely on proved achievement, a plan which would stand some chance of realisation. Surely, the Corporation have prepared such a detailed plan for consideration by the Minister; and why cannot that information be made available to Parliament?
In another place, the Government were asked to agree to an investigation into the present position and future plans of the Corporation. The request was made, not with a view to establishing blame for past disasters, not with any desire to embarrass the Government, unless, indeed, the Government or the Minister had something which they wished to conceal; it was intended simply to provide for the impartial and expert "vetting" of the plan for the future. Only thus could Parliament be brought fully into the picture, and only in this way could it reach a judgment in the knowledge of all the material facts. That request was refused. I would ask the Government seriously to reconsider that refusal. It has been argued that an inquiry into the workings of the Corporation would disrupt their work and upset the morale of the staff. That, of course, is pure nonsense. Nothing could be more salutary for the scheme and more fortify-
1552
ing to morale than an impartial inquiry into the present workings of the Corporation and their future plans. Admittedly, any inquiry, however well conducted, will take some of the valuable time of the men on the job. But is this too high a price to pay in order to clear the air of all the ill-founded suspicions, to remove uncertainty about the future of the scheme, and to enable the men on the job for the first time to get down to their tasks without constantly having to look over their shoulders? I should have thought this price well worth paying.
In conclusion, let me say that I think the curse of this scheme—and I feel this should be said—has largely been the initial share-pushing publicity indulged in by the Minister of Food. I can well believe that the Minister in the beginning thought that he could better Omar Khayyam, and presumably his motto was:
"Take the Cash and grab the Credit too,
Nor heed the murmur of a distant Drum."
But he had to come back to the original Omar, and now his motto is:
"Take the Cash and let the Credit go."
And he has been forced to "heed the murmur of a distant Drum," because I gather that the drums of Africa have rather a menacing tone at the present moment, and it is necessary for him to go and do what he can to silence them. This scheme has been, and is likely to remain until an inquiry has cleared it up, the laughing stock of the world. Recently, I was at a country fair in England and was delighted to find a stall where groundnuts were being sold. The man there was inviting his customers to come along. He said: "Come along, come along, buy my ground-nuts; Strachey's best. Most expensive—£29,000,000 a nob." That, I feel, gives the background far better than all these wonderful speeches about welfare, and so forth. No one denies any of the sentiments behind them, but to my mind they are quite irrelevant to this discussion, which is whether or not this scheme can ever prosper under its present auspices, however good the scheme may be. We want this scheme to succeed, and we wish to help it. If we are willing to give it our support, we must know where it is going. If our support is sought, and we are willing to give it, we must demand in exchange frankness from the Minister and from the Government. That we have had from neither of them up to date.
4.32 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, Burke once remarked:
"Men should approach to the faults of the State as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude."
No one could accuse the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, of being a disciple of Burke in that respect. We have had from the noble Viscount quite recently two tremendous philippics, one directed against Lord Pakenham, and one to-day directed against Mr. Strachey. I am wondering if the noble Viscount has his eye upon some third Minister in order to complete his hat-trick.
With regard to this ground-nut scheme, it appears from what has been said to-day that we all, without any distinction of Party, feel great admiration for the conception of the scheme, a conception which is in the greatest of our overseas traditions. I would welcome other similar great ideas in other fields on the part of the Government. Much has been said to-day about those in the held. Again we all appreciate the tributes which have been paid to the devotion which they have shown, and are showing, to the furtherance of this scheme. I feel that one result of to-day's debate will be largely to overcome any discouragement they may feel, because it is clear from all the speeches to which we have listened so far that the country, without distinction of Party, is determined that this scheme shall go through: our prestige and our duty to the Africans alike dictate that it shall. I am confident that the scheme will succeed and confound its critics; and believe that we are all at one in this because I have noticed that the Opposition, in another place and here, have not spoken against the scheme itself, but have made only criticisms of its handling in certain respects, which, of course, as an Opposition they are entitled to do.
It is impossible to deny that much has happened which gives ground for criticism. I am one of those who believe that it would have been better if this scheme had been put in charge of the Colonial Office, that Department having the experience, knowledge and personnel for dealing with a great pioneering venture such as this. On that point I am in agreement with the critics. But there is then the question about an inquiry. I am sure that responsible leaders of the Opposi-
1554
tion would agree that an inquiry which developed into a political witch hunt would do far more harm than good—in fact, it would do no good and could do only harm. I should think that great difficulty would be experienced, if an inquiry were set up, in preventing it from developing, little by little, by side issues, into such a witch hunt. I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and once or twice I thought that I detected an undercurrent—I will not say of a personal dislike but a perception of certain defects in the Minister of Food. If an inquiry were set up, I feel that against his better nature, with every intention not to err in this respect, the noble Lord would find it very difficult indeed to prevent his opinion casting itself in favour of a witch hunt.
Let us get this criticism into proper focus. In spite of what the noble Lord said, the scheme is more than a food scheme, and it is more than "humanity and 5 per cent," as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, recently described it. To-day he has described it is a stunt for the glorification of the Government. The noble Lord seems to he unable to make up his mind as to what he does think the scheme is. Those are two different versions of the scheme which the noble Lord has given in the course of a few days. This scheme is a great development project; it is the forerunner of other great economic projects, and above all it is an answer to the African demand for progress.
In their wisdom the Government decided to entrust the execution of the scheme to the Overseas Food Corporation, the Corporation being made responsible to the Ministry of Food. As I have said, I doubt whether that arrangement is a good one. The argument in favour of it is, I take it, that the planning of our economic resources in the Colonies calls for men with experience in business, commerce and industry, of whom the Colonial Office do not at present dispose. Long ago I thought—and I agreed with others who thought—that the Colonial Office should have a Department of Economic Development. We are perhaps sometimes apt to forget that the Colonial Office do for 60,000,000 people in forty different territories what six Ministries do here at home for 47,000,000 people. I believe the task

1555
laid upon the shoulders of the Colonial Office has now become vastly greater than its staff and organisation permit it to discharge effectively. It may have been said that the Overseas Food Corporation was a necessary executive tool for the groundnuts scheme. All the same, I should have liked to see it made responsible to the Colonial Office.
LORD HAWKE: Does the noble Lord mean responsible to the Colonial Office direct, or responsible to the local Governor and through him to the Colonial Office?
LORD WINSTER: Responsible to the Colonial Office.
LORD HAWKE: Does the noble Lord want the local Government to carry it out, or some outside agency of the Colonial Office?
LORD WINSTER: I recognise that the Overseas Food Corporation may have been a necessary executive tool, but I would have liked to see it made responsible to the Colonial Office, instead of to the Ministry of Food.
We have heard again this afternoon the criticism that this scheme should have been launched in West Africa. Here I speak with the greatest possible diffidence in the presence of Lord Milverton, but I was under the impression that the Clay Mission in 1947 examined certain of the unoccupied areas in Northern Nigeria, and that they decided that the mechanised methods necessary in such a scheme would not be voluntarily accepted by the farmers there. But I also understood that nevertheless the Clay Mission did recommend that certain development experiments should be tried out in the Gold Coast and in Nigeria, and that in fact a pilot scheme covering 30,000 acres is in hand at the present moment, although I am sold that no prospects of very rapid progress can be looked for. It was decided that it was Tanganyika which offered the opportunities—a country seven times larger and with a population ten times smaller than Great Britain, and with unoccupied land on a large scale. It was here that the technique of clearance and production in marginal and sub-marginal lands by means of mechanisation and large scale farming had to be mastered. In spite of much that has gone amiss, considerable progress has been made.
1556
As regards finance, what has been done by the provision of services by the Corporation has received rather scant consideration to-day; it has been dismissed rather summarily. There has, of course, clearly been waste and inefficiency—no one could or would wish to deny that. Much of it has been inexcusable, but some has been the legitimate price of gaining knowledge and experience. The question I heard asked this afternoon was: Have we had value for money for this expenditure? I must say that, looking back into history, I wonder whether the original shareholders in the railway projects of this country thought they had had value for their money at the hands of the gentlemen who floated those schemes. The expenditure has included considerable sums for social services and for public works. In East Africa, with hardly any population, and where there is arid bush and no services, the Corporation have necessarily had to bear the charges of establishing services. The Governments concerned could not possibly afford to do so. But, as the scheme progresses, Tanganyika will have the immense benefits of new roads, townships, schools, hospitals, training centres, techniques and organisations. They will have those great benefits which have resulted from the expenditure by the Corporation—benefits which will lead to new and better ways of life and, best of all, will lead to new reserves of trained manpower in those territories. Already new enterprise has been attracted to those territories by the scheme, which is increasing the scope and the tempo of the new development.
This scheme is a witness to the intention of our Colonial policy to give all aid possible to the African peoples to enable them to develop and take their place in the modern world. It is the enlargement of the old régime of law and order to one of social and economic betterment. It aims at raising, broadening and stabilising the lives of the Colonial peoples. Problems of development and land use in Africa must be tackled, and it is also essential to develop a system of mixed farming in contrast to reliance upon one crop. This is necessary because the spectre of starvation hangs over East Africa. The population there has increased by 4,750,000—some 30 per cent.—in eleven years, and the increase threatens to outstrip the

1557
food supply in the course of twenty years. We have largely stabilised African society. We have removed the ravages of internal wars, and by our doing that the population has risen beyond what the primitive agricultural society can feed. That is a situation which duty demands that we should meet. This threat of food shortage, which is a very real threat indeed, can be averted only by transforming these vast sub-marginal lands with thorny scrubs, pests and parasites, into food production areas. It is a matter which concerns not only Africa. The world steadily demands more food, and at the same time the supplies from some sources are steadily diminishing. India, which at one time used to export 1,000,000 tons of fats to this country, is to-day exporting only 200,000 tons. The whole world demands this increase in food production.
I have referred to criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, of the ground-nut scheme, but his criticisms have gone beyond ground-nuts. Discussing the difficulties of the Colonial Office in obtaining recruits for the Colonial Service, he said that it was because no one has any confidence in the way in which the present Government have handled affairs or in their understanding or grip of a situation. I find it very difficult to believe that when parents are considering the future career in life of their children, or when the candidates themselves are doing so, they take the complexion of the Government of the day into active consideration. I think the real difficulty in which the noble Lord finds himself in advancing that criticism, is that in ten years' time we may have a Government in this country of which the noble Lord approves. That Government might find themselves in great difficulties in regard to the Colonial Service because they were short of those recruits which the noble Lord has discouraged from joining the Service. I should have thought that we would have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, after his 39 years in the Colonial Service—a most distinguished service, for which he has received great rewards—words of encouragement to those thinking of entering that great Service. Even I, with my small experience in Cyprus—which I am almost afraid to mention in the presence of
1558
others with so much longer experience in our Colonies—would feel able to encourage young men to enter the Colonial Service, telling them that they have fine prospects ahead of them and a tine life to live while attaining those prospects.
This scheme, hunched in the lonely bush, is already a great influence in East Africa. It is beginning to fill that lack of an artisan community which has held back development of that country. East African Governments deserve great credit for what they have done to provide training facilities to produce African skilled workers. The efforts of those Governments in this (Direction have been fostered and furthered by the Overseas Food Corporation, who have established a large training school. A skilled artisan class will go far to produce a more balanced society in what Mr. Winston Churchill has called "an Eldorado of opportunity," where we are planning to spend immense sums to realise those opportunities. We can feel legitimate pride in the conception ns of partnership with and of duty to the Colonial peoples which now hold the field amongst all political Parties. We have at this moment an enlightened Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has made years of study of Colonial problems and who has been untiring in his travels to the Colonies. And we have two great political Parties at one abet t the broad lines of the political and constitutional approach to our Colonial problems. It is in harmony with all that that we have this ground-nuts scheme, in which we are conducting one of the greatest experiments ever carried out in history. I am confident that it will eventually come to great success and redound immensely to the credit of this country.
4.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to take part in this important debate. I do so because I think it is important that certain things should he said representing what should come from this corner of the House. Indeed, the most reverend Primate himself would have been here to-day but for other engagements, and he has asked me to say something in his stead. I would say clearly that I think that the moral issues behind this debate are of the first importance and cannot

1559
be separated from the general rough-and-tumble of Party politics or from the discussion which has been going in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am a little anxious lest the larger issues should be at all obscured by the economic and political difficulties which have been encountered.
I welcome what was said in the closing remarks of the First Lord, indicating that the Government are not unaware of some of these great moral issues. And I welcome also what fell just now from the noble Lord, Lord Winster. We must not overlook the background of this matter. The set-up of what is happening in Tanganyika is nothing less than a revolution in Africa. What we are doing in Tanganyika in this tremendous groundnut experiment is to accelerate the revolution which was already getting under way. There are now at least 10,000 native Africans working in Kongwa, and nearly as many in the Northern area; and as the scheme develops there will be more and more. I am most anxious that the true welfare of the African should not in any way be left out of sight in this debate. I think it is true to say that there are a great many people outside this House who, when they read the report of this debate, will look eagerly to see whether the House has shown itself really sensitive to these great moral issues which are at stake.
If I may I should like to take up and endorse something which fell further from the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on the food situation. It is often said that one half the world knows very little about how the other half lives. I wonder how many people in our favoured country know, for instance, that there are a thousand million people in the world who cannot read or write; and that a very large proportion of those are either on or just below the hunger line all the time. The chief education officer of the Overseas Corporation made this statement at an interesting conference on rural life in this country and overseas which was held in January of this year:
"Not for a single year in the last twenty years has Tanganyika been able to provide enough food for her small population."
To that I would add what Mr. Wakefield, who was also at that conference, said in his address:
1560
"I finished my Colonial service fearful for the future of Africa: I could see nothing ahead but famine, pestilence, war and disease, and I think that conclusion of mine was shared by 90 per cent. of any thoughtful men who had worked in Africa, whether in Government service or as missionaries, whether they were British or Africans….
I would never have supported the establishment of the ground-nut scheme if I had thought that it was contrary to the welfare of the African. I think it would have been quite immoral for Britain to have set about increased food production at the expense of Africa or the African. If you will read the White Paper you will see the emphasis put on the social aspects of the scheme and the value we put on the human being."
I believe that when the scheme was launched the whole idea of it carried a very great appeal. It is significant that, at the launching of the scheme, there were more than 100,000 offers from men and women to go out and take some part in this great service.
Not a little has passed about this question of morale. I have had the opportunity and privilege in the last few days of reading letters from Tanganyika, from which it emerges that in the early days, at any rate, those men who tackled the job were sustained by a sense of mission, by a vision and an inspiration; and it was in this spirit that they went ahead. There are men out there to-day who will tell you that if it had not been for that kind of spirit they might well have collapsed. My informants also say that prominent among the men who had that kind of vision was Mr. Wakefield himself. I am bound to say that it seems to me that his dismissal has been a blunder of the first magnitude. I feel that it is true to say, here again, that there are many people outside this House who realise that the Churches and the missionaries and the native African Christians have played an immense part in helping forward this morale. The Christian Churches and their missions have from the outset done their best to give any assistance in their power to the men who were sent out on this work by the Overseas Food Corporation.
Your Lordships can imagine that it was a great undertaking. There have been for many years missionaries in Tanganyika. There is a Bishop there; and for this small mission, with its small staff, suddenly to have thrust upon it this tremendous responsibility was a great event. I am proud to say that the

1561
Church out there has risen splendidly to these responsibilities which have been laid upon it. The Bishop and members of all denominations have worked together with the utmost enthusiasm, and they are doing everything in their power to co-operate with the Overseas Food Corporation in such matters as welfare. I have read and heard of clubs and forums where Europeans and Africans meet together to take stock of one another and to learn the art of living together. What has happened in the hospitals is notable. There was for instance a very good mission hospital at Kongwa when the Corporation took over. Since then a magnificently equipped hospital has been set up and manned by the Corporation, but I am proud to say that this new grand hospital send their midwifery nurses to the old mission hospital to be trained. I mention that as one of the examples of the co-operation of the best kind that has been going on. Many and various educational projects are afoot to which Christian missions have contributed workers, both European and African.
Like many others, I have been deeply disturbed at the mishandling of a project which shows such great promise; and I am bound to say that I think there seems to be a considerable case for a searching and impartial inquiry. But whether or not this is the right step at the present time I am not sure. What I am clear about is that if and when all economic and administrative difficulties have been cleared up, if the whole scheme is to reach ultimately a successful conclusion, it will need continually the dynamic of a great moral purpose and of a compelling vision of Africa's real good. After all, you will remember that great word of old:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Curiously enough, that is true in this particular instance, not only on the metaphorical and moral level but also on the physical and material level. One may say, I hope without complacency, that for the last hundred years, and especially since the turn of the century, we in this country have dealt with our overseas Dependencies in something of that spirit. We have not been destitute of vision. One thinks of South Africa after the Boer War; one thinks of the Sudan, Northern
1562
and Southern; one thinks of Uganda and, above all now, of India. Who could have listened unmoved to what was said in this House last evening about India in wishing that great country good as she goes off on her own? Indeed, it is only on such a basis and in the sight of Providence that we in this country can dare to hold all these tremendous trusteeships. Once again in our history we are faced with a new challenge and confronted by a fresh and gigantic opportunity to work for the good of Africa. I hope that we shall not be found wanting.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in no hostile spirit do I venture to participate in this debate this afternoon. First, I should like to say how thoroughly I have enjoyed, as your Lordships must have enjoyed, the delightful speech by the right reverend Prelate to which we have just listened. If I may venture to say so, he has raised our discussion, which of course is preponderantly an economic one, into a higher sphere. I find it extremely difficult to tae part in this debate for one particular reason; and that is this. During the last three years I myself have gone on missions for the Royal Agricultural Society of England to various parts of the British Commonwealth, including all six States of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. As I am sure the Leader of the House would be prepared to testify, I have done all in my power, in the course of these missions, to encourage the food producers for export in those countries to satisfy so far as possible the demand and the requirements of our Ministry of Food. And I feel confident that we must support this ground-nuts scheme.
The right reverend Prelate said that it tends to accelerate a revolution which was bound to come. I entirely agree but, with all respect, I would vie to remind the right reverend Prelate of the old Latin motto festina lente. At the opening of his speech, he said what I was going to venture to say in the course of mine; that we must consider this scheme in the light of the present world food position and outlook. For my part, I feel that if that situation and that problem are duly considered, Africa must come in a very real sense into the picture. At least one-fourth of the world's population are half-starved, to the detriment of their health

1563
and their, working capacity. As your Lordships know, the world's population is growing faster than the world's food output. In this country, for dollar shortage reasons, many of us have reluctantly to grow cereal corn, potatoes and other starchy foods. I come from the West of England, where the rainfall is high, and where in the past livestock production has always been the sheet anchor of the local farming. Of course, I deplore this necessity but I admit that it has to be faced. Taking the long view, the alarming prospective food shortage is not of starchy foods but of proteins and fat, both animal and vegetable fat—and fat, we must bear in mind, has the highest calory or energy value of all foods. We cannot raise a sufficiency of these fats, especially vegetable fats, in this and other temperate countries. They can come in sufficient quantities only from tropical and subtropical countries, notably Africa and Australia.
I admit that there is one small exception which one is bound to make. It is a rather remarkable fact that sunflowers, which are now coming into what I may call the Kongwa picture, will yield in this country as large a percentage of fat as those grown in any other part of the world; and perhaps larger. In answer to a Non-Oral Question which I put down about three weeks ago, we were told (and the statement about fat percentage has not been denied), that they are not likely to be an economic proposition if grown in any large quantity in this country. But of all oil yielding plants—and all of them, by the way, provide a residue of concentrated cattle food such as we badly need—none is more valuable than ground-nuts. That is mainly due to the fact that, being a leguminous plant, so far from exhausting or defertilising the soil they add fertility to it, through the medium of the nitrifying nodules on their roots which, as your Lordships know, absorb nitrogen from the air. Moreover, they are all good human as well as good animal food, and in every tropical and sub-tropical country are recommended by all the experts as an alternative crop to maize for native consumption.
Of course, we all—at any rate, those of us who have visited different parts of Africa—know that what the native suffers from more than anything else is trying
1564
to live wholly, or almost wholly, upon starchy foods, with no proper balance in the matter of proteins or, indeed, of fats. We must not entirely abandon the growing of ground-nuts—large quantities of ground-nuts—in Africa. As has been pointed out this afternoon, the weakness of this particular scheme is its, immense size, concentrated in one region instead of in different latitudes and at different altitudes, as has been recommended by many of the agricultural research stations in Africa. This area is subject to the same vagaries and uncertainties of climate, with insufficient and unsuitable equipment especially in bush clearing and in transport facilities, and also with detribalised natives, many of them being brought from a great distance and, at any rate at the outset, being insufficiently provided with proper housing and welfare facilities. Above all, what I want particularly to emphasise is that it was done without proper previous surveys or scientific experiments as to soil, fertiliser treatment or cropping rotation.
May I say on this point—and here again I find myself in agreement with the right reverend Prelate—that it is very unfortunate, if not deplorable, that Mr. Arthur Wakefield has been summarily dismissed from his important post? I say so particularly for this reason. No doubt, as the issue has proved, there were very serious mistakes made by the Corporation in the early days; but Mr. Wakefield appears to have desired to modify materially the scheme as originally framed. Indeed, if I may say so in passing, he is largely responsible for what, to my mind, is the much more convincing scheme which has lately been initiated in Queensland. Mr. Wakefield is a student of one of our own important agricultural colleges, as I was myself about sixty years ago, and he has done a great deal for the reputation of agricultural training in this country. He is a Bachelor of Science; he is a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and he is not only an agricultural college-trained man, but he holds a degree both of Edinburgh and of Reading Universities. He has done conspicuous work in agricultural administration in Northern Rhodesia; in Tanganyika, where he was a member of the Legislative Council: in Jamaica, and on a very important Caribbean Development Commission; and incidentally he is a (member of our own Agricultural Ad-

1565
visory Service which has lately been set up with such advantage to agriculturists in this country. I deplore finding a man with those attainments and with that history, thrown, so to speak, upon the scrap-heap at the age of fifty; and I venture to hope that other employment of a sufficiently important character may be found for him in the not too distant future.
In the course of my experience just before the war as Chairman of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission, and more recently, two years ago, on my mission to Africa, I asked the Governments of the Union of South Africa and of Southern Rhodesia whether they could frame for me a list of the optimum conditions under which all the chief, subtropical crops could best be grown south of the Equator, and I regard the information which was furnished to me as most valuable. When in Southern Africa two years ago I visited all but one of the agricultural research stations, including an important one at Potchefstroom in the Transvaal, one in Cedara in Natal, and a progressive station now developing at Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia. I mention that because I consulted the authorities in all those research stations as to what were the optimum requirements for the successful cultivation of ground-nuts. Summarising them so far as the texture of the soil is concerned, they are undoubtedly a light loam at anything from 1,500 to 6,000 feet above sea level. I want to emphasise that, because I personally hold—I do not know whether Lord Milverton would share my view—that in the case of ground-nuts there is an unusual margin in the matter of altitude, so unlike, for instance, tea or coffee, the two different kinds of tobacco, cotton and other crops which can be grown only within a much narrower margin of altitude. The next desideratum is a soil with a slight acid reaction—what the scientists call P.H. value—of anything from 5 to 6, and a rainfall of from 20 to 25 inches.
I am bound to say that what troubles me when I take up this document which I hold in my hand now and which apparently has only lately been published by the Scientific Department of the Overseas Food Corporation in East Africa, is that I find that those conditions, which were presented to me at these research stations as the optimum conditions for the growing of ground-nuts, do not appear to be present to any material
1566
extent in any of these territories, including Kongwa, where this vast scheme is now in operation or is contemplated. There is one disease to which I must make reference, because it is possibly the most serious virus disease in the whole world; and, from the point of view of expense, should it develop in any ground-nuts scheme it is a most dangerous factor. It is the virus disease known as "rosette." On this subject I ventured to consult the agricultural research stations as to what was the best way to safeguard the growing of ground-nuts against the development of rosette disease which might easily destroy from 50 to 75 per cent. of the whole of the crop in the course of a single season.
The first answer given to me (and this is why I interrupted the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty just now in regard to his rotation; it appeared to be a two-year rotation) was that groundnuts should preferably, be gown only once in a four-or five-course rotation including three years under grass. Of course what is contemplated, according to the First Lord, is an alternation between ground-nuts and sunflowers. I cannot believe that if we are to avoid this rosette disease, and if our manurial treatment is going to be correct, we shall find that we are satisfied with only a two-course rotation, particularly, in view of the fact that, as I have indicated, the manurial requirements of the two crops are entirely different. The next desideratum was that no very large area of ground-nuts should be created in one locality. It is apparent to me that the biggest mistake that has been made—at any rate from an agricultural and scientific point of view—is that there will be this vast area in Tanganyika Territory all more or less in one latitude and at one altitude. My main reason for urging these considerations is the serious possibility of the development of rosette disease.
I wish before I sit down to mention another scheme which has emanated from the Overseas Food Corporation and which has my entire sympathy. I hope that we shall give every encouragement to it. I refer, of course, to the scheme initiated about eight months ago in Central Queensland, which will rapidly produce animal fat as well as protein food there, through the medium of pigs fed upon grain sorghum, which is called in Africa

1567
"Kaffir corn." It is unfortunate that abnormal weather has adversely affected this scheme in its early stages, and caused a temporary setback. Pigs can produce both protein and animal fat more rapidly than any other animal. Further—and this I do not think is very well-known—there is no other domestic animal which is so little affected by tropical or subtropical diseases as is the pig. So long as he is given a reasonable amount of shelter he keeps practically free from disease. One cannot say that about any other domestic farm animal in Africa. It so happens, also, that grain sorghum—most magnificent crops of which are to be found in Queensland, as I can testify—is an ideal food for pigs. Moreover, a valuable part of the scheme is that any surplus grain sorghum which is not utilised on the spot for the feeding of pigs will come to this country and provide badly-needed food for the maintenance of our own herds of-pigs.
I will say little further except this. I hope that no criticism in regard to this unfortunately large scheme in Tanganyika Territory will prevent us from giving our confident support to the development of the production of ground-nuts in Africa and, indeed, in other tropical and subtropical countries. I hope we shall do all in our power—whether in this particular scheme we attempt to cut losses and public expenditure or otherwise—to raise fats in tropical and sub-tropical countries for the whole of the world population, knowing full well that we cannot raise them on our own soil. There is one question I should like to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not sure that I followed his figures correctly, but I think he spoke of 400,000 acres in the southern area, 90,000 in future in Kongwa and 100,000 in the northern part of the territory, at Urambo. I should like to ask him whether he has studied and has been influenced by the interesting and I think convincing letter in this morning's Times, written by Mr. Rosa. I should like to know whether he might be influenced to a sufficient extent to consider modification of so large a programme in the State of Tanganyika. I apologise for speaking so long. I am afraid that I have bored your Lordships to some extent with agricultural science which has been the greatest interest of a lone life.
5.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it may be that it will seem foolhardiness on the part of someone so ill-equipped and as inexperienced as myself to venture on such a battlefield as this to-day. An appropriate analogy might be that of infantry going to engage in a battle between hostile armoured forces. I have been encouraged to take part in this debate, however, not because I speak from long experience of Colonial administration, as do so many of your Lordships, but because I have had the good fortune to be acquainted in some measure, more or less superficially, over the last twenty-five years with many parts of Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. In listening to what has been said and reading what has been written on this subject, I have been struck by the fact that so little mention has been made of the place of the scheme in the bigger framework of Africa and African policy. In fact, that aspect was almost ostentatiously put aside by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who said that it was irrelevant to the matter in hand. It was refreshing, after that, to hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and by the right reverend Prelate. That is the side with which I would like to deal this afternoon.
My hope is that in the long run this scheme will be judged, not by the amount of edible oil which it is going to produce, or by the financial loss or profit, but on the place which it will take in the future development of Africa. I think we owe a debt to Africa. Until very recent years, our history of the development of our Empire has not been very creditable. It was only in 1929 that the Colonial Development Fund was set up by Parliament, and it was not until 1940 that the scope of that Fund was extended to include welfare. The Act of 1940 was entitled the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and was extended to include recurrent as well as capital expenditure. The amount of expenditure was increased from £1,000,000 a year to £5,000,000 a year; later, it was again increased—to a sum of £120,000,000 in the ten years ending 1956. I hope that the difference between these sums is the measure of our realisation of the value of the human resources of Africa, as opposed to the material resources.

1569
To my mind this scheme is an extension of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts of the past. It is a prototype of the methods by which Africa will be developed. The old leisurely rate of progress of the past cannot be tolerated in future. The world can no longer afford to leave Africa lying fallow, and the methods of the past will be quite inadequate to develop a Continent so large as that. Whether peasant cultivation is the answer in any part of Africa I do not know, but in East Africa, at any rate, I suggest that it is out of the question that any large increase of world food supplies can come from African sources. For the most part, the African in his village is not accustomed to growing food for sale: he has a hard enough job to grow food for himself. He has to pay taxes, and to do that he has to go away to work in the mines or in the centres of industry.
To judge by their Report, this Corporation have started and are continuing on admirable lines. They are not planning on the old system of obtaining male labour for only short terms and housing them in compounds until their contracts expire, which was the old way by which the man-power of the African villages was drained away to the big industrial centres. They are proceeding to set up settlements where men can come with their families for permanent employment. The Corporation are spending a lot of money, money which no doubt is included in the £9,000,000 alleged to have been wasted or "lost" (I think that was the expression) to build houses and set up the surroundings in which African labour can live a reasonable life. The Corporation are helping the Africans over the transition between the old village life in the bush and the new large-scale mechanised agriculture which must come in the future.
Nobody denies that mistakes have been made in this project. Nobody would deny, I imagine, that in the conditions of 1945, urgency and speed were real factors in the situation. Some noble Lords have referred to the project as being rushed, and I read in the proceedings of another place of the "indecent haste" with which this project was put in hand. Think of the situation in 1945, the stagnation of commerce and the reduction in the production of food, the increase of 20,000,000 mouths every year to feed in the world. Can any-
1570
body then say that it was indecent to cut a few corners, and go on with the risk without full experiment?—because it would have been not one or two but ten years before these methods could have been tried out. It seems to me that the Corporation will be judged not on their financial showing, nor even on the number of tons of edible oils they produce, but on the extent they have furthered the Colonial policy which has been accepted by all Parties and by public opinion in this country. I would remind your Lordships that this policy is laid down in the 1940 Statement of Policy in the following terms:
"The primary aim of Colonial policy is to protect and advance the interests of the inhabitants."
I think that is the yardstick by which this project should be measured.
5.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, it is only a short time since I stood, so to speak, in the same shoes as the noble Earl to whose speech we have just listened with such pleasure. Therefore, it is with some embarrassment, as well as with great pleasure, that I follow him and thus have the privilege of congratulating him on his excellent maiden speech in your Lordships' House. His knowledge of the Colonial Empire cannot fail to be of value to the debates in this House, and I hope that we shall hear the noble Earl on many occasions in the future.
I had not intended even to touch on the economic side of lids matter, but there is one point on which I would like to ask a question, The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said that we might well have to face subsidising the production of ground-nuts. Surely it is a bad start if we are to subsidise a product whose price is now higher than it has ever been before, and higher perhaps than it is ever likely to be again. It needs no economist to see that. Do the Government consider that prospect with equanimity? the noble Lord, Lord Milverton said, nothing has been said, and nothing ever can be said, to alter the plain unpalatable fact that up to now this scheme has been a failure. It has fallen far short of the expectations and estimates of those who conceived it and gave it their blessing. The early history of the scheme is a sorry tale of a great company of enthusiasts driven to extravagance and disorganisation by

1571
politicians and administrators who had a clear vision of the goal before them but little or no idea of how to reach it.
In the first place, paragraph 29 of the Report states that the Ministry took the best advice available to them. I believe that even had they done so the information on which that advice would have been based would have been meagre indeed; but in fact they did not do so. Apparently the decision taken by the Government to proceed with the plan—and here they cannot escape responsibility, because it was they who took the decision—was influenced mainly by the Wakefield Mission to Africa. That Mission spent perhaps three to four weeks in the Kongwa area, where the bush is so impenetrable that no samples of soil could be taken in the area under consideration. They did not apparently consider why this vast area had never been cultivated before (I shall return to that in a moment) nor, I understand—and this has been borne out by the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—did they take advantage of leading scientific experts who had spent a life-time in that area. In short, their Report was based on estimates and guesses, with only a very small fraction of evidence which a scientist would accept.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has already raised the question of rainfall, which is one of the most important factors of the whole scheme. The estimates—or perhaps it is more accurate to say the guesses—were based on a small number of records that had been taken in the mission station further up into the hills. It is well known that near hills the rainfall varies quickly as you get away from them. Accurate reports in the mission area are not reliable when predicting the rainfall in the ground-nuts area. All through the debate in another place, and in the Report, one of the achievements that is claimed for the earlier work in Africa, and particularly in Kongwa, is that great experience has been gained. But surely, in any new project, however badly organised, experience of some sort is gained. The point is whether that experience has been too dearly bought, and whether it was all new and therefore valuable.
Let us consider the port of Dar-es-Salaam. That is not a new port. Its
1572
capacity for handling ships is well known, and as a result of war experience a close estimate can be made of the port facilities required to handle the stores and other materials of a vast operation of this kind. Yet in paragraph 39 of the Report we are told that the additional burden of the ground-nut traffic became an insistent problem to the port authorities, and that the problem of handling the stores became a nightmare. The Government cannot escape responsibility for such chaos. They, and they alone, had available all the experience pf the Sea Transport and Army Docks Group organisation of the war. Were they consulted? I cannot believe they were. Again, what consideration was given to the supply problem of the type of tractors which it was known would be required? Would it not have been better to investigate that supply position before the scheme started, instead of having to comb the scrap-heaps of the world? It is all too easy to be wise after the event, but problems such as those were commonplace during the war, and we are entitled to expect that such experience as is available will be used in this type of project. The enterprise was inevitably risky, but such lack of forethought, of which I have given two examples, must increase manifold the odds against success.
I should now like to make a few brief remarks from a rather different point of view. As is pointed out in paragraph 30 of the Report—this point has been raised by many other speakers to-day—the native population do not find it easy to keep up even a meagre standard of living. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that any area that is suitable for growing crops will have been so utilised. That at once makes a prima facie case for treating any large uncultivated area with suspicion, because by a well-tried process it has probably been found unsuitable for any crops, let alone ground-nuts. That does not mean that, by modern scientific methods and with mechanisation, no crops can be grown there; but it does mean that, if due to lack of rainfall record, and the impossibility of getting samples of soil for analysis, no proper investigation can be made, then a risk is being taken when an area such as the Kongwa is chosen for development. In addition, I understand that the ground-nuts plant is one of the most troublesome and finicky

1573
of tropical plants. The natives, I am told, confine their planting period to about a week. From page 113 of the Report it appears that the optimum, as opposed to the possible, planting period, is a great deal less than the seven or eight weeks mentioned. So an operation on a small scale of a few square yards, with one man looking after it, may be quite easy; but when it comes to planting on a vast scale of hundreds of thousands of acres, it then becomes a major operation. That is another point on which a gamble, on the scale effect, had to be taken. Perhaps it had to be taken, but we do not yet know how it will turn out.
There is another departure from a well-tried practice which introduced a further element of risk—namely, the scheme of planting. The natives, I am told—I am not an expert on this matter—spread their plants evenly over the whole area, about a foot apart, so that the area is covered with leaf and the ground does not bake hard between the plants. Clearly, the wide spacing of twenty-eight inches apart, as described in the Report, was followed to enable mechanical cultivators and mechanical harvesters to do their work efficiently. But that also accounts for the relatively poor yield, as compared with the yield from the experimental plots, and for the fact that more than 25 per cent. of the ground-nuts were left in the ground. That is another important effect of increasing the scale of the operation, and introduces a further element of risk.
It is easy for us here to criticise those who are, and have been, busy in Africa working to make the scheme the success which we all hope it will be. They are working, often in unpleasant conditions. My object in delving into the failure revealed by the Report is to attempt to show how great were the risks involved in this scheme, and to emphasise the supreme importance both of minimising and appreciating the risks that have to be run by using to the full the best experience and scientific knowledge that we have available. That, I submit, has not been done. But even the sum total of our scientific knowledge of conditions in Africa is lamentably small. If we had had reliable data on the type of soil, the rainfall and suitable crops, how much greater would have been the chances of success of this great venture! Certainly an active scientific service appears to be in being now, as can be seen from Appendix V of the
1574
Report. But what a tragedy that that information was not available at the out-set of the scheme! Noble Lords opposite will perhaps be pleased that this is not merely a criticism of the present scheme—it is a wider issue. We failed to gather that data while we had time, and we are now paying for that past neglect.
There are signs, however, that at last we are aware of that shortcoming, for I understand that the last African Agricultural and Forestry Research Organisation has been set up since January. 1948, and is already doing valuable work with a comparatively small staff. Will the Government tell us whether it is planned to expand that organisation, and whether it has been decided to make conditions such as will attract first-class scientists who alone can do the job? It is only in that way that data will be available when the time comes—and I hope it comes soon—for great new development schemes to be launched. It is no use, as has been the practice during the past few years, to send out experts on a three weeks visit, or even less. We may be able to say that we have had an expert on such-and-such a matter, but it does no good. He may scrape only the surface of the problem, and even if he finds out anything of value it will be unco-ordinated with the efforts of other experts.
In conclusion, may I repeat my contention that this enterprise has been so extravagant because we rushed into it without proper preparation, without using the meagre data we had available and without making the best use of scientific knowledge? In that way we added many times to the unavoidable risks of such an undertaking. Must we then conclude that such an operation should never be started until all risks have been eliminated? I believe that would be the most damaging conclusion that could be drawn, and it is more dangerous because already it seems to have some adherents. We shall not survive as a great nation unless we develop the Empire, and unless we launch new projects with vision and forethought. But vision alone is not enough, nor is courage and determination enough to ensure final success. We must use all the resources of scientific knowledge and past experience which are available, while seeking all the while to expand and extend that knowledge. When we have done that, there will still be risks to be

1575
taken, and those risks must be taken; but we shall then have reduced them to a minimum. Let the Government have the courage now to admit their past mistakes and to face up honestly to the errors which have been made in the conduct of this ground-nut scheme. Let them tell the whole truth now, and if an inquiry is necessary to get the whole truth glen, for this country's sake, let us have an inquiry, for that is the only way we can be sure that the same mistakes will not be repeated and the success of future great development schemes endangered.
5.53 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, like the noble Viscount I would also like to be allowed to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucan on a most admirable maiden speech, and to congratulate all my noble friends on these Benches on the asset we have in the noble Earl as one of our number. I would also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on his speech. I heard his maiden speech, and he has fulfilled the promise of that. It is with mixed feelings that I listen to the speeches of the sons of old friends and antagonists, and I suppose many noble Lords sitting here with me have similar feelings when the younger generation carry forward the torch which we used to try to extinguish when it was held by their fathers.
All my life, professional and political, I have been carping and complaining about the slow methods of bureaucrats—that they were so cautious and so over-prudent or that they could not get a move on—and the slowness of Governments generally. Now, to our astonishment, we have the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, complaining bitterly in his otherwise interesting speech about the quick movements, the rapidity, almost the impetuousness with which this scheme was pushed forward and the necessary drive applied. It is quite a new thing to complain of speed and energy on the part of Governments. I agree that every step should be taken to prevent extravagance, and that every step should be taken to prevent unnecessary expenditure, waste, and bad accounting. But after all, this was the African bush. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote said, it is all very well for us sitting here to say: "Why were
1576
not proper indents kept; why was not everything done in triplicate or quadruplicate; why were the books not properly balanced and the accounts properly cast?" These men had to go out into a wild country, without roads, with a trying climate; and they had to improvise. They had to get what they could in the way of equipment and stores. There was a shortage of bulldozers and of tractors, they had to buy war stores from the Pacific and everywhere else, to comb the dumps, and to make the best of what they could get. Notice this—and this is the point—that the bad bookkeeping and the extravagance arose for the most part during the first sixteen months when the agents, the United Africa Company, were acting and carrying on the scheme. I am making no sort of attack on the United Africa Company; their reputation is very high indeed. They probably know more about Africa than any other private company in this country, and they have at their disposal the finest experts and other knowledgeable people. But it was during their time, and not during the time of the Corporation that the worst bookkeeping and so on took place. I hope your Lordships will appreciate that point. Furthermore, many of the mistakes which were admittedly made at the beginning have now been rectified.
In this connection, I want to raise a matter with great delicacy, and I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. I am sorry that in this debate we have not heard the voice of my noble friend Lord Rothschild, because he is a director of the Overseas Food Corporation—a part-time director, if you like. I understand that he was anxious to speak on this matter, but that he was told (as we are always told) that there is a convention that members of your Lordships' House who are directors of these semi-public companies must not intervene in a debate. I have spoken to one or two noble Lords with greater experience than myself who agree with me that it is time this convention was done away with. I do not see any reason for it. Take the example of my noble friend Lord Douglas and the Air Corporation of which he is Chairman. In the man-hunt of a week ago, when the chase was after my noble friend Lord Pakenham, the second greatest expert of actual civil flying we had in the House was Lord Douglas.

1577
As we all know, the first expert, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was ill. Lord Douglas was the second expert, and yet we could not hear him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, not an expert?
LORD STRABOLGI: He did not speak in the debate. My noble friend Lord Douglas's experience is rather more recent than that of the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I am only taking this as an example, and I do not wish to be drawn into a controversy about the respective merits or civil aviation experience of the two noble Lords. This convention, that the directors of semipublic Corporations are not allowed to speak in this House, is absurd, and should be done away with. Another example is that of my noble friend Lord Citrine. At any moment we may be plunged into abysmal darkness, owing to the labour troubles in the Electricity Authority. I suppose we shall be told that my noble friend Lord Citrine must not give us the benefit of his experience because he is Chairman of that Corporation. With the greatest respect to your Lordships who have made this convention, I think it ought to be done away with.
As my noble friend Lord Lucan has said, the Opposition are taking a very parochial view of the whole matter. What is the total expenditure? From 1946 to 1954 we shall have spent £50,000,000, for which we shall have a great deal to show. How much are we spending on our armaments this year?—£780,000,000. How much are we to spend next year?—£800,000,000 perhaps, or even more. Now, £50,000,000, spread over seven years, is the cost of five battleships, and their effective life is not much longer than seven years.
Here is another point which I would respectfully like to raise, and I have given my noble friend the Leader of the House notice about this. If the railway from this new port of Mtwara—I apologise if I do not pronounce it properly, but my knowledge of Swahili is very "rusty"—up to Nachingwea and beyond is continued—and I believe the country is not too difficult from all I have gathered—it will run to Lake Nyasa, where there could be a train ferry, and a railway from Nyasa-
1578
land will bring the line to Northern Rhodesia. And the one thing that Rhodesians are always eager about is that they should have better access to the sea. There, then, is a way of providing that access. That is what we ought to be doing now. We ought also to be helping the Rhodesians to get their railway across to Walfisch Bay in the West. There would then be an East-West railway across Africa—which is something worth doing. That would be indeed a great investment. It is along those lines that we must develop this vast area in Africa. And by that process we can also produce valuable food crops by opening up new country. Surely that is the wise policy. And if we can find administrators and executors like the original pioneers, who will risk and push and drive, let us clasp them to us "with hoops of steel"; they are very rare in this modern world.
I should like to say just a word now about the main outlook. This whole debate is rather like Hamlet without the Ghost. We ought to have had the Minister of Food sitting on the steps of the Throne.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would it not be more tactful to call the Minister of Food the Prince of Denmark, rather than the Ghost?
LORD STRABOLGI: The Prince of Denmark could not make up his mind—like the Opposition, who began by praising this scheme and now take every opportunity of damning it. I thought perhaps the noble Viscount was going to say that the Minister of Food is rather a substantial ghost. At any rate he can make up his mind and has made it up. From what the newspapers say—and I always believe half of what I see in the newspapers—the officials, engineers, and technicians and so on out there are very disturbed—and I do lot wonder. It is not only the continual criticisms of late that troubles them; it is the ridicule that has been worked up in the newspapers opposing the Government, and by the Opposition themselves making a joke of the whole business. It is not a joke. We had the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, this afternoon, talking about the scheme being the laughing-stock of the world. Who is laughing at it? When that sort of thing gets into the African papers (and the words of Lord Milverton will naturally

1579
be repeated in many African papers) what effect will it have on the men who are sweating and toiling in dangerous conditions?
LORD MILVERTON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I protest against this red herring about people working out there? It is not the people working out there; it is the people responsible in London.
LORD STRABOLGI: Red herring, Indeed! On these men depends the whole success or otherwise of this ground-nuts scheme which we know that the more responsible members of the Opposition want to succeed. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, says he wants it to succeed, and so does the noble Viscount Lord Bledisloe; and they are men for whom we in this House have respect. The welfare, efficiency and morale of these people out there will determine the prestige and everything else of this scheme. No, my Lords, I do not think that this is exactly a red herring. I think words should be chosen a little more carefully by our opponents and critics. There is no doubt that constant nagging has unsettled these men in Africa. To read some of the speeches and articles which are made, one would think that if by some miracle the Conservatives were to win the next General Election, they would immediately wind up the whole scheme—and what then of the men who have devoted their careers and made great sacrifices carrying it on?
We admit, of course, that there have been blunders. Some of them have been referred to in this debate. But they have been put right or are being put right. I must quote here what was said by my right honourable friend the Minister of Food in another place about the tractor problem, a subject which has been referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others. We know that there was a lack of spare parts and of other items, as well as a lack of foresight; we are told of the combing of old dumps to get tractors and other machinery. But look at the actual figures—I am here quoting the Minister of Food:
"When the Corporation took over on March 31, 1948, 289 tractors were available, but only 91 of these were serviceable."
1580
It is a terrible story. It shows what happens when one tries to get things done quickly and improvises and makes do with what is at hand. My right honourable friend went on:
"One year later 425 tractors were serviceable."
He went on to explain the other experiments in the use of tractors, which brought down the cost of clearance per acre from the high figure of £30 to approximately £14.
Of course, mistakes were made at the beginning, but some of them were the ordinary teething troubles which any great enterprise has. Many of your Lordships will know the story of the Rhodesian copper mines and the great failures, disappointments and heavy losses incurred there in the early years. And then a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Geddes, was discovered (incidentally he is a medical man and not an engineer); he is a man of great vision, drive and character. He made a tremendous success of the Rhodesian copper scheme, incidentally benefiting the natives—I apologise to Lord Milverton for mentioning them. The scheme also produced one of the finest assets the Empire ever had, of great benefit economically and strategically. Mistakes were made at the beginning of that scheme but it was not thought necessary to set up a delving Committee of Inquiry. We know that these mistakes have been made, but we also know that this is a very great project of Imperial development. I hope it will be the forerunner of many other schemes of development, in Africa and in other parts of the undeveloped Colonies, and that in the future we shall be able to look back almost with pity on those who tried to pull this scheme to pieces in its early, formative, pioneer years. I certainly hope that there is no question of the Government giving way to the demand from the Opposition to send out another Committee of Inquiry to unsettle and upset those men who have had the difficult task of carrying out the scheme and who, we believe, will in the end carry it out successfully.
6.10 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I should like to preface what I have to say by saying that, in attacking the administration of this scheme, as I propose to do, I do not wish to attack the conception of

1581
the scheme in any way whatsoever. I think the conception of the scheme was right; I hope it will be continued and that such order as is necessary in the organisation will he introduced so as to stop the very considerable waste of money that has taken place up to date. Therefore, I do not want arty of your Lordships opposite to feel that I have any doubts in my own mind about the desirability of having initiated the scheme or of going on with it, not necessarily in the form in which it is now but in some form best adapted to the circumstances which have been found to obtain. There is no doubt whatsoever—and it comes out clearly from the reports which have been published—that there has been a serious element of bad administration in the conduct of this enterprise since the beginning. There appears to have been, even in the course of this debate, a certain misconception about the responsibilities and dangers.
In the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, the question arose about the part of the managing agency. If the noble Viscount will allow me to say so, he had the date wrong in regard to the inception of the managing agency. The dates are perfectly clear; they come out in the Report. The managing agency was appointed on November 6, 1946, and came to an end on March 1, 1948. The terms under which the agency were appointed have been referred to in a number of places. Exactly what the terms of the appointment were must be made clear, because any criticism that has been made of the managing agency's conduct of affairs is, in fact, as I propose to show, only a criticism of the Government themselves. At the beginning of the Report, in paragraph 30, these words are printed:
"The Government accepted the view"—
that is, after discussing and agreeing to the scheme in the previous paragraph, which is headed "The White Paper (Cmd. 7030)"—
"that the most suitable body to undertake the management of a project of this kind was a Corporation owned and financed by the Government."
I think it is fair to say that a Corporation could not have been brought into existence in a sufficiently short time to undertake the work, and the work was therefore entrusted to a managing
1582
agency. In the first place, the very term "managing agency" implies, as it was intended to imply, that that body was an agent, and no more than an agent, for His Majesty's Government, and in particular for the Ministry of Food. If there should be any doubt on that particular issue, it is so stated in the Report of the Corporation where, at the top of page 7, there appear these words:
"and in order that there should be no delay in launching the Schenk, it was decided to proceed by means of agents responsible to the Government."
They were, therefore, at agent responsible to the Government, who had perfect liberty to terminate that agency if they were not satisfied with them, or to call them to book or otherwise direct their activities. It is clear that the interests of that agency were directed by the Government. Furthermore, as the Corporation came into existence, but before it actually functioned and took over on March 1, 1948—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: April 1.
LORD RENNELL: Actually the accounts run to March 31.
LORD RENNELL: The accounts cover a thirteen-month period. It is a matter of a month either way. I think it is March 1, as a matter of fact. During the previous autumn, the autumn of 1947, effective direction had already been taken over by Mr. Leslie Plummer (as he then was), who subsequently became Chairman of the Corporation, and, as was perfectly right and reasonable, the managing agency deferred to him and his friends in the conduct of their affairs from that date onwards. So thin effectively, between the autumn of 1947 and the formal taking over, the responsibility lay with him who was later on Chairman of the Corporation. So far as the Corporation's failure in administration—to which I propose to allude in a moment—is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested that the major part of the trouble had occurred during the period of management of affairs by the managing agency.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, only the accounting troubles.
LORD RENNELL: I mean only the accounting troubles. No doubt, the noble Lord has considered the accounting section to which I shall come in a minute. Your Lordships will be aware that the auditors' certificate, which is printed at pages 66 and 67 and which refers to the activities of the Corporation, covers only by implication the activities which were the managing agency's responsibility by including on the following page the actual figure alleged to have been spent by the managing agency in land clearing—namely, £1,950,000. That figure is incorporated without comment in the accounts on page 66. But, as compared with the £1,950,000 which had been spent on land clearing by the managing agency up to that date, a matter of £9,000,000 was spent on land clearing by the Corporation subsequently to that date. If, therefore, there were mistakes, that was a mistake of the order of one-quarter of the total amount involved. Wherever the mistake lay, however, and whatever mistakes in accounting were made, the responsibility rests solely with His Majesty's Government and the Ministry of Food, who were the responsible Ministry, because they as principals must be held to have been responsible for the activities of the agents appointed by them.
The combination of the two accounts of the managing agency and of the Corporation itself have borne the comment on the accounts to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred and which I do not believe anyone in this House, with all your Lordships' combined experience, has ever before seen paralleled in a certificate given by an accountant of any corporation. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, read the first two sentences, in which the accountants state that they
"are unable to report that in our opinion proper books of account have been kept by the Corporation…"
And moreover they were unable to state that they had
"obtained all the information and explanations "
they required. The second part of that statement is at least as damaging, if not more so, than the first. In addition, the first paragraph after that reads:
"for the reasons set out in the Explanatory Notes, proper records of the expenditure relating to both fixed and current assets were not maintained."
1584
Here is no question of stores having been lost, or of equipment not being accounted for, or of proper inventories not being made; here is the crude statement that they were unable to trace expenditures which had been made. And since that certificate is on the balance sheet of the Corporation and not on the balance sheet of the managing agency, it is a direct reflection on the state of affairs in the Corporation itself.
I do not want to enter into personalities, but it is perhaps as a result of that that the Minister of Food has seen fit to dispense with the services of Mr. Rosa. At the same time, however, I find it incomprehensible that in the debate which took place in another place on November 21, the Secretary of State for the Colonies took the trouble to refer in flattering terms to what the Corporation had done in keeping its accounts—a statement which, I may say, is completely at variance with the statement made on the same day by the Minister of Food. Which of these two versions is correct I do not know; but there appears to be some lack of co-ordination, at least, in the explanations that were made. But if your Lordships will look at the accounts in a little greater detail, you will see that it is not only the extraordinary state of affairs disclosed by the accountants' certificate that excites a certain amount of attention; it is, in fact, the accounts themselves. They, at any rate, are a model of brevity. The lack of detail is surprising to those of us who have to consider accounts.
There is one item about which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who, I understand, is to reply, can perhaps offer a little elucidation. On page 68 the Statement of Development, Land Clearing and Agricultural Expenditure is given. An item of £423,000 for merchandise sales is there referred to. I, for one, should very much like to know to what merchandise this item relates. Up to date, not enough ground-nuts have been produced to sell; at any rate, we are told in the Report that those which have been produced were not sold but were retained for seed. Futhermore, the ground-nuts which were grown amounted in value to £1,200,000, and therefore they cannot, presumably, be represented by the item of £423,000 for merchandise sold. Probably the explanation is that "merchandise sold" means the sale of

1585
machinery and assets which were no longer required. If that is so, it should at least be stated, and some explanation ought to be given as to why it was found necessary to dispose of that equipment.
The other surprising thing is the complete discordance between the estimates of revenues referred to by the Minister of Food in another place on March 14, by which time the Corporation had taken over the scheme for about one year or nearly a year, and the subsequent results. The Minister at that time stated that the net results of estimates up to date had shown that the scheme would be more costly and more difficult, but that it would be far more profitable than was originally estimated. Let us contrast that statement and the figures for the clearances that we were given at that time, with the position which was disclosed on November 21, and compare both those with the Report itself, which at any rate is a far more realistic document.
One is led to the conclusion that the Minister of Food resembles in this respect the African in a rather famous story which at one time was current in the Sudan and which your Lordships will perhaps allow me to relate. This African was employed in a lonely post, and among other duties, apart from being a telegraphist, he was required to send meteorological observations every morning at nine o'clock. One morning in Khartoum, a telegram was received from him—and this, of course, is singularly apposite also in connection with certain pieces of publicity about the Overseas Food Corporation's activities in the southern part of Tanganyika—saying, "Post surrounded by lions, tigers and other wild animals. All instruments destroyed." As an afterthought, about an hour later the telegraphist sent another telegram which read, "Re telegram: delete 'tigers.'" However, next morning at nine o'clock, there arrived quite normally in Khartoum a series of temperature and barometer readings. On the subsequent day the same thing happened, and again on the third day. The people in Khartoum, becoming more and more puzzled, sent him a telegram, asking, "Your telegram said that all instruments had been destroyed. So how are you getting readings?" The reply came back in a flash: "Confirm all instruments destroyed. We are estimating readings and find them most accurate." My Lords,
1586
I think that is about the quality and value of the estimates which we have had up to date.
I want to touch en one other point about the accounts before turning to other matters. It arises out of the remarks Lord Strabolgi made. He said, without attributing any blame to the managing agency for any deficiencies in the accounts, that in an enterprise of this nature people went out into Africa to do things, and they had to improvise, and it was perhaps not unnatural that proper accounts should not have been kept. I have had a great deal of experience of these matters, and if your Lordships will forgive me for speaking about something with which I was very much concerned, I would say that during the war I was responsible, under the War Office, for setting up a financial structure of accounts for, I think, nine Governments in occupied territories in Africa. In 1941 and 1942 there was no staff; it was impossible to get them We were practically isolated and we could not get personnel out from England.
In spite of that, the accounts were set up. In the three years during which they were conducted, in the latter part by others, some £30,000,000 passed through those accounts. After the first nine months, the accounts went in regularly once a month to the War Office. They went in, with a delay of two or three months, from Eastern Africa and Cairo to London. The accounts were passed monthly by Exchequer or audit, and they were reviewed four years later by the Public Accounts Committee. There was never any question of any trouble, or failure to bring to account any stores. food or money. If tint can be done in Africa in the middle of a war, it is just preposterous to say that it cannot be done in times of peace and that even in the year in which the Food Corporation had taken over, it was not possible to avoid a situation such as has been created. Whilst the publishing of that certificate to the world may not have made us a laughing stock, it has certainly brought a feeling of great shame to those of us who have taken pride in the administration of public monies in this country.
But it has had a worse effect than that. Whether noble Lords opposite like to hear this or not, I may tell you from my personal experience that comments

1587
in America on the conduct of this enterprise are such that they are calculated to discourage people there from embarking on enterprises of that sort in our Colonies. I have had it said to me personally by responsible Americans, "If that is what it is going to cost to develop Africa, it is no good asking us for any help; it is too expensive." My Lords, that is the result of bad administration: it is not the result of its being too expensive.
Turning to the question of administration, I find it very difficult to understand why there was this attempt, by planting more, by doing too much, to achieve a result too quickly. We have been trying—I say "we" because it is this country and not only His Majesty's Government—to buy time, to do things in seasons in which in Africa it was not possible to do them. It is said—and it is known to anyone with even elementary knowledge of those parts—that certain times of year are appropriate for clearing, and certain other times are not. I understand that, under the present scheme, it is proposed to clear the bush after the rains, when the ground is wet. Surely it must have been obvious that that was more sensible than trying to pull trees out of the ground when it was as hard as concrete. The money spent on wind-rowing, pushing trunks of trees about which, if left to dry out in the tropical sun, could have been burnt, is almost incalculable. That is where the cost of clearing, in major part, has gone—trying to do the wrong things, trying to do the right things at the wrong time. That is what I mean by bad administration. That is what we have to criticise, not the scheme itself; nor, for Heaven's sake, the efforts of the men out there to do what they are told; it is the orders given that have been wrong.
Orders have been given by people who have not had experience of public administration. I do not want to be unfair to anyone; I do not want to be unfair to the Chairman. But what has been the Chairman's experience of administering? He has been a luminary, I understand, of a slightly vivid political complexion, in the newspaper world. So far as I know, he has never had any business experience of administering anything. Is it not elementary that in
1588
embarking on an enterprise of this kind you should try to select a man who has had some experience of that sort, who has had that background, and, if possible, who has some knowledge of Africa? These misconceptions on how the thing ought to be done—not whether it ought to be done, but how—run right through. You can see it in the Reports. You can trace it even in the written words of the Reports. May I invite your Lordships' attention to a part of the Corporation's Report that has not had the same publicity as the miserable balance sheet?— I refer to the hinder part of the Report dealing with the admirable scientific work which has been done out there. There is one of the worst bits of "give away" of bad administration in the whole Report on page 98. It there states that:
"The Department"—
that is the scientific Department—
"was initiated by the appointment of the Chief Scientific Officer on January 30. 1947."
That was shortly after the managing agency took over. A little lower down the page we find this:
"No laboratory facilities were available until March, 1948"—
that was more than a year later—
"when a temporary chemical laboratory in two tents was opened at Kongwa."
That was after clearing had started at Kongwa. The Report goes on to say that:
"The first task of the Department was the survey and appraisal of the areas suggested for development."
That was after they had started.
Lord Caldecote referred to rainfall. The erratic nature of the rainfall was brought out very clearly in the Wakefield Report. The authors of that Report ought not to be blamed for having taken too optimistic a view. They deal with rainfall on page 19 of their Report. The opening sentence of the paragraph is a perfect platitude to anyone who has been to that part of Africa, but it does not seem to have occurred to the people who started the scheme. The Report states:
"Agriculture in East Africa is largely dependent upon an erratic rainfall."
Surely it would be an elementary precaution to find out what the rainfall is in the particular area you are going to clear before you do start clearing and not to find out what it is afterwards. We know what experience of that has been,

1589
for it is in the Report. On the same page there is reference to domestic water supplies. We know of the tragedy of Kongwa and the water supplies. Why was no investigation of water supplies made before Kongwa was first selected for development? As I say, it is not the authors of the Wakefield Report who are to blame; the blame lies with the decision of the people who started the scheme in a hurry. The same thing applies to soil analysis. I could take your Lordships through dozens of pages in these Reports where it is clearly stated that investigations into the suitability or the practicability of a plan were made after, instead of before, the decision had been taken to do something. That is had administration. That does not damn the scheme as a scheme; it damns the people who are in charge of the administration.
Finally, may I pick up a point which Lord Caldecote made about transport? The chaos in 1947 and 1948 in transportation is well known. It is referred to in the Reports. An attempt was made to do something for which a junior staff captain who had never been on a Staff course would have been court-martialled within a week if he had been responsible. What happened was that the carrying capacity of the railway and the throughput of the port were not first ascertained. May I take up one particular matter to show how ridiculous the position became? In the Report it is shown that after a great deal of first-class work by the Central Railway Line, the carrying capacity of the line was raised by certain figures to a certain level. Reference to this is to be found on page 40 of the Corporation's Report. It is there stated that the Corporation's weekly rail tonnage from Dar-es-Salaam to Kongwa during the first quarter of 1949 averaged 828 tons. To Urambo, which is on the same line, the figure was 363 tons. If my arithmetic is correct, as both those places are on the same line, if you add those two figures together you find that the carrying capacity from Dar-es-Salaam is 1,200 tons a week, which is 62,500 tons a year.
The estimate for the first part of the programme for ground-nuts grown in the area, if the programme had been realised, showed a weight of ground-nuts very considerably greater than the railway could have carried—that is without taking into
1590
account the use of the railway for the rest of Tanganyika for its ordinary and normal purposes. All estimates of stores landed, priorities, are in excess of what the port could put through and in excess of what the railway could carry up. Yet it was only when that chaos had been allowed to develop, only when chaos had reached an almost insoluble point, that a conference was held in London, in January of this year, about development of the Port of Dar-es-Salaam. That was one and a half years after the congestion had begun. That is also to be found in the Report, on page 38, paragraph 227.
That conference was presided over by the Minister of Food. The conclusion of the conference was that they favoured a scheme for the construction of deep-water piers at Dar-es-Salaam. Could not that have been thought of in 1936 before we went there? Any junior officer in the most humble line of communication formation in the war would have been court-martialled for incompetence and deliberate neglect for having done that. That is what the Government are asking us to excuse to-day in this scheme, saving, "Of course, that does not matter. This is a grand scheme for developing Africa and we are going to get ground-nuts in five or six years' time." Meanwhile we have spent £24,000,000, up to the time of the balance sheet, and money has been spent at the rate of £1,000,000 a month since then, I would judge by the amount that has been called for. No, we on this side of the House wish to see Africa developed and this scheme of development in Tanganyika gene ahead with, but we wish to see it under the direction of people who are competent to administer public money and who have had experience of handling men, materials and other people's money, instead of those who are in charge of the scheme to-day. If your Lordships are still not certain, I can go on giving more and more details and examples of this from published reports, and not from any private communications that have been received.
In conclusion, I would point out that it is the knowledge of that incompetence in high places that has created the bad moray to which many speakers have referred; but it can be cured. As the right reverend Prelate has said, there is a sense of missionary work among the people in Africa. Even to-day they feel that they are doing some-

1591
thing more and greater than is paid for by their salaries, or than they can get out of the conditions under which they live. They believe in what they are doing. They believe something can be gained. But if this incompetent administration goes on much longer, not only will that be killed but they will not be there to do it, because they will not stay. We want to see this put right. When we are told that everything is all right, we do not believe it; nor do the public generally, either in this country or abroad. That is why we want to see an inquiry, not to ascertain who was to blame in the past but to discover what is the best thing to do in the future. We want an inquiry because we have no confidence in the estimates which are being made by the Minister of Food, because he has been disproved in his own estimates by the results achieved. For that reason my noble friends on these Benches and I will support the Motion asking for an inquiry by experts. Whether these experts are from this country or any other country is immaterial to us. We want an inquiry by experts into this plan, if necessary to advise us what to do next but above all to satisfy people that the money which has been wasted has not been wasted in vain.
6.44 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise at the end of this most important debate to sum up the views of those noble Lords who sit on these Benches. Whatever our views as to the functions of your Lordships' House—and I think this applies to all sides—there is one thing on which there will be common agreement in all Parties; it is that this House provides an appropriate and valuable forum for the examination of burning questions of the day. I am sure, therefore, that the Government will have no complaint if we who sit on these Benches and the Liberal Party who sit on the Benches below the gangway, have thought it right to raise a debate on the Government's ground-nut scheme which has been the subject of discussion this afternoon. This is a question which I cannot believe the Government are unaware is a subject of deep anxiety throughout the country and they should welcome any opportunity of giving any information on the subject, from the
1592
point of view of allaying those anxieties. I wish that we could say that to-day's debate has had that result; but I am afraid that the effect on most of us is only to increase our preoccupations.
What are the salient views which have emerged from the discussion to-day? In discussing this it is desirable that we should draw a differentiation between two alternative arguments on which the Government appear to base their support of this scheme and the way in which it has been operating. At one moment they defend it as a great long-term idealistic conception of Colonial development. That was the view expressed with great sincerity this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, in the charming maiden speech which he made to your Lordships. But if this is primarily a scheme, not for food production, but for opening up the Colonial Empire, is it certain that this is the best way of spending £50,000,000? I imagine that everywhere throughout this House we are just as much in favour of the development of our Colonial Empire as are the Government. But is this the most appropriate direction, from that point of view alone, in which to exert our efforts? There are many other projects which I should have thought might give more immediate and widespread benefit to the Colonial peoples themselves. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, does not favour this view, because he said so frankly at the end of his speech. But, in fact, this area of Tanganyika is very lightly populated. It is not an area that it would be natural for one to choose for the pure purpose of benefiting the Colonial peoples, and I find difficulty in believing that this was the main purpose in the minds of the Government.
Moreover, I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, when he asked why, if this were really a scheme of Colonial development it was entrusted to the Ministry of Food and not to the Colonial Office. If this is said—and it has been said, both in this House and in another place—the Government move immediately on to their other leg and recommend the scheme as a thoroughly practical plan for increasing food supplies and, in particular, fats. That gyration was performed with great grace and elegance this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. No doubt it

1593
is perfectly possible to make a strong case for increasing the production of groundnuts. It may well be argued—I think we should none of us deny it—that there has been a severe shortage of this commodity, which is so important for the production of edible fats, both during the war and in the years that have succeeded it. But even if we accept the Government's contention that a case for a ground-nut scheme has been made, and I do not myself dispute that a very good case was made for it, the question will remain in all our minds: Was this the best scheme that could be devised, and has it been efficiently executed?
It seems to me that here we are on even more debatable ground. It invites all sorts of further questions. First, is this the type of initiative which is best operated by a great State organisation based on London? Is London the right place to situate the management of this concern? Secondly, as the Government, whether for ideological or other reasons, decided that they should have a great State scheme of this character, would it not have been 'better to put in charge a man with some experience of agriculture in tropical countries and, what is more, a man resident on the spot and not 4,000 or 5,000 miles away? The Minister obviously knew nothing about the technical details of tropical agriculture. And how should he? Nobody expects the Minister, with the sort of training he has had, to know about the technical details of this subject. He was inevitably dependent upon the Chairman of his Corporation. He was the key man.
And what do we know about the Chairman? I should like, if I may, to underline what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I have nothing personally against Sir 'Leslie. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen him. I understand he is what is called a "live-wire," and no doubt that is a considerable qualification. But his experience, apparently, has been entirely—not partially—in journalism in Great Britain. We have been given, in a paper with the very imposing title Our World, which is the official organ of the Overseas Food Corporation, and is, therefore, presumably in possession of the facts, the main details of Sir Leslie's carter. This is what k says. In 1919 he joined the staff of the Daily Herald; in 1922 he started the
1594
New Leader, becoming its manager; in 1926, after the General Strike, he founded a paper called the Miner, in which he was associated with the present Minister of Food; and at a later date, I understand, he was associated with the Daily Express, on whose staff he remained until 1947, when he received his present appointment. It certainly appears that he has had a varied and successful career in journalism, for which we must all give him full credit. But can the Government possibly say that his career fits him for appointment as head of a vast corporation, the purpose of which is the production of ground-nuts in Central Africa?
The Minister may, of course, argue that he knew Sir Leslie well, and that he considered him capable of shining in any walk of life. That is, as the French used to say in Geneva, "these au moins discutable." The Minister may equally argue that Sir Leslie, even if he did not know anything about ground-nuts himself, was provided with a staff of expert advisers, all having had long experience of the technical aspects of the work of the Corporation. But it now appears that at least three of these expert advisers did not agree either with Sir Leslie or with the Minister. One of them, as your Lordships know, was Mr. Wakefield, who has spent his life in agriculture. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, quite fairly, referred to Mr. Wakefield in connection with his original Report. I think that Mr. Wakefield was probably mistaken in his original estimates; he may have been very badly mistaken. But, like other sensible men, he found himself able not only to modify, but even to alter his views. As your Lordships know, he came to the conclusion, in the light of two years' practical experience, that the Corporation was going much too fast. What happened to him? He was immediately dismissed. The same fate befell Mr. Rosa, who, as your Lordships know from his very wise and moderate letter in The Times this morning, gave the same advice.
Then there was the third, Mr. McClean, who was special adviser to Sir Leslie Plummer. He resigned voluntarily, and his reasons were extremely significant. I now quote from The Times of December 2. He there said:
"I am resigning because, while retaining my belief in the concept, under present-day conditions, of Large-scale agricultural development projects, I no longer have confidence either in

1595
the chairman of the Board or in the Minister of Food as being capable of ensuring their success."
He refers specifically, among the immediate reasons for his loss of confidence, to the information on the ground-nuts scheme given by the Minister of Food in the recent debate in the other place, which, in common with his previous statements, could not fail to mislead the general public, who could not obtain the full facts. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in his speech this afternoon said: "What do you want with an inquiry? The full facts are already in full possession of the public.' What I have quoted is a view of these facts that has been given by the special adviser to the Chairman of the Corporation.
It seems that the Chairman, Sir Leslie, no doubt filled with a burning enthusiasm, gained on the staffs of the Daily Herald, the New Leader and the Daily Express, was unwilling to take the advice of these experts to proceed with caution, and preferred to rely on his own unaided genius—and, of course, that of the Minister. He might well have borne in mind what was said many years ago by Sir Walter Raleigh, who, after all, if I remember aright, had made a plantation:
"Haste is an enemy of good deliberation; for whoso greedily desireth anything proceedeth rashly; and rash proceeding ended ever in repentance."
I would say in answer, if I may, that in this context, at any rate, I am inclined to prefer the counsel of Sir Walter Raleigh to that of Sir Francis Bacon, upon whom the Minister relied in the debate in the other place. For, as historians will remember, it was not in financial affairs that Sir Francis principally excelled.
In his speech this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, laid great emphasis on the fact that this scheme was referred to Parliament in its earliest stages, and that no opposition was found in any quarter at that stage—I do not think I am misinterpreting the noble Viscount. But I do not think it was then divulged to Parliament that there were to be no pilot experiments of any kind, and that the Government intended to go straight ahead and spend millions of pounds of public money without trying out first whether the terrain was suitable for cultivation of this character. It really is no use the Government trying to
1596
unload the responsibility on Parliament, on the United Africa Company, or on all and sundry. The Minister must take responsibility for the operations of his Department, and the Government who support him—and I understand they continue to support the Minister—must share that responsibility. No Government can shuffle out of their responsibilities in that way.
Such are some of the broad facts, both as to the nature of the enterprise on which the Government embarked, and also as to the character of the chief personalities to whose conduct the enterprise, in which millions of pounds of public money was invested, was entrusted. It is in the light of those facts that we have to examine the results of their stewardship. We are told by the Government—it was indicated by several speakers this afternoon—that it is much too soon to draw any conclusions about this venture. I cannot help thinking that that argument would not have been used if the results had been rather more satisfactory. But, in any case, it is surely legitimate that we should look into what it was hoped to achieve and see how far those expectations have been realised. It is a little difficult to do even this, for the Minister, perhaps wisely, has surrounded the whole scheme with a veil of obscurity. But there are certain salient facts which have emerged, and about those facts I think there is no dispute. I beg leave to repeat sonic of them, because it is necessary that noble Lords, and the country at large, should understand the reason for the anxieties which we feel.
First, it was expected that in the two years from 1947 to 1949 600,000 acres would be cleared and planted. In fact, up to March, 1949, the acreage cleared and planted was 50,000 acres—that is, one-twelfth of the acreage which was expected. Then it was expected that the yield per acre would be 850 lb., rising to 1,120 lb. In fact, up to March, 1949, the yield per acre was 528 lb.—little more than half. It was expected that the cost of clearing the bush would be £3 17s. 4d. per acre—a figure which I think has already been quoted. In fact, as your Lordships know, up to March, 1949, the cost of clearing. was £39 an acre, which was progressively reduced to £15 an acre. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, indicated

1597
in his speech that when these original estimates were produced, this particular one seemed to the Government astonishingly low, and I think he said that they were almost bewildering to British agricultural experts. But did that not give the Government and the Minister some cause for thought? Did not they say to themselves: "Ought we not to conduct some practical experiments to see how far this estimate is correct before going full steam ahead?"
We all know that in this country, when you are clearing woodlands by mechanical means, it costs upwards of £30 an acre—very much the same as it has in fact cost in East Africa. The Government must have known that. Did they not then send out a message, or did not the Chairman then send out a message and say: "Will you please try some limited experiments to see how far this estimate is justified?", instead of saying, as they have, two years afterwards: "Well, we always thought it very queer." And now I come to the final figure I wish to give. It was expected that the cost of production f.o.b. at the African port would be £14 5s. 6d. per acre. Now, even after three years, we do not know what the cost of production has been. The figure, as I understand, is not available. I hoped that we were to be given that figure to-day. Possibly the Leader of the House will be able to give it, or possibly it is one of those things which the British public is not to be allowed to know.
No doubt certain divergencies were to be expected from the original estimates; I should have thought that almost inevitable in an enterprise of this kind. But I ask the Government: Are not these divergencies unduly large? Is not the miscalculation of ten times rather exceptional, even for a public Corporation? We have been told in the auditors' report—my noble friend Lord Swinton has already referred to this—that it had been expected that the Kongwa bush would be easily de-rooted. I am not going any further into that matter except to ask: On what expectation was the view founded that the uprooting of this hush would be an easy matter? Was it on any practical tests that had been carried out, or was it merely guess-work? I would like to ask, in particular, how far were the large sisal companies, who have had very long experience of similar conditions, consulted, if at all? We
1598
received no information on these points from the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. Possibly we shall get more front the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
Then it appears from the same report that the scale of tractor maintenance was greatly underestimated and that insufficient provision was made for reconditioning and maintenance. I am told on good authority that upwards of 50 per cent. of the tractors were entirely out of use at any one time. I would ask, therefore, who provided the information which led to such an underestimate, which has resulted in very large numbers of tractors being immobilised for such long periods as that? Those are the kind of questions which would be asked by the shareholders of any private company, and we, as the Government constantly tell us, are the shareholders in this company, and we want to know the facts. They are facts which are relevant to our own responsibilities and, in my view, if the Government have not this information it would seem abundantly to justify an independent inquiry.
The Government supporters in another place and in the Press have sought to unload responsibility for the failure of this scheme on the United Africa Company, who were, as has been said, the agents of the Government—"managing agents" I think is the technical expression—during the first year of its operation. I thought that there was a faint implication of that, even in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and I thought I detected an implication too in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was the accounting which was so bad during the first sixteen months, and I tried to excuse it. But it was the United Africa Company.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I got the wrong impression from the noble Lord's speech. In any ease, we on this side of the House—which is all I can speak for—are not concerned to defend the United Africa Company or, indeed, anyone else. We are concerned to get the facts and find out not only the reason for what appears to have been an appalling waste of public money but, even more, to ensure that tint waste shall not continue in the future. For the House

1599
and the country should realise—as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said just now—that this expenditure is still going on. Already £30,000,000 has been spent and £20,000,000 or thereabouts is still in the kitty. By all accounts that is going pretty fast, and we are by no means certain—I do not believe noble Lords opposite are by any means certain—that it is being wisely invested.
For instance, I am told that in the southern territory which, as your Lordships know, is now being developed, a railway has already been built and an oil pipeline 127 miles long has been constructed. But the soil survey and the water survey in the area which these facilities are to serve are still far from complete. In fact, in the case of water I am told that it is still at a very early stage. We do not in fact know—and I suppose the Corporation do not, in fact, yet know—what will grow in these areas, which the railway and the pipeline have been built to serve. The same mistake is still possible there which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has just said, has already been made at Kongwa. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, with great satisfaction, said that 100,000 acres of this southern territory were to be cleared and planted by next year. I think he meant the next two years.
VISCOUNT HALL: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount was good enough to send me a note to correct what he said. But can we have any confidence that the soil survey and the water survey, when completed, will justify going ahead at this pace and developing so rapidly 100,000 acres? We know of the mistakes already made in the Kongwa area, and they are very considerable. I will give your Lordships just one instance. I ask the Leader of the House whether this is not correct: that at Kongwa, on the assumption that a vastly greater area was to be cultivated than has been, and that a vastly greater labour force would be necessary, a hospital was actually put up with 400 beds. Now it appears that only 90,000 to 100,000 acres are going to be cultivated in the immediate future—if indeed any more are to be cultivated at any time. The accommodation at that hospital, therefore, is largely redundant and attempts are now being made to
1600
make use of it by employing it for some other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that the Government had not had enough credit for the social work they had done. But I am certain that, with his experience as a Governor, he would agree that it is indefensible to spend unless you have some accurate knowledge of the needs of the area which is to be supplied. Yet that is what has undoubtedly happened in various ways at Kongwa.
We do not want—and cannot allow, so far as it is in our power to prevent it—such mistakes to be multiplied and repeated in the new area. Nor have our anxieties been allayed by a remark which was let drop by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, referred in what, if I may say so, was a very admirable speech—that the production of ground-nuts might possibly have to be permanently susidised. He said cheerfully that the British farmer was subsidised and why, therefore, should we not subsidise the lot? The Government seems constitutionally unable to realise that there is somewhere a bottom to the public purse. That is one of the main reasons for our present unhappy national situation. But this question of expenditure is a matter with which both Parliament and people must concern themselves. For all these reasons I most sincerely beg the Government to reverse their earlier decision, announced by the First Lord, and agree to an independent expert inquiry. That, I believe, would be in the interests of the staff employed in this great venture.
The noble Viscount gave the impression that the staff would resent such an inquiry and regard it as a reflection on themselves—and by the staff I mean in particular the staff in Tanganyika itself; those whom the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, called the "front line troops." That, of course, would be most unfortunate if it were true, because they have worked in a most devoted manner throughout. But it is not my information that that would be their view. On the contrary, my impression is that they would warmly welcome an inquiry of the fullest kind. At present they are utterly bewildered and they have largely lost confidence, not in the scheme itself, but in the present management of the scheme at the London end. Nothing would please them better than to have

1601
all the facts disclosed and the scheme put on a realistic basis. Indeed. Mr. McClean gave as one of the main reasons which encouraged him to resign his post:
"the refusal to hold a public inquiry without which it was impossible either for the general public or the staff of the Corporation to have any confidence in those at present responsible for the scheme."
That, I am sure, represents the views of a large proportion of the staff in Tanganyika.
I ant not going to suggest to-day that this venture should be scrapped. I personally should be very sorry to see it scrapped. Whether it was originally well conceived and well sited or not, we must make the best of it now, if in any way economically possible. Especially at this crisis in our national affairs, we cannot afford to lose £30,000,000. But if we are to go on, the British public—what I have called the shareholders in this project—must know the full facts. It is not our aim this evening—as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, recognises—to censure the Minister or anyone else, except in so far as the facts in themselves do this. But it is vital for the future, even more than for the past, that a full inquiry should be held. It is for this we ask. In doing so, we believe we have behind us the overwhelming body of public opinion in every Party, and I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will accede to our request. In his closing words Lord Hall, who is usually so courteous to us on this side made (I hope he did not mean it) what seemed to me to be a very offensive suggestion. That suggestion was that the demand for an inquiry which we are putting forward has been actuated purely by Party political motives. If I may say so, we on this side deeply resent that suggestion. Here is a case where £30,000,000 of public money has been, in our view, squandered on what clearly was—
VISCOUNT HALL: May I assure the noble Marquess that my remark was not intended in the way he suggests?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for saying so, but he did make a reference to "attacks on purely political grounds." He may, of course, have meant political attacks outside this House—but certainly that was the implication of his remarks.
1602
As I say, £30,000,000 has been, as we believe, squandered on what is at best a doubtful proposition—and more is being spent now. It seems to me that we in Parliament have a positive duty to make proper inquiries into this expenditure. That is our constitutional job, and we should be grossly to blame if we neglected it. As the noble Viscount sailed a little near the wind, I hope he will allow me to do the same. I should like to say quite definitely that in our view (and it is a view which I believe to be widely held outside this House) the reason the Government are refusing an inquiry is not because all the facts are already known to the public—that is definitely not so—but because they cannot flee an inquiry, since the results would be too damaging. Yet, if an inquiry is not held, there is no certainty that there will be any improvement in the management of this project. I am afraid I can only regard the Government's attitude, if I may use a word already employed by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, as an insult to Parliament and the country, and I would ask those who hold this view to express it in no uncertain way by going into the Division Lobby in support of this Motion. It seems to me that it is impossible, in view of the Government's refusal, to take any other view.
7.19 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. It has been much as I expected, except in one regard, and that is a certain revelation of the defects in the memory of noble Lords opposite. I will endeavour to lift the curtain for them a little before I finish, but it was a great surprise to me that noble Lords, in their ostensible forgetfulness, wished to have it both ways. However, I will remind them of some of their sayings on this matter, and perhaps they will think a little more wisely of the matter when I have finished. For the purposes of this reply I am bound to recapitulate in a few sentences the story of this scheme.
It did not originate in a Government Department. It originated in the minds of the hard-headed business men who are on the staff of the United Africa Company. That is where it came from. Mr. Samuel made some interesting suggestions which were then explored, as my noble friend the First Lord of the

1603
Admiralty has said, in 1946, and ultimately, as I shall show in a moment, life made a start in 1947. For the reasons so eloquently put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the general purpose was to increase the food production in those parts of the world where the temperature and other conditions might be favourable to that type of production of which Africa was the most notable place; and, at the same time, to help to develop this great Colonial territory.
At the time—that is, in 1946–47—these proposals received general support. They were not proposals covering the modest acreage about which we are now talking. There were 2,500,000 acres to be cleared; that was the figure. I am not giving away any secrets when I confess that I regarded the proposals with some surprise. They were accepted generally and the United Africa Company, with general approval—and as the Government we accept the fullest responsibility for asking them to act—acted as managing agents for the initial scheme. They did so act from the beginning of 1947 to the spring of 1948. It is true that during a part of that time, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, reminded us, the nominated Chairman was in close touch with them, although for a great part of that period, the autumn of 1947–48, he was in Australia. However, this Company managed the scheme until March, 1948. The original estimates were put before the country and were carefully gone into by a responsible mission, composed of Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Rosa and Mr. Martin, of the United Africa Company. They made up their own detailed review. They were trusted experts. The managing agency then acted upon their recommendations—this was in early 1947. I am not blaming the Corporation, the managing agency or anybody. I am merely stating the facts. In a minute I will remind noble Lords opposite of their own views about this. During 1947, various projects were started and in one instance a choice was made of the Kongwa region. Included in these operations were these immense purchases of war dumps, of which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, reminded us. Some contraption was found which dealt with ships. There were all kinds of strange things in the war dumps. They had to buy the lot or
1604
nothing. Anyhow, this managing agency bought these war dumps. I am not blaming them. It was possibly the best thing they could do in the circumstances. The work went on in that way.
In the spring of 1948, the Government proposed to set up this Corporation. Accordingly, a Bill came before this House. While the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was speaking to-day, I had what I may term two operations of memory. One was a vision of the noble Viscount standing there saying what he thought about this Bill. That, of course, was a year after the scheme had started. They were already on the job in Kongwa; they had already bought the dumps. It was decided to set up this Corporation to carry on at that particular place. I find my recollection is correct. I have obtained a copy of Hansard, as the Speaker says in another place "in order that my quotations may be correct." I also thought this afternoon that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was in the same position as the noble Viscount, and I find that he was. I will remind the House what the noble Viscount said about the Bill, because these noble Lords have gone out of their way to condemn the whole scheme lock, stock and barrel.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I have not. If I am being charged, I want the right to answer that charge. I have said that I want to rescue this scheme from the way in which it is being mismanaged to-day. I wished it well a year ago; I wish it well to-day. But a year ago, if I had known the way it was going to be mismanaged I should have known that it could not succeed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg the noble Viscount to read his own speech as reported in Hansard. He will see that what I say is correct—that the gist of the whole speech was that the scheme was improperly conceived, the wrong place was selected, and so on. I recommend the noble Viscount to read his speech. That is the impression it makes upon anyone who reads it. The same applies to the speech of the other noble Lord. This scheme had been going on for a year. Then before this House there came a proposal that this Corporation should be set up. This is what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said about it when this scheme had been going on for twelve months. That is my point.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: One is often misled by false pretences.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh, no. The noble Viscount is not going to get away with that. He said:
"I think that in all quarters of the House—or certainly in almost all quarters—it will be agreed that it is a Bill to which we can give our general and broad support. I should like at the outset to congratulate the Government on not having laid down any sealed pattern."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Wait a minute. That was the Bill to carry on these very operations, to enable a Corporation to be set up to carry on the scheme. I am not excusing anybody's mistake, or saying what some of them were, or how big they were. All I am trying to say now is that it is not fair to be wise after the event, and to turn round and make a suggestion that you have been out of favour with the whole scheme from the very start. That will not do.
LORD RENNELL: I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting but I do not follow what he is trying to say. I supported the Overseas Development Corporation Bill. I have never condemned the Overseas Food Corporation either then or this evening. I have condemned its management.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The case against the scheme during its initiation and the early operations of the scheme is that in the place chosen—Kongwa, for example—the soil was far too hard (I think one noble Lord said it is as hard as concrete, and I believe it is sometimes) where there was low rainfall and various other defects. What I am pointing out is that at the time when noble Lords nave the scheme their blessing the operations were in that area.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But does the noble Viscount suggest that we knew that there had been no pilot experiments?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not know what the noble Viscount knew. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said:
"I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is going to take part in this debate, but it may perhaps be easier for another to emphasise, for what it is worth. how much we owe to the initiative, not of
1606
the Colonial Office or of any Government Department, but to a private company, for proposing, working out and starting a scheme which has everybody's praise for its imagination and scope."
That is what Lord Rennell said on January 29, 1948, when the scheme had been going for a year. That is the point I am on. I suggest the noble Lord that it will not do for him to assume this mantle of wisdom so long after the event, when everybody knows that these great mistakes were made. Without a doubt, one of the mistakes (Fat was made was the choice of this place, Kongwa, for the initial experiment. I think it was a mistake, but we did not know it then. The choice was made by a mission of three gentlemen who were all supposed to be experts. I suppose they were; they did their best. They were Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Rosa, and Mr. Martin of the United Africa Company. These gentlemen suggested this particular area for these operations, and the operations were started by the managing agency in all good faith on that advice. I ant not blaming the managing agency, but, unfortunately, it was proved that this was not a good place to start.
In the first place, there was a deficiency of rainfall. I agree with the noble Viscount that we ought to have known there was not sufficient rainfall. The ground is very hard and almost like concrete for parts of the year, and during other times these fellows working there are subjected to very frequent dust storms. It is a very miserable place in which to live, and I do not wonder that sometimes they get depressed and rather disheartened. I think that was an initial mistake. There were several other mistakes. Certainly it was a mistake to suggest that that ground could be cleared at this very rapid pace. We are not denying any one of these things. What we want to do is to learn by the lessons of experience how to put things right and to encourage the men on the spot in their difficult tasks. Before I leave that matter, may I say in reply to the Lord Bishop of Lichfield that very good progress is being made in the various welfare services by the Corporation officers, particularly in the south and round Kongwa. I could go into the details but seeing the time of night I will refrain from doing so. I will make it my business to send to the right reverend Prelate a report of the excellent work

1607
that is being done with regard to hospital accommodation, welfare, schools and all the rest of it.
Now I must move to my main theme. I have put the House in possession of the history of how this scheme grew up. Then, in February, 1948, we passed the Bill setting up the Corporation, with the blessing of noble Lords opposite who said all those pleasant things about it when it had been going for twelve months. Since then this Corporation has been in charge—a period of twenty months. That is the particular period. Of course, as these difficulties have emerged, and the enormous handicaps from lack of transport, inadequate repair facilities for machinery, and all the rest of it, have inevitably developed, the Corporation have had to reduce their programme more and more.
Early this year the Chairman, because the managing director on the spot was ill, had himself at Kongwa to undertake the very unpleasant task of telling the staff that certain of them were redundant, that the scheme must be reduced in its scope, and so on. That was a very difficult and wretched thing for anybody to have to do, and it was very disheartening to the men on the spot. Unfortunately, it is part of the lesson which has emerged from the work in hand, and the result is that a greatly reduced programme is now before us. I hope those concerned will be able to achieve that programme, but I would not pretend that in the southern area they may not meet with even more unforeseen difficulties. Even now we do not know what the insects are going to be like in that region; what the health records are going to be; and to what extent these plants are going to be exposed to various diseases; and other things such as accidents may emerge. Not for a moment do I wish to conceal a single one of them.
I must remind the House of another fact. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, described these accounts in very strong language. I do not know that it was too strong. But whose accounts were they? If you look at the Report, you will see at page 75 a letter from Mr. Webster of the United Africa Company to Mr. Huntley of the Ministry of Food, submitting the accounts. The letter is a very good, honest, straightforward
1608
letter, printed in full in this Report. That does not show that the noble Lord is short of facts: they push themselves out at him from every page of the Report. We have not sought to conceal these ugly facts. I ask your Lordships to read that letter at page 75. It is no doubt a very truthful account of the difficulties which they experienced and why the accounts, to put it in plain and simple language, were in such a considerable muddle in the starting of the enterprise in that area.
If noble Lords will refer to Appendix 4, they will see, on page 95, what jobs this Corporation had to tackle when it took over the business in March, 1948, only twenty months ago. I must admit that I was dismayed when I read this, and I do not think that private enterprise had anything to be proud about, either. Here it is. There were great difficulties because the heavy tractors, from surplus stores, were much worse than had been anticipated. There were no spares. It took months to get things to Kongwa from overseas and the supply position was very inadequate. There was an incomplete overall plan of operations, an incomplete integration between the operations, over centralisation and so on. The Report goes on in this way:
"In normal circumstances the transfer of responsibility would have been accompanied by detailed audited accounts at the date of transfer, but, in the circumstances in which the Scheme was started, it was apparent that there must be many gaps in the accounting records so as to make the preparation of such complete accounts impracticable."
That is a statement of the position when the Corporation came into office. Were they talking about accounts? They were talking about the state of affairs as presented to them on the termination of the responsibility of the managing agency. That is what this dreadful Paper describes.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, told us a charming story of what he did concerning War Office accounts in West Africa. It is stated in this Report that there are four difficulties to be put right. With regard to three of them very good progress has been made. In the matter of the fourth, which concerns the getting of audited accounts into proper order, it is stated here that this takes at least twelve months. No doubt that is right. That is only twenty months ago. If you look at

1609
the record of this Corporation you will see that they have appointed auditors, got the accounts into better shape, got things collected together and sorted out and dealt with heaps of documents, and I believe it is fair to say that the accounts are now in a much better condition and are improving rapidly. The appointment of Sir Eric Coates to the Board is evidence of our great anxiety to help the Corporation to get the accounts into better order. Lord Rennell asked me about a figure of £422,938. That represents the sales of merchandise in the Corporation shops to their employees, both Europeans and Africans—the goods sold including food, clothes, furniture and other things. Lord Rennell further complained that there way no laboratory at Kongwa until March. 1948. I dare say there was not. In this immense enterprise it had not been found possible to establish adequate laboratory facilities at Kongwa in 1948. That had been the business of the managing agency. They had been in charge up to that time. I am not prepared to accept responsibility on behalf of the Government.
LORD RENNELL: The Government must accept responsibility.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Since then laboratories have been established there and at many other places, under the ægis and the direction of the Corporation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I just want to be clear about this point. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that he would not accept responsibility on behalf of the Government, except, I understood him to say, in so far as the thing was done by the Corporation. Do the Government accept responsibility for what was done by the managing agency or not? It is rather an important point.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not want to put it unfairly. What I meant was that before that particular time when the Corporation found this state of affairs, the managing agency had been in charge. It is true that the Government were responsible for the managing agents. I do not in the least suggest that they were not. If I did make any suggestion of that sort it was a slip.
The noble Marquess made various points to which I would like to reply
1610
specifically. He said that he was anxious to get the facts. He has a great thirst for facts and a passion for inquiry which he has displayed to us to-day. I confess that I have seldom read a published Report of transactions which is franker or more crowded with facts—some of them very desolating facts—than this particular document. And it has provided abundant material for noble Lords opposite because it is so prolific in its statement of facts. I think the noble Marquess might for the time being be reasonably satisfied with that. He said that the effect of the debate will be disturbing. I agree; I think it will be disturbing. I think that all that has been going on about this matter has been disturbing. I think it will cause misgivings in the hearts of many of the fellows who are working hard out there under most adverse conditions. It is no use the noble Marquess shaking his head; I am certain that misgivings will be caused. He is a very responsible person, and—I say it with the greatest respect—when he goes out of his way to disparage the Chairman of the Corporation, as he has done, it is bound to have a disturbing effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is Parliament to be allowed to say anything or not? I do not know anything about Sir Leslie Plummer personally; I have not met him. I did not know anything against him. I simply related what his past career had been. It was just a statement of facts. If the noble Viscount does not like the facts, that is not my fault.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The recital of those facts was designed—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It may be that they are damaging, but people ought to know them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The recital of these facts was designed to, and will, have the effect of creating misgivings in the minds of a large number of people and to make them think: "This is not the right sort of man to be Chairman." That is why those facts were recited. I contend that the recital of them by the noble Marquess will have a disturbing effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Viscount think that the public ought not to know these facts?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not mind the public knowing them. I daresay they knew them already. The point which I am on is that it is not consistent for the noble Marquess to recite them and to dispute my statement that they will have a disturbing effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure that the noble Viscount would not wish me to misrepresent him nor would he wish to misrepresent me. The point I want to make is that the disturbing effect had already been created. Reports concerning the attitude of the staff which came back some time ago showed a grave state of disturbance long before the Opposition began to ask for an inquiry. The general disturbance which has occurred is indeed one of the many reasons why we are asking for an inquiry. Our belief is, as Mr. McClean said in the published statement, that nothing would do more to reassure the staff than to have this public inquiry.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not share the view of the noble Marquess. I think these reports are sometimes the result of very misleading gossip. I will have something to say in support of that in a minute. Such reports have had, or are calculated to have, a most damaging effect on the spirit of those plucky men who are doing this work out there, thousands of miles away from home under the most adverse conditions. I think it is wrong that it should be dealt with in this way.
Let me now refer to one or two reports. Here is an example of the kind of campaign which has been going on. Your Lordships will remember that an article about this scheme was published in a paper called Picture Post. A member of the staff out there—I will not give his name received a letter from this paper, as did several of his colleagues. I am going to read this letter to the House. The man in question was one of the chief officers. He was so disgusted with this communication that he sent it to us. It reads:
"Dear Mr.—
Following the publication of our article … the Overseas Food Corporation sent a long criticism which we are publishing in the issue of December 3. I am replying to this in the following issue, the 10th, but many points raised by the Overseas Food Corporation, will be of great interest I think to the men on the spot. As, however, they could not receive copies for some considerable time.
1612
I am sending you copies. It may well be that some of the men on the spot may feel moved to comment on this Overseas Food Corporation document."
that is to say, the statement of their own superiors—
"If so, I think it would be a pity not to include their comments in any readers' letters printed. You know, of course, that while we prefer readers to sign letters for publication, if they desire, we are prepared to publish them under a nom de plume."
In other words, they sent a letter to the employees of this Corporation asking them to write anonymous letters to this paper criticising the doings of their Corporation and of those who are in charge of it.
I do not know of anything more utterly disgusting than this. That is the kind of campaign that has been going on. It is altogether abominable, and it is having the most disturbing effect on the men out there in Africa. I say at once that we have no intention whatever of accepting this Motion. There have been expert inquiries into the questions of administration and finance, right throughout the whole period, and I hope that the staff will now be allowed to settle down to the prosecution of a greatly reduced programme. The programme has been carefully surveyed in advance and I feel sure that they have learned from their mistakes of the past. Is it much to be wondered at that in a great undertaking of this kind there should be blunders at the beginning? It has happened before. It has often happened to private companies. Even in my knowledge of these affairs many private companies have had to wind up their affairs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But has it not had some effect on the management?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Of course it has. There is nothing exceptional in having great difficulties or unforeseen difficulties in a new and great pioneering venture. What about the history of the Panama Canal? I would like noble Lords to recollect that history. After several private companies had "gone broke," it was finally taken over at immense cost by the American Government—but it was a great project with immense difficulties that were unforeseen. It is no good the noble Marquess making that sort of interjection. We find in our

1613
own land that various private concerns have large deficits. We have heard a great deal recently about the debts of a film corporation, running into millions. I dare say that is new ground which is being explored, as in the ground-nut scheme, but it is not new that there should be difficulties in these great pioneering undertakings. And here is an undertaking that was advised in the first place not by a Government Department but, presumably, by experienced business men. The men out there in Africa and the Board here are entitled to our support. We are not going to he party to these wretched
Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
8.3 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I have a short but important announcement to make on the order of to-morrow's Business. After we have dealt with the Orders reported from the Special Orders Committee for approval, we expect to receive the Commons Message on your Lordships' Amendments to the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Message shall be considered forthwith upon Motion, and that thereafter we shall
inquisitions, of which I have given an example, and of which I could give the House several more, which have been undertaken by various agencies and which are calculated to undermine the confidence and good will of the men on the spot. We shall support this ground-nut scheme with all heartiness, and we refuse this so-called inquiry.
8.0 p.m.
On Question: Whether the Resolution be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Exeter, M.

Altrincham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Salisbury, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Townshend, M.

Baden-Powell, L.

Melchett, L.

Willingdon, M. [Teller.]

Brocket, L.

Merthyr L.

Carrington, L.

Middleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Cawley, L.

Milverton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Cherwell, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-William.)

O'Hagan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Polwarth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Clwyd, L.

Rea, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Clydesmuir, L.

Rennell, L.

Falmouth, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Rochdale, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Deramore, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Hailsham, V.

Derwent, L.

Sandys, L.

Marchwood, V.

Digby, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Margesson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teviot, L.

Monsell, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Teynham, L.

Samuel, V.

Hacking, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Wardington, L.

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Mountevans, L.

Chorley, L.

Nathan, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Darwen, L. [Teller.]

Pakenham, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hall, V.

Kershaw, L. [Teller.]

Piercy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Quibell, L.

Stansgate, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Amwell, L.

Marley, L.

Uvedale of North End, L

Archibald, L.

Morrison, L.

Williams, L.

take the Commons Amendments to the Justices of the Peace Bill, followed by the Amendments to the other Bills now appearing on the Order Paper for tomorrow.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.

ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.