Sitting of 26 January 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Swift Training Rifles
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for Air how many Swift training rifles he has in use and how many in reserve.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): None. Sir.
    Mr. Low: Did not the Minister at one time have a very large number of these rifles, and what has he done with them since the end of the war?
    Mr. Henderson: I should like to have notice of that question.

    Airfields (Joint Use)
    Mr. George Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air how many airfields are being used jointly by the R.A.F. and the scheduled air line operators.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Six airfields in the United Kingdom are in regular joint use by the R.A.F. and scheduled air line operators. In addition seventeen airfields are so used occasionally when bad weather necessitates diversions. Another 42 airfields are available for use by the R.A.F. and scheduled air line operators but are not so used at present.
    Mr. Ward: Can the Minister give an assurance that these arrangements are working smoothly and without friction?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

    Instructors
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air how many civilian instructors in the R.A.F. have
    894
    been declared redundant in the last 12 months; and how the services of these men can be dispensed with at a time when the R.A.F. is short of trained Service personnel, many of whom will now have to be diverted to instructing duties.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The number is 192. Since these men are surplus to requirements in their trades they will not be replaced by trained Service personnel.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister satisfied that he is taking the correct action in getting rid of these men, who are most experienced and who have got their homes near the airfields? Surely, he could make good use of them when we are short of recruits?
    Mr. Henderson: All these men belong to two trades—fitters and armourers—and it is in these trades that we have a surplus of trained and experienced noncommissioned officers. It would simply be a case of not making use of their services if we were to retain them.
    Mr. Ward: If that is so, will the Minister say why it is that armourers are not allowed to buy themselves out of the Air Force today on the ground that they are supposed to be in short supply?
    Mr. Henderson: I think that restriction on the right or privilege of purchasing discharge from the Service is not confined to any one particular trade but that, in recent months, by reason of the requirements of the air lift, the privilege has been restricted throughout the Service.
    Mr. Ward: If armourers are not allowed to buy themselves out, will the Minister explain why the Air Force are paying off civilian instructors?
    Mr. Henderson: I was not aware that there was a specific restriction on armourers only.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers, other ranks, and civilians, respectively, are engaged in the technical training of air and ground trades; and what were the proportions between civilian and Service instructors in 1938, 1947 and 1948.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Ten officers, 2,137 airmen and 707 civilians are employed on

    895
    these duties. I regret that records kept in 1938 do not allow the proportion of civilian to Service instructors to be determined; in 1947 it was 1 to 3.1 and in 1948 1 to 2.75.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Secretary of State say what his policy is in this matter? Is he trying to get more civilians to help, or is he using men in uniform?
    Mr. Henderson: The answer is that, as regards instructors, Service and civilian, after discussions with the Whitley Council representatives on the other side, it has been agreed that the proportion shall be 60–40, 60 Service, 40 civilian.

    Pilot Officer (Release)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air for how long Pilot Officer F. H. Close has served in the Royal Air Force; on what date he is due for release; and whether he will be released on that date.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Pilot II F. H. Close enlisted on 10th January, 1939. He is serving on a regular engagement and is not, therefore, subject to the release regulations for the Royal Air Force.

    Reconnaissance Flights, Middle East
    Mr. Austinasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give details in full of all material information, including photographs, which have been handed over to Egyptian Air Force Command following on R.A.F. reconnaissance; and under what authority this action was taken.
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the photographs taken in high and low level reconnaissance flights over the areas in which Israeli and Egyptian forces have been in conflict have been supplied to the Egyptian authorities.
    Mr. A. Henderson: No material information or photographs obtained from either high or low level reconnaissance flights were handed over to the Egyptian authorities. I am informed, however, that on occasion photographic information was discussed with Egyptian officers because of the difficulty of obtaining
    896
    positive identification of Jewish ground forces in Egyptian territory.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: As it is obvious from the Minister's answer that this photography was an act of intervention in the war—not, of course, the fault of the Minister, but set on deliberately by the Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—and in view of the degree of anger now created by this reckless imperilling of human life, will the Minister use his influence to persuade the Foreign Secretary to cause our forces to be withdrawn from the danger area?
    Mr. Henderson: The latter part of the question, I think, might be put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself, but I would like to make it quite clear that I cannot accept any suggestion that there has been any intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government. Indeed, I said in the latter part of my reply that this information only related to the possible presence of Jewish forces in Egyptian territory and not to the positions of Jewish forces in Jewish territory.
    Mr. Austin: As the discussions referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend, relating to certain identifications, may, according to the opinion of certain authorities, constitute an infringement of neutrality in some respects, will he give an assurance that such reconnaissance flights are no longer intended?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I cannot give any guarantee as to the future, but what I can say is that we are not continuing such flights under present arrangements.
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Air what notice was given to the Jewish authorities of the intention to carry out the 20 high-level reconnaissance flights made over Palestine in the last two months and of the routes proposed to be taken on these flights.
    Mr. A. Henderon: No notice was given to the Jewish authorities.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been drawn to the denial by the United Nations Mediator of the statement on this subject which he made last week that

    897
    these reconnaissance flights were carried out with the knowledge of the United Nations Mediator?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, and I should like to make it clear that the consultations referred to regarding these flights took place with Count Bernadotte and not with Dr. Bunche, the Acting Mediator.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear whether these 20 high-level reconnaissance flights took place within the last two months—since the Mosquito was shot down—or whether they referred to something that happened earlier?
    Mr. Henderson: They covered a period of November and December and overlapped the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will now state whether the R.A.F. Court of Inquiry convened to inquire into the circumstances in which 3051236 Pilot Officer David Crossley Tattersfield lost his life will be open to the public; and whether facilities will be given to the parents of Pilot Officer Tattersfield to be represented.
    Mr. A. Henderson: It would not be in accordance with practice for such a Court of Inquiry to be held in public. As regards the second part of the question, the head of the Royal Air Force legal branch in the Middle East Command will be attending the Court, and he will watch the interests of the next-of-kin.
    Mr. Blackburn: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he does not feel that this is a very special case? Will he bear in mind the fact that conflicting statements have been made about this particular subject, and, while he may stick to this principle that the inquiry may not be held in public, will he see that a very full summary of the evidence and of the findings of the court is published? Will he also see that the interests of the next-of-kin are properly protected by somebody who will look after them?
    Mr. Henderson: In regard to the second part of the question, I can say that the answer is in the affirmative. Regarding the first part, I would rather wait until I have seen the report, but I am prepared to give an undertaking that a full
    898
    summary of both the evidence and the findings will be published.
    Mr. William Teeling: Am I to understand that this inquiry concerns only Pilot Officer Tattersfield, and, if so, why is it not to include the son of my constituent—Pilot Officer Sayers. who was also killed?
    Mr. Henderson: The court of inquiry itself will cover a number of cases; and, as regards the arrangements for this senior officer to represent the next-of-kin, he would certainly include the next-of-kin of all those who were casualties.
    Mr. Teeling: But is the Minister aware that the father of Pilot Officer Sayers has been quite unable within the last few weeks to obtain any information whatever about the death of his son, and is not that a case for this inquiry?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I am surprised that that should be the case, and if the hon. Gentleman will give me the particulars I will look into the matter at once.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will the Minister ask the court to inquire especially into one fact—whether the allegations made by Pilot Officer Close, which have received such widespread publicity throughout the world, are true or not, because I do not believe they are true, nor do the parents, and it is most important that the people should know the truth?
    Mr. Henderson: I can say that the terms of reference will certainly cover that point.
    Mr. Austinasked the Secretary of State for Air what reconnaissance operations by the R.A.F. are taking place in conjunction with, or at the request of Transjordan forces.
    Mr. A. Henderson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, in view of the decision of the Security Council, there will be any flights over Transjordan?
    Mr. Henderson: I can only say, in reply to this Question, that the answer is "None, Sir."
    Mr. Austinasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement giving full details of dates, areas, etc., in

    899
    which R.A.F. and Egyptian aircraft have partaken in joint formation flights, since the ending of the Palestine Mandate.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Egyptian aircraft accompanied R.A.F. aircraft on the two reconnaissances carried out on 30th December, 1948, referred to in my statement on 19th January. No other flights with the Egyptian Air Force have taken place.
    Mr. S. Silverman: If these aeroplanes of ours were taking part in flights accompanied by Egyptian aircraft, is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that people on the other side regarded them as belligerents?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. In view of the fact that R.A.F. aircraft were flying over Egyptian territory with aircraft belonging to the Government of that territory, I can see no justification for that assumption.
    Mr. Janner: Can the Minister say whether there was a reconnaissance flight on 7th January, whether any Egyptian planes accompanied our aircraft on that flight, and why, after there was an agreement between the Egyptian and Israeli forces for a cease-fire, the flight was allowed on that date?
    Mr. Henderson: The answer to the first part of the question is that no Egyptian aircraft accompanied R.A.F. aircraft on the reconnaissance flight that took place on 7th January. As regards the second part, I have been informed by the Commander-in-Chief that he was not aware of the proposed truce until 8th January.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Can the Minister say what was the object of our aircraft flying in company with Egyptian planes at all; and may I assist him to answer by suggesting that the real reason was to give cover to the Egyptians while they took hostile action?
    Mr. Henderson: I see no reason at all to object to the joint flight that took place late in December between aircraft of the R.A.F. and Egyptian aircraft, and, indeed, if the position had been reversed and we had had our planes based on Jewish territory, I can see no objection
    900
    to them flying with Jewish aircraft over Jewish territory.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister tell the House in what direction these planes were flying? Was it in the direction of Israeli territory? Will he say whether the Israeli authorities were supposed to wait until they came over Israeli territory before they took action?
    Mr. Henderson: It is not for me to say what the Jewish authorities were supposed to do. All I can say is that the various tactical reconnaissances took place over Egyptian territory, not Jewish territory.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer that the Air-Officer Commanding-in-Chief was not aware of the truce, can we have any statement from His Majesty's Government whether a signal was sent from this country indicating that a truce had taken place and so informing the Air Officer Commanding?
    Mr. Henderson: I think we may take it that no signal was sent in view of the fact that the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has informed me that he was not aware of the truce.
    Mr. Butler: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard it as his duty to keep closer contact with Air Officers Commanding on the spot?
    Mr. Henderson: I had no official information myself on the 7th that the truce was to take place.
    Mr. S. Silverman: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's somewhat original notion of tactics, will he undertake that if ever this country is attacked by hostile aircraft the Royal Air Force will not be expected to wait until they arrive over our territory.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a purely hypothetical question.
    Mr. Janner: Arising out of the reply which has been given about this lack of knowledge of the cease-fire, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any intimation was given at any time from his Department or from any other Department when a settlement was made which necessitated the stopping of any aggressive action?

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Flight Refuelling (Tests)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how much money has been spent on experiments and test flying dealing with the refuelling of aircraft in the air; and what is his policy for the future regarding this method of refuelling.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Flight refuelling has been under development for a number of years and it would be difficult to state the total cost, but during the last three years, £570,000 has been spent on trials, carried out for civil aviation purposes. In deciding future policy my noble Friend will be guided, among other things, by the views of the Corporations in the light of recent operational trials on the North and South Atlantic routes, the results of which are still under examination by all concerned.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: As this form of flight refuelling has been going on for some 12 or 14 years and large sums of money have been well spent on it, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Corporations to make up their minds whether they can utilise the information which is now available?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The economics of the operation, so far as the experiments themselves are concerned, are satisfactory. The inquiry now concerns the economics of the operation in relation to scheduled services.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister take into account the known hostility of B.O.A.C. towards this development, which will make it possible for them to make use of British aircraft when at present they prefer to use American aircraft?
    Mr. Lindgren: I think that is a very unfair insinuation. The pilots who fly these aircraft have a right to be heard in connection with an operation which they think has some risk associated with it.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the money which has been expended falls on his Ministry or on the Corporation?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. On the Ministry of Supply.

    B.O.A.C. Services (Malta)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is his policy that B.O.A.C. should use Rome instead of Castel Benito and Malta.
    Mr. Lindgren: British Overseas Airways Corporation land-plane trunk services to the East and to South Africa are being progressively withdrawn from Castel Benito in fulfilment of the Corporation's long standing plan to serve Rome which is one of the most important traffic centres in Europe. British Overseas Airways Corporation will, for the time being, continue to operate through Malta with Lancastrian aircraft. When replacement aircraft are available a service adequate to meet traffic requirements between Malta and the East will be operated if proving flights through Malta indicate that the aerodrome is operationally satisfactory.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that Malta is being abandoned in favour of Rome and that the temporary abandonment of Malta in favour of Castel Benito was done deliberately because it would have been hard to reconcile the people of Malta to losing their airport in favour of the Rome airport, from which they were so often bombed?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. There is no foundation for that statement.
    Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Could my hon. Friend say whether the Maltese Government have been kept informed of B.O.A.C.'s programme and also, whether the services to Malta are adequate?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. 130th the noble Lord and myself have visited Malta. We have had discussions with the Governor, the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Maltese Government and they are fully informed of B.O.A.C.'s short-term and long-term programmes. In reply to the latter part of the question, Malta is better served today through British European Airways than at any previous time in the history of the air services of the island.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the great anxiety in Malta and this country

    903
    and of the uncertainty of the position, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early date.

    Italian Airlines (Payments)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what sums were paid to Italian airlines by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. during 1948; and what subsidies were given to Italian airlines during 1948.
    Mr. Lindgren: Payments in the ordinary way of business are a matter of management. The only payment outside this category during 1948 was the subscription by British European Airways Corporation of £133,854 for additional shares in Alitalia, as was disclosed in paragraph 22 of the Corporation's Report for 1947–48. No subsidies have been paid by the United Kingdom to this or any other Italian airline.

    Internal Services (Airports)
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many civil airports without Customs facilities, for the use of internal services only, are maintained; and at what annual cost.
    Mr. Lindgren: None, Sir.
    Mr. Teeing: Does that mean that if aircraft come from abroad and land by accident in this country it is impossible for people to be cleared?
    Mr. Lindgren: The Question asked what aerodromes in this country, which are used only for scheduled services, are without customs facilities, and the answer was, "None, Sir."

    Runways, Prestwick
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the latest position regarding modernisation of runways at Prestwick.
    Mr. Lindgren: Runway strengthening to enable Prestwick to take aircraft of Stratocruiser weight was completed in December, 1948.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities complain that the lack of information as to
    904
    what the plans are for the modernisation of the runways at Prestwick, is at the present time holding up housing schemes?
    Mr. Lindgren: Lack of definite knowledge, yes, Sir. An engineering survey has taken place; consultation is taking place with local authorities in the area in connection with the construction of a third runway. The only lack of information is in respect of the siting of this third runway, but we hope that the issue will be clear at the end of this month.

    Edinburgh—London Service
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will give the date on which it is proposed to resume the Edinburgh—London air service.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed by British European Airways Corporation that the service is to be resumed on 1st April.
    Mr. Willis: Can my hon. Friend say whether it will be once daily or twice daily?
    Mr. Lindgren: There will be 12 services weekly—that is, twice daily on six days a week.
    Mr. Spence: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this service terminates at Edinburgh or whether it will be continued to Aberdeen?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir; it terminates at Edinburgh.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong body of public opinion in Aberdeen which desires a resumption of the air service?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is out of Order.
    Mr. Vane: Can the Minister say whether this air service will stop anywhere in the North of England to pick up passengers?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. It is a direct service between London and Edinburgh.
    Mr. Scollan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what saving there is in having to send a 20-seater bus from Turnhouse airport, Edinburgh, to Renfrew with one passenger, for the purpose

    905
    of putting him on the Glasgow to London plane? It is obvious there are more losses than gains.
    Mr. Lindgren: My information is entirely different from that of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Scollan: That is my experience.
    Mr. Lindgren: My information about transport between Renfrew and Turn-house, Edinburgh, is that it is by private car; but if the hon. Member has any different information, I will go into it.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Would you be so kind as to tell me, Mr. Speaker, whether you ruled my supplementary question out of Order, and, if so, why?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a question about Aberdeen. This is a Question about the service from Edinburgh to London. I did not know that Aberdeen was part of Edinburgh.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: May I draw your attention to the fact that the air service from Aberdeen to London used to call at Edinburgh and it was with that relevance that I asked my supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: I was not to know that, anyhow.

    Leased Aircraft
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many aircraft, and of what types, are leased by his Department to B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C., B.S.A.A.C. and to private enterprise operators, respectively; what are the terms on which these aircraft are leased; and what loss is suffered as a result of these leases after taking into consideration the capital cost and depreciation.
    Mr. Lindgren: British Overseas Airways Corporation's 18 Solents, of which 12 have been delivered, are on lease; terms of hire are now being negotiated. Sixteen aircraft of three types are leased to other operators; the terms vary; but are designed to cover the capital cost, together with interest on capital, spread over the normal life of the type. The capital costs incurred by my Department on these 16 aircraft are £584,000, and the sum receivable for hire in the current financial year is about £119,000. It would
    906
    be undesirable to publish details of terms arranged with individual operators, and it is impossible to say, until the hire arrangements are terminated, whether any loss will be incurred.
    Mr. Ward: Without having had time to think about those figures, it does seem—will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is?—that these aircraft which are leased have a capital cost of something like £400,000.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. In round figures the capital cost is £500,000, and the annual hire charge is £100,000, which means that the capital is repaid in five years.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Who gives permission before this money is spent? Will the hon. Gentleman draw these figures to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are not spending money. We are earning it.

    North Atlantic Base, Filton
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what is the date by which it is expected that the transfer of the B.O.A.C.'s North Atlantic base to Filton will be completed; and what is the total cost in dollars being expended in the United States and Canada for the operational expenses incurred there since October, 1945.
    Mr. Lindgren: The transfer of the British Overseas Airways Corporation's North Atlantic base to Filton was virtually completed by 31st December, 1948, although it will, of course, be some time before the new base is fully effective. From 1st October, 1945, to 30th September, 1948, total operating expenditure by the Corporation in American and Canadian dollars (excluding capital expenditure) was approximately 22 million dollars.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend realise that I have been following this matter up for over three years, that the Corporation has procrastinated and resisted this transfer, which would have saved us millions of dollars, largely on the advice of their Atlantic division manager, who seems to have more concern for his empire building than for

    907
    the national interest? What steps does my hon. Friend propose to take to prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing, when men of that calibre are left in positions of responsibility in the Corporation?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are watching the position very closely indeed in conjunction with the chairman and chief executive of B.O.A.C. If my hon. Friend has gathered any information and will pass it on we shall be pleased to receive it and to consider it.

    SUDAN (FEMALE CIRCUMCISION)
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the increase or decrease in the Sudan in recent years of the custom of female circumcision.
    The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I regret that I have no precise information. I am assured, however, that the legislation passed in 1926 and the subsequent propaganda have checked this repulsive and harmful practice. Progress, however, in the face of such a long established tradition is regrettably, if necessarily, slow.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the thousands of circumcisions that have taken place since the legislation was passed in 1945 have been under an approved Government process or a milder type of operation?
    Mr. McNeil: My recollection is that there was not a governmentally approved process. It is true that one rather milder process was recommended, but I regret that I have no precise figures of those affected by this operation.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the newly created Legislative Council is concerning itself in any way with the elimination of this revolting practice?
    Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir, I am quite sure that the existing Council is conducting effective propaganda, mainly by instruction in girls' schools, by health visitors and maternity visitors—and dealing with the superstitions held about this practice.
    Dr. Segal: Has the right hon. Gentleman also consulted the opinion of the most expert anthropologists before deciding on any course of action?
    Mr. McNeil: There was an expert committee set up before which several expert anthropologists gave evidence about the traditions and causes of this belief.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Is there any way in which my right hon. Friend can give voice to the abhorrence that is felt in this civilised country against this very obscene custom practised on young female children?
    Mr. McNeil: The opinions of experts and people of humanitarian sympathies in this country have already been given some circulation in the Sudan. I have no doubt that this short discussion will be given publicity and will be helpful.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: As my information about the spread of this revolting practice differs from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  GERMANY

    Illegal Trading
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an estimate of the extent of illegal exchanges of goods and currency between the Western and Russian zones in Germany; and the resultant loss to the British Exchequer.
    Mr. McNeil: I regret that I am unable to give the estimate asked for, but I have no doubt that illegal transactions are considerable. I have no reason to suppose that they result in loss to the British Exchequer.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not obvious that the encouragement of these black market operations by the Russians is part of their plan to sabotage the recovery of Western Europe? What active steps can the British Government take to stop them?
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot follow that that is obvious at all. The operations are taking place in circumstances in which

    909
    the Eastern mark is at a discount of four to one to the Western mark. The advantage must lie with the Western people.

    Reparations Deliveries (U.S.S.R.)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why reparation deliveries of capital equipment to the U.S.S.R. from the British zone of Germany are continuing; and how many Soviet dismantling commissions are still working in the zone.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what shipments of reparations to the Soviet Union from the British zone of Germany are at present taking place; whether the British zone is at present receiving any reciprocal deliveries from the Soviet Union; and whether, in view of the blockade in Berlin, His Majesty's Government intend to continue such shipments to the Soviet Union.
    Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend is examining this whole question, which has many ramifications.
    Major Lloyd: That may well be, but is the Minister aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in this country, without any regard to their political views, are amazed that, in view of the Potsdam Treaty, the Berlin blockade and the hostile propaganda, we should still be delivering stuff to Russia as a result of the Potsdam Agreement? What defence can the Minister possibly put up for this ridiculous situation?
    Mr. McNeil: I agree that strong opinions are held about this subject, but I do suggest that the argument is not one-sided, and that there is a considerable return which we may have for this trade. I do promise that our attitude is being considered at this very moment.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the answers to Questions on a recent occasion and expedite the examination of this subject so that we may have an immediate answer which satisfies my hon. Friends on this side of the House and the House generally?
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot promise that the answer will be immediate. It will be given as soon as possible. I hope
    910
    that it will satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I cannot promise that either.
    Mr. S. Silverman: As what is concerned in this Question is reparations, that is to say, the making good of damage done during the war, will my right hon. Friend take care, when our policy is considered, to remember, first, that we made an agreement about this matter, and that we usually keep our agreements, and secondly, that in the late war it was the Soviet Union and not Germany that was our Ally.
    Mr. John Hynd: Before my right hon. Friend replies, and in reference particularly to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), may I ask him, as these deliveries are supposed to be in return for reciprocal deliveries from the East, what assurance have we that we shall in fact receive those reciprocal deliveries?
    Mr. McNeil: I am anxious to avoid controversy on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is a complicated one, not easily disposed of by question and answer. The truth is that since the blockade we have had the first instalment of reciprocal deliveries. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), while I appreciate the point he has made, and while we shall bear it in mind, this is not a simple, straightforward transaction affecting reparations. We are under an obligation to deliver 25 per cent., 15 per cent. of which they must repay.
    Major Lloyd: As not even the Minister is in the least satisfied with his reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now give an assurance that no part of the equipment dismantled from the Krupps' Works will in any circumstances be handed over to the Government of Czechoslovakia, whether as a member of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency, or for any other reason.
    Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that full consideration will be given to whether anything should be sent out to Czechoslovakia? Would he agree that it is exactly the same as sending it to Russia and could we have an undertaking from him that consideration will be given to both these matters in a statement made to the House before any further equipment is sent to Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. McNeil: The second question of sending plant to Soviet Russia or the Soviet German zone, I would prefer to separate, for reasons which I have offered. On the question of Czechoslovakia, we are bound by agreement, into which we freely entered in 1946, which refers to all the I.A.R.A. Powers, and I am sure that the House would agree that it would be unfortunate and unfair if we used our position as an occupying Power to go back on that promise.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that despite everything that has happened since Potsdam—I am not going to enumerate them all, including Berlin—we are to go on sending potential armaments over the frontier to Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is a Foreign Office defence in relation to this matter of protests, that protests today to any of these countries are quite futile. The only way that we can hope, I submit, to get our word accepted by the Soviet Union or its satellites is to take effective action.
    Mr. Molson: If it is any use asking the Minister any supplementary questions on this point, will he answer this one? Has any change taken place in the attitude of our Government towards Czechoslovakia since the coup d'état in February last?
    Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the same early consideration will be given to this subject as he promised in the case of an earlier Question about reparations to Russia?
    Mr. McNeil: I should obviously be stupid and unfair if I did not agree to bring this to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but while I volunteered the promise in the case of the other one,
    912
    because of submissions which had already been made to me, I do not want to promise that there is the same likelihood of a readjustment on this subject as upon the other one. However, I gladly agree that it should be reviewed.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroftasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he stated to the hon. Member for Monmouth in answer to a Question on the 20th September last that no equipment from Krupps' Works at Essen had been sent to the U.S.S.R. during the previous 12 months when substantial quantities of such equipment had been sent and were still being sent to that country.
    Mr. McNeil: The information given to the hon. Member on 20th September was correct; no equipment has been sent to the U.S.S.R. from the Krupps' Works in Essen. The only deliveries of equipment from the Krupps' complex to the U.S.S.R. have been made from the works at Borbeck which, I am assured, is a separate plant situated five miles from Essen.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will the Minister give an assurance that no deliveries of any kind will be made to the Soviet Union so long as the present blockade of Berlin continues?
    Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. I have already indicated in response to two other Questions that this subject is being reviewed.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction throughout the country, and a feeling that far too much is going to Russia at the present time that might be used against us in a future war?
    Mr. McNeil: The amount of stuff going to Russia with which these Questions are concerned, is negligible.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling throughout the country that there is too much anti-Soviet propaganda on the part of the Tories in this House?

    Control Commission (Expenditure)
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the estimated expenditure on coal for the

    913
    use of the C.C.G. during 1948; and how much of this was in the form of gold dollars.
    Mr. McNeil: There was no sterling or dollar expenditure on coal for the use of the Control Commission, since the necessary supplies were obtained on requisition from the Germans. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost in dollars of petrol used by the C.C.G. during the first six months of 1948; and what was the comparable figure for 1947.
    Mr. McNeil: For the first six months of 1948 the approximate cost of petrol used by the Control Commission for Germany was £233,386. A comparable figure for the first six months of 1947 is not available. For the last six months of that year, however, it was £270,307. I regret that it is not possible to say precisely how much of this expenditure was in dollars.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates a present reduction?
    Mr. McNeil: My noble Friend has been constantly in touch with this subject, and his figures disclose that there has been a reduction, which. I hope, may be sustained.
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the C.C.G. administrative staff were employed in the Zeco area on 1st December last, and what was the comparable figure for 1947.
    Mr. McNeil: The numbers employed in the Zeco area in administering the Control Commission were 1,297; and 1,446, respectively.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this area contains a large number of small houses and small offices which are very wasteful both in fuel and petrol owing to the fact that meetings have to be held in some central place, requiring officials to go there in cars in order to attend the meetings.

    Soviet-Controlled Radio Station
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of
    914
    the fact that the Soviet-controlled radio station in the British sector of Berlin is being fortified, what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take.
    Mr. McNeil: It would seem an exaggeration to describe the radio building as being fortified. Some ground-floor windows are being fitted with shutters or bars, presumably to guard against any demonstration of the general hostility which the people of Berlin feel towards this radio station and its broadcasts. I do not think any action is called for on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    Major Lloyd: The people of Berlin may well feel that way. There are surely a lot of people in this country who feel the same. How does the Minister justify the fact that a Soviet-controlled radio station, pouring out the most bitter anti-British and anti-American propaganda, should be allowed to continue at all in the British zone; and would anything of a corresponding kind be allowed in their zone? Is not the whole thing a fantastic piece of funk and appeasement?
    Mr. McNeil: I have no reason to believe that this radio station is anything but a help to us. On the question of appeasement, I will not pit my information against that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. Bramall: Is it not a fact that an almost equally contradictory situation exists by reason of the fact that the Soviet authorities supply the electricity by which the Gatow Airport works?

    Refugee Organisations
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the revisionist activities of such organisations as the Interessengemeinschaft der Ostvertriekenen within the British zone of Occupation in Germany; and what steps the authorities are taking to make clear to these organisations that their subversive political activities will not be tolerated.
    Mr. McNeil: Responsibility for licensing and controlling all German refugee associations in the British zone has been handed over to the German authorities. The stated aims of such organisations as that mentioned in the Question do not

    915
    appear to conflict with Military Government policy and, on the basis of the evidence at present available, my right hon. Friend sees no justification for intervening. I am nevertheless willing, as has been stated in replies to Questions on this subject by my hon. Friend, the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), to examine any evidence that these organisations are indulging in undesirable political activities.
    Mrs. Manning: Has not my right hon. Friend already received ample evidence that this organisation is indulging in revisionist activities, is he not aware that if this is allowed to go on we shall reach very great difficulties later, and would it not be better to put a stop to it now while it is young?
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot agree that I have had evidence, or at least ample evidence. However, following a Question put by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), my noble Friend did cause representations to be made to one of these organisations urging great care upon them.
    Mr. Bramall: Is it not a fact that in evidence which the hon. Member for Bedford and I sent to my right hon. Friend there was included a statement by this organisation itself, that it was revisionist.
    Mr. Molson: As regards the central revisionist propaganda, it is still the case, is it not, that the British Government do not regard as permanent the existing frontier of Eastern Germany?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not see how that arises. It is true that the British Military Government have a policy, and it would obviously be stupid to permit propaganda tending to destroy that policy.

    B.F.E.S. Schools (Fees)
    Mrs. Manningasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that children of non-entitled parents are charged the fee of £23 6s. 8d. for elementary schooling in B.F.E.S. Schools; and if he is prepared to revise this figure for the current term and from now on.
    Mr. McNeil: This charge is being made for the current term. The amount
    916
    is already under review, and if it is found to be too high in relation to the costs incurred, it will be adjusted, as will the charges for future terms.
    Mrs. Manning: As my right hon. Friend knows, these non-entitled parents were, in the first instance, included in an entitlement list and all the children are British children—very few in number—and is not the idea of charging £23 for elementary education fantastic?
    Mr. McNeil: I am surprised to hear that they were first of all included in any list of non-entitled parents, and if my hon. Friend will let me have the information I shall be very glad indeed to look at the subject again.

    Scientific Instruments (Exports)
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the current rate of export of scientific instruments from the Bizone of Germany.
    Mr. McNeil: The nearest comparable headings in the Bizonal trade returns are optical instruments and apparatus, indicating, recording and controlling instruments, professional and scientific instruments. Total exports under these headings were £732,740 in the first ten months of 1948.
    Mr. Erroll: In view of the alarming threat which this increase in exports represents to British exports, will the Minister investigate the under-cutting which is taking place with the clandestine agreement of J.E.I.A.?
    Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

    Berlin (Conditions)
    Mr. Nigel Birchasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the circulation of the Eastern mark in the Western sectors of Berlin.
    Mr. McNeil: Not at present, Sir.
    Mr. Birch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave currency chaos and black market activities in Western Berlin, and does he recognise how damaging these are to the industry and morale of the people there?
    Mr. McNeil: I must admit, of course, that there is great maladjustment and complication, but as the hon. Gentleman

    917
    doubtless knows, a committee of experts is at present considering this subject, and my right hon. Friend would not consider that a statement at this time would assist that committee.
    Mr. Birchasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the household fuel ration of coal for space heating in the Western sectors of Berlin; and to what extent that ration is being honoured.
    Mr. McNeil: Because of the blockade, it has not been possible to make a regular issue of coal or firewood for domestic heating in the Western sectors of Berlin this winter. A total of 27,000 tons of coal has been issued in rations varying from one quarter to one and three-quarter hundredweight according to circumstances of households. In addition every household has received about two hundredweight of wood. There is also a regular distribution of one quarter of a hundredweight of coal per month for cooking purposes made to all households which have neither gas nor electricity laid on for cooking.
    Mr. Birchasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons are unemployed and how many persons are working short time in the Western sectors of Berlin.
    Mr. McNeil: 120,969 persons are unemployed, and 63,607 are working short time in the Western sectors of Berlin.
    Mr. Birch: Do not the answers to these three Questions indicate a steadily deteriorating condition in Berlin, and does the right hon. Gentleman think it at all likely that the Russians will lift the blockade as long as we go on delivering things to Russia and the countries behind the iron curtain?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not see that I am asked to reply that the morale of the German people in our zone of Berlin will be increased by denying them any rations at all.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is it the policy of the Government to work on the assumption that the Berlin blockade can be continued indefinitely?
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conversations he is now holding with the U.S.S.R.
    918
    with a view to their lifting the prolonged blockade of Berlin; and what progress he can report.
    Mr. McNeil: None, Sir. As the House knows, the discussions which were in progress last summer were suspended because the Soviet Commander-in-Chief, on instructions from his Government, refused to abide by the directive agreed upon in Moscow, and the Berlin situation was thereupon referred to the Security Council.
    Mr. Vane: Does the reply of the right hon. Gentleman mean that it is believed there is no hope?

  ARGENTINA

    Buenos Aires Transport Corporation
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has now received from the Argentine Government to the British Ambassador's protest concerning the position of British shareholders in the confiscated Buenos Aires Transport Corporation; and what further steps he is taking.
    Mr. McNeil: No reply has yet been received to the representations addressed to the Argentine Government last year, and the Argentine Government have not yet announced the terms on which the Buenos Aires Transport Corporation is to be liquidated. Until these terms have been announced, it is of course impossible to judge whether a formal protest would be justified. I can however assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Ambassador has more than once emphasised to the Argentine Government the importance attached by His Majesty's Government to fair treatment of the British shareholders.
    Mr. Teeling: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he can give any information whether in the negotiations that are going on in the Argentine with regard to the Andes Agreement and so forth, this matter will be further definitely considered, as I understand it was to have been if Senor Miranda had come to this country?
    Mr. McNeil: There is another Question on the Paper asking about Senor Miranda's visit.

    Senor Miranda (Proposed Visit)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the fact that Senor Miranda did not come to this country on 10th January as previously announced by the Minister of State, when he is likely to come here.
    Mr. McNeil: Senor Miranda has given no further indication of the date on which he would propose to visit this country.
    Mr. Teeling: In view of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any information whether this question will be discussed in the negotiations which, I understand, are to take place because Senor Miranda is not coming here?
    Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that Question down.

    BETTING (ROYAL COMMISSION)
    Mr. Nallyasked the Prime Minister if he has yet come to any decision as to the advisability of setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into all forms of off-the-course betting, with special reference to the football pool industry.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir, and I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING SPEECHES)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that the selection of His Majesty's Ministers to take part in the series of recruiting speeches for the Territorial Army to be given over the B.B.C. will be made only from those who have themselves seen active service as members of His Majesty's Armed Forces.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Vane: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these appeals would have a much greater effectiveness if those making them, like the right hon. Gentleman, had themselves had some
    920
    experience of those rather special duties which they are urging others to undertake?
    The Prime Minister: Not necessarily. I think it is advisable that authoritative speeches on this subject should be made by Members of the Government who hold particular responsibilities.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the national character of this appeal, is it intended to confine these broadcasts to Ministers, or will invitations be extended to Members of other parties?
    The Prime Minister: That is another question; perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does the Prime Minister really consider it advisable to have pacifist Members of the Government asking for recruits?
    The Prime Minister: No one has suggested that they should.

    INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (INFORMATION)
    Mr. Cobbasked the Lord President of the Council what further action will be taken to bring to the notice of the smaller firms in industry the result of research work being carried out in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and in research associations.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The action being taken is a steady expansion of the existing methods of getting information across to the smaller firms. These include articles in technical and trade journals, leaflets and pamphlets written in simple language, films, exhibitions, local conferences and personal visits. It is one of the principal tasks of the Intelligence Division of D.S.I.R. Headquarters to ensure that these methods are used to the best advantage so that the expert knowledge and advice of the establishments of D.S.I.R. may be available to all who seek them. Similar methods are used by the research associations.
    Mr. Cobb: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps other methods might prove a little more fruitful, and will he consider employing a small number of technical specialists for the purpose of visiting these factories and

    921
    explaining these new methods to the people on the spot?
    Mr. Morrison: Such a service, though. possibly, not as extensive as my hon. Friend would wish, is available from the research associations, and the cost of belonging to them is quite limited. However, I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend is aiming at, and I will do what I can to see that this development takes place.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: Does the Lord President's answer mean that all governmental research which is available to the large nationalised industries will also be available to the small production units in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: Governmental research is not specially carried out for the benefit of the nationalised industries. It has always been undertaken for the benefit of industry as a whole, and that is still so. We would not be guilty of such improper discrimination.
    Mr. Osborne: Would the Lord President agree that most small firms have been taking full advantage of the facilities offered, and are running quite efficiently at the present time?
    Mr. Morrison: I think it is the case that many small factories are being very well run, but the small factory owners are always willing to learn more, and we are willing to assist them in that direction.

  ARMED FORCES

    Auxiliary Forces (Annual Bounty)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Defence if he will now make a statement about the proposed increased bounty for the Auxiliary Forces.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the Auxiliary Forces' maximum annual bounty was increased from £8 to £12 in August last year, and the greater part of it can now be paid at the end of camp. No further increase is contemplated at present.

    Releases (Civilian Clothing)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Defence if he will provide for National Service men the new clothes they require for civil life, in view of the fact that many are not financially able on demobilisation to pay for them and have outgrown those they had before.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the prolonged service now required from National Service men enlisted between 1st January, 1947, and 31st December, 1948, he will restore for them the release benefits, including a civilian suit, provided for other National Service men called up since 1945.
    Mr. Alexander: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is most unsatisfactory, and that there is a feeling in the Services over this matter that many of the men when demobilised are not able to afford to buy their clothes, and that their parents are not in the position to buy them for them?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. This policy was announced a very long time ago. It has been in existence since January, 1947, and in view of the whole of the circumstances, economic and financial, it is not proposed to revise it.
    Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter from a commonsense point of view. Is he not aware that when a youth goes into the Armed Forces and engages in a healthy outdoor life for a year or 18 months, his physique is bound to alter, and his old clothes will no longer fit him? That being so, is it not reasonable for the Government to provide a suit for him on demobilisation?
    Mr. Alexander: It has already been announced in previous statements that certain items of clothing can be purchased cheaply. In addition, 60 coupons are issued for the purpose of obtaining new clothes.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: In view of the fact that the price of a gentleman's suit has so greatly increased, together with the fact that these men have had three months' extra added to the contract

    923
    without their consent, or even without their being consulted, is it not the least that the Government can do to give them a suit when they are demobilised?
    Mr. Shurmer: Will the Minister consider that certain articles of clothing should go free to these men? It is a question of a suit of clothes. What is the good of 60 coupons if the men have no money with which to buy these clothes?
    Mr. Alexander: All I can say is that the Government have considered this matter very carefully, but they do not propose at present to revise this policy.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the unsatisfactory and unsympathetic reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

    PERSONAL STATEMENT
    Lord John Hope: On a point of Order. I rise with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to correct a mistake that was made in the Debate on the Adjournment yesterday, a mistake made, I am sure quite inadvertently, by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to whom I have endeavoured, I am afraid unsuccessfully, to give notice of this matter. He said, and he is reported at column 848 of HANSARD as follows:
    "I think the country should know that apart from the literature which the Government sent to America through British Information Services they also arrange for a series of visits by Members of Parliament, to
    924
    tour the United States from time to time, and that those visits are not confined to Members from the Labour benches, but include visits by Members from the Opposition benches. The noble Lord himself"—
    that is referring to me—
    "is one of the Members who have been selected since this Government have been in power to go to America to explain what is happening in Britain, and he was given a perfectly free hand in doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 848.]
    I am afraid that at the time I did not realise the import of what the hon. Member was saying. It is, of course, quite inaccurate to suggest that, and I want to say to the House that I was in no way indebted to the Government for my visit to the United States last year.

  BILL PRESENTED
    TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Lord John Hope"to make provision with regard to tenancies of shops in Scotland," presented by Mr. Woodburn; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Mr. J. J. Robertson; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord John HopeProceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Air Lift, Berlin
  Air Lift, Berlin
  Medals (Claims)
  Medals (Claims)
GERMANY
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Dr. Otto Strasser
  Dr. Otto Strasser
  Russian Blockade
  Russian Blockade
  Max Reimann (Trial)
  Max Reimann (Trial)
  Youth Conference (Ban)
  Youth Conference (Ban)
  UNITED NATIONS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE)
  UNITED NATIONS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE)
  SUDAN (ELECTIONS)
  SUDAN (ELECTIONS)
ARMED FORCES
  Military Activities, Malaya (Cost)
  Military Activities, Malaya (Cost)
  Jewish Service men
  Jewish Service men
  Exhibition, Glasgow
  Exhibition, Glasgow
  Military Mission, Greece
  Military Mission, Greece
  Administrative Services (Co-ordination)
  Administrative Services (Co-ordination)
  WESTERN UNION (DEFENCE SCHEMES)
  WESTERN UNION (DEFENCE SCHEMES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Livestock, Islay
  Livestock, Islay
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Meat Ration
  Meat Ration
  Groundnut Scheme
  Groundnut Scheme
  Condemned Meat, Market Harborough
  Condemned Meat, Market Harborough
  Cereals (Storage)
  Cereals (Storage)
  Catering Licences, Penmaenmawr
  Catering Licences, Penmaenmawr
  Yak Meat
  Yak Meat
  Fish Frying (Fat Allocation)
  Fish Frying (Fat Allocation)
  Bread
  Bread
SOAP RATION
  Wrapping Paper
  Wrapping Paper
  Abattoir, Market Harborough
  Abattoir, Market Harborough
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Poultry Farming, Gambia
  Poultry Farming, Gambia
  Cattle Diseases (Use of Antrycide)
  Cattle Diseases (Use of Antrycide)
  Cocoa Disease
  Cocoa Disease
  Bananas and Grapefruit, Sierra Leone
  Bananas and Grapefruit, Sierra Leone
  Airport, Kenya
  Airport, Kenya
  Transport Problems (London Conference)
  Transport Problems (London Conference)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Parliamentary Representation
  Parliamentary Representation
  Declaration of Human Rights
  Declaration of Human Rights
  Bag-making Fibre
  Bag-making Fibre
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Social Conditions
  Social Conditions
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Rice Ration
  Rice Ration
  Reported Incident, Batang Kali
  Reported Incident, Batang Kali
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Incident, Selangor
  Incident, Selangor
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  CYPRUS (INTERNAL SECURITY)
  CYPRUS (INTERNAL SECURITY)
  SARAWAK (MR. ANTHONY BROOKE)
  SARAWAK (MR. ANTHONY BROOKE)
  MAURITIUS (WOMEN TELEPHONISTS, DISMISSALS)
  MAURITIUS (WOMEN TELEPHONISTS, DISMISSALS)
GOLD COAST
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Mining Policy
  Mining Policy
  Youth Conference, Kumasi
  Youth Conference, Kumasi
WEST INDIES
  Franchise, St. Christopher Nevis
  Franchise, St. Christopher Nevis
  Leeward Islands (Governor's Speech)
  Leeward Islands (Governor's Speech)
ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Observatory (Removal)
  Royal Observatory (Removal)
  Messing (Chief and Petty Officers)
  Messing (Chief and Petty Officers)
  Ordnance Inspection Branch (Conditions)
  Ordnance Inspection Branch (Conditions)
  Manpower Economies
  Manpower Economies
  Medals (Claims)
  Medals (Claims)
  "Royal Sovereign" (Return)
  "Royal Sovereign" (Return)
POST OFFICE
  Engineers (Wages Agreement)
  Engineers (Wages Agreement)
  Official Franking
  Official Franking
  Savings Bank (Organisation and Methods)
  Savings Bank (Organisation and Methods)
  Government Forms (Distribution)
  Government Forms (Distribution)
  Parcels in Transit
  Parcels in Transit
  Mail Bag, Kendal (Checking)
  Mail Bag, Kendal (Checking)
  WIRELESS RECEPTION, EAST SUSSEX
  WIRELESS RECEPTION, EAST SUSSEX
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Pole Routes (Accidents)
  Pole Routes (Accidents)
  Subscribers' Accounts
  Subscribers' Accounts
  Kiosks, Rural Areas
  Kiosks, Rural Areas
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT
  BRITISH FORCES, GREECE
  BRITISH FORCES, GREECE
  COAL INDUSTRY (ALTERNATIVES TO HORSES)
  COAL INDUSTRY (ALTERNATIVES TO HORSES)
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  SCHEDULED AIR SERVICES (CHARTER COMPANIES)
  SCHEDULED AIR SERVICES (CHARTER COMPANIES)
  APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATE AGREEMENTS
  APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATE AGREEMENTS
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
2.34 p.m.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CREWE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
RHODESIA RAILWAYS LIMITED (PENSION SCHEMES AND CONTRACTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill entitled the Marriage (Enabling) Bill, to enable a person to marry certain kin of the spouse whom such person has divorced and to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act, 1931, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

RESTRICTED TRADES
2.37 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 what are the trades or manufacturing activities still restricted by statutory provisions to those persons engaged in similar activities in 1939.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I can only repeat the answer given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to a similar question in another place on July 30, 1948. I regret that, owing to the very great number of separate trades and industries concerned, this information is not readily available, and that to obtain it would require a large amount of work which would not be justified. I would add, for myself, that I am sorry not to be more helpful to the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. Would he not agree that it is very regrettable that such a large sphere of trade and industry in this country is apparently closed to all persons who were not engaged in the industries nine years ago, and that His Majesty's Departments are apparently not aware of what those trades and industries are?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord is reading something into my reply which I should have thought was quite unjustified, and was seen to be so by the noble Lord. While I do not agree for a moment that there is necessarily any occasion here for regret, there may well be room for discussion; and if the noble Lord wishes to discuss it further with me in private I shall be glad to accommodate him.

THE WORK OF U.N.E.S.C.O.
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to call attention to the policy, achievements, administration and expenses of U.N.E.S.C.O.; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have put this Motion upon the Paper in order that we may have some discussion on a

277
very important and wide-ranging international agency and, I hope, in order that we may have some further information about it from the Government. I am glad to see from the list of speakers that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has been good enough to prepare to deal with the matter at the end of the debate. The institution conveniently called U.N.E.S.C.O. (that is to say, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) has been in existence for something over two years. It has held important conferences and produced a good deal of material, but I do not think it has received, in this country at any rate, the degree of public attention that might have been expected. It is one of the advantages of your Lordships' House that it is possible sometimes to find an occasion when a subject, undoubtedly important, may be calmly considered, though perhaps in the hurry and rush of business in another place no time could be found for it.
U.N.E.S.C.O. is an international enterprise—not, I think, strictly speaking, an offshoot of the United Nations, but technically to be classified as a specialised agency, such as is referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. Another specialised agency, unless I am mistaken, is the International Food Commission. We should note, in the first place, that the creation of U.N.E.S.C.O. was largely due to the initiative of Mr. R. A. Butler, our former Minister of Education, and that, in itself, in my view, gives good ground for regarding the enterprise as one which had value and promise. The germinal idea of U.N.E.S.C.O., as I make out, was to create after the war an international educational agency organised by the co-operation of the peoples of the world and aiming at the spread of culture and the diffusion of things of the mind, both scientific and literary.
In my opinion, that idea is a fine one, and I certainly do not speak of it with any desire to belittle it. When one considers the destruction caused by the war, and the damage that has been caused to intellectual standards and to the opportunities of cultural exchange, no less than the social and financial disasters, this root idea of U.N.E.S.C.O. makes, I think, a strong appeal. To overcome the barriers set up by hate and suspicion in the field of ideas, and to advance in
278
some practical way the appreciation of what is best in the sphere of intellect and thought—that is certainly a noble object to set before us. I speak of it with a full belief in the value of such a conception, and if I say some things which are critical of the methods it is not, I assure your Lordships, because I doubt the worthiness of the main purpose. But it is a familiar reflection: the finer the object at which one aims the more important it is that the means employed should be sensible, well chosen and well controlled. I wish, then, to call attention, as my Motion states, to the organisation, the programme, the achievements and the finances of U.N.E.S.C.O.
If any of your Lordships has been good enough to note in advance that this debate was coming on, and desired to inform himself, I hope he will have visited the Printed Paper Office, where there is to be obtained a document rather difficult to describe because it has no reference number on it. It is labelled "Documents relating to the Second Session of the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, including the Programme and Budget of the Organisation for 1948. Mexico City, November-December, 1947." I have largely based myself on a reading of that and other documents, and I have also done my best to inform myself from quarters which are certainly not at all inclined to belittle or speak contemptuously of this effort. Will your Lordships therefore allow me, as the matter is little known to most people, to occupy two or three minutes in stating what U.N.E.S.C.O., in point of organisation, is?
It appears to be a fully staffed body; I think there are now over 500 people on the staff. It has a Director-General. I think the idea was that the Director-General should serve for a term of years, just as the most important official in the League of Nations, to everybody's advantage, served for a term of years; and I can hardly think it is a good plan to change the Director-General every year. But after Professor Julian Huxley had been Director-General for one year, another appointment has been made—I believe that of a most excellent gentleman, a Mexican, whose name, I think, is Doctor Bodet. I will quote a sentence from his introductory speech before I finish.
The Director-General draws, as indeed do other important officials of this Organisation, a decidedly large salary. If I am correctly informed, these salaries are not subject to any tax whatever, and if any recipient were to find his receipts exposed to tax, then the funds of U.N.E.S.C.O. would make up the difference. From inquiries I have made, I understand that the Director-General's receipts, partly in the form of salary and partly in the form of allowances, come to £6,700 a year—which would appear to bring him within the range of the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of this country, and others who certainly ought to be rewarded on the very highest scale. I am going to ask the Leader of the House to say, when he speaks, whether he thinks this scale of salaries in these international organisations is not too large. It is, no doubt, paid for good and sincere work, but still, when we consider the times in which we live, it does seem that the general scale is rather surprisingly high. To judge from the documents I have been reading, the Director-General must be very active, and his activities are exercised under the general authority of an Executive Board, consisting of eighteen members drawn from many countries.
The Organisation has a budget of over 7,500,000 dollars—I am speaking of American dollars—of which 4,250,000 dollars go under the head of Personnel, which I assume means that it is paid to individuals as rewards for what they do. Breaking up the figures in another way, as this valuable document to which I have referred does on the first page, out of this total budget of over 7,500,000 dollars, general administration requires nearly 2,000,000 dollars. That is a high proportion of a total expenditure if that amount is, as I understand it is, required by the international bureaucracy, the international civil service drawn no doubt from a number of countries who are taking part in carrying on these activities. The United Kingdom contribution is something like one-seventh of the whole—about 1,000,000 dollars. Much the largest contributor is the United States of America. Others naturally contribute a very small fraction of the whole. The Session of U.N.E.S.C.O. this year is meeting in Beirut, and I notice that Syria contributes 0.14 per cent. U.N.E.S.C.O. held its Second General Conference at Mexico City in November and December, 1947.
280
That Conference was attended by 125 delegates, representing thirty-six countries, together with 174 experts and advisers and 53 observers. So it most certainly must be regarded as an important concern.
As your Lordships will see, if you have had an opportunity of examining the document to which I have referred, at this Conference a programme of work for the calendar year 1948 was discussed. I gather it was quite elaborately debated, and was finally settled and adopted. As your Lordships will observe, it is a programme of work for a year which is now over. The question naturally arises: how much of this programme of work for the calendar year 1948 has been achieved or even pursued? Because, while I quite see that some of the subjects here listed are useful and practical things which I hope everybody will be prepared to defend and support, I must say that I find a great many other things described in this document in the vaguest language and, I must add, in the most highfalutin' terms which I cannot think are very easy, either for the intellect to grasp or for the Director-General to carry out.
If we refer to this document, we find that the programme for 1948 covers twenty-two pages. As I have indicated, it includes a vast number of targets, one or two of which I will venture to quote to the House. In nearly every case the formula is that the Director-General—I suppose at that time it was Sir Julian Huxley—is instructed to do this or that, the Executive Board being responsible for the execution of the programme. Well, if the Director-General has in the year 1948 carried out in any practical sense even a small portion of these directions, the achievement is remarkable. Not in any satirical spirit, but because I think it is only right that we should have a fair and unbiased account, I ask the noble Viscount who leads the House—I have given him notice of this question—what in fact has been done in regard to some of those directions. Of course, I do not at all forget—we must none of us forget—that this institution is only in its early years. It is right to remember that so vast a conception as this can only slowly be implemented or made fully effective. U.N.E.S.C.O. itself has been running only from December, 1946, although before that there was a Preparatory Commission, just as there was in the case of

281
the League of Nations (as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will remember), which did a great deal of hard work. To one aspect of that I have to refer before I sit down.
I recognise—and anyone who reads this book will recognise—that some of the more concrete and practical objectives here shown are well worth the effort. For example, I believe that one of the things that U.N.E.S.C.O. has been doing is to supply books to educational institutions in devastated areas. I am sure that that is a very good work and most properly done by an international organisation financed by the money of the nation-members. Therefore, I do not want at all to belittle what is good and practical in what is being done. But I must speak plainly. What mystifies and alarms me is the kind of language in which some of the other Objectives are expressed. I can make my feeling plain to the House only by asking leave to read a few of the targets which the Director-General was instructed to promote or pursue in the year 1948. I will take two or three examples from page 22. Here is one:
"The Director-General is instructed to promote"—
in the year 1948—
"inquiries into the distinctive character of the various national cultures, ideals, and legal systems"—
I repeat "legal systems," my Lord Chancellor!—
"with the aim of stimulating the sympathy and respect of nations for each other's ideals and aspirations and the appreciation of national problems."
Quite frankly, I have not any very great respect for some nations' ideals. I do not see why at this time of day an organisation should be required to stimulate sympathy and respect for some of the ideals which exist—I need not name them—in some of the countries of the world. On the contrary, I think there are good ideals and bad ideals and, while I am all for spreading what is good, I cannot help thinking that this is just a little bombastic and surprising, If I take a portion of it in which I suppose I may be expected to be especially interested (though I am really much more interested in cultures and ideals), what is all this about the distinctive characters of various legal systems? There is a great literature which compares one legal system with another. I do not require Sir Julian
282
Huxley to devote his undoubtedly excellent qualities, and those of his staff, in the year 1948 to make inquiries into things of this sort.
Let us take the next paragraph—namely:
"The Director-General is instructed to promote: Inquiries into the conceptions which the people of one nation entertain of their own and other nations."
We have heard of the man who "in spite of all temptations to belong to other nations" resolved "to remain an Englishman," and I have a strong suspicion that most nations have a natural bias and a strong conviction and entertain a pretty good opinion of their own nation and sometimes not a very good opinion of some others. But what is all this about? Why is it necessary that this organisation, based as I freely admit on a fine idea and capable of useful and practical work, should spend its time in Mexico City, or some other centre of learning, in drawing up this formula?
At the bottom of page 22, in black type, appears this heading: "Philosophical Analysis of Currant Ideological Conflicts." Then it goes on:
"U.N.E.S.C.O. will in 1948 continue its inquiry concerning the philosophical principles of human rights."
I know that most devoted work has been done in an endeavour to draw tip a Charter on that subject, but that is not done by U.N.E.S.C.O., and I wonder whether very much has really been done by this particular body in that direction. To take the next page, one finds it becomes, as Lewis Carroll would say: "Curiouser and curiouser." This is what the Director-General is instructed to do at the top of page 23:
"… to take the necessary steps to arrange for the preparation by a philosopher of a plan for an inquiry concerning the fundamental concepts of liberty, democracy, law, and legality, and concerning the influence on current ideological controversies of different views of such concepts and the actual or apparent conflicts which result therefrom."
I content myself by addressing most respectfully to Lord Addison this question: Is he able to inform us whether such a philosopher has been appointed in the year 1948 and, if so, will it be a breach of confidence to tell us his name? Beyond all question if he is capable of

283
doing all that, he is a man of most unusual attainments.
A little lower down on the same page comes what to me is the most mysterious paragraph of all. It is again in black type, so that one shall not omit to notice it. It is headed:
"Humanistic Aspects of Culture."
and goes on:
"U.N.E.S.C.O. will in 1948 undertake, in the Humanities and Philosophy, a programme of inquiry into the humanistic aspects of cultures, from the point of view of their mutual relations and their subjective valuations."
Again, since in this matter also wisdom begins at home, it is followed by these words:
"The Director-General is instructed: To address to scholars and experts of the Member States of U.N.E.S.C.O. a series of questions concerning the idea held by a country, or by a group within a country, of its own culture and the relations of that culture with other cultures, individually or as a whole."
My noble friend Lord Halifax is the Chancellor of Oxford University, and I think he will bear me out when I say that if that questionnaire were addressed to the learned men in that famous place there would be a riot. Again, I ask: What advantage is it that public money should be collected from a large number of nations with the best object in the world, in order that this kind of thing should be formulated in their programme for 1948?
Then at the bottom of that page one finds this reference:
"Methods in Political Science. The Director-General is instructed: To promote a study of the subject matter and problems treated by political scientists of various countries in recent research materials (scientific publications and high level text-books), the various types of approach and emphasis, the methods, techniques and terminology employed and the quantity of production in recent political science."
I do not want to raise a laugh, because I am sure the people who have been working on this have worked at it very sincerely, and, as I have said, there are other things of a more limited character which I have no doubt they have discharged to some practical effect. But is it not rather a pity that a fine idea like this, conceived and promoted by men who I am sure have kept their feet on the ground and still look at the stars, should get into the kind of condition which makes one almost feel that the institution has been "nobbled"
284
by a number of influences which are inclined to prefer long words to practical results?
My Lords, I do not want to say more. If your Lordships are interested in the sort of thing I have just read, there is quite a feast left in this volume to be obtained in the Printed Paper Office. I am all for aiming high, but aiming high is not the same thing as aiming vaguely. I cannot help thinking that there are obvious instances here of how not to formulate one's targets. There are tremendous topics, suitable it may be for some great philosophical work, such as the one on page 24:
"Scientific and Cultural History. The Director-General is instructed to continue in 1948 preparations for the production of books which will provide, for the general and specialist reader"—
I am very glad that the general reader is included as well as the specialist—
"a wider understanding of the scientific and cultural aspects of the history of mankind, of the mutual interdependence of peoples and cultures and of their contributions to the common heritage."
I wonder whether in fact a great deal can have been achieved on the cultural side. I think it only right to add, as I have already indicated, that it may well be that something more definite and comprehensible is in course of being achieved in some matters of science. I am not sure that I always appreciate the language used, but in the middle of page 25 there is a heading (I am not sure that I even know how to pronounce the first word) "Hylean Amazon institute." Well as is the Greek word for "wood" I suppose that "Hylean" is U.N.E.S.C.O. English for "wooded." You will not find the word in Murray's Dictionary—but never mind it is always a good plan to invent new words if they are useful. Now it appears to be an effort, and I am sure a useful one, to study conditions on the Upper Amazon, the wooded Amazon, no doubt with a view to rendering services to science—and I dare say, to human progress in other ways—which can best be done by a concerted effort by men of science in more countries than one. Good luck to it! I should think it is a very suitable thing to do.
In the same way, there are, apparently, schemes for establishing stations which are called "high altitude stations." Whether what we have been learning recently about higher altitudes in the

285
physical sense owes a great deal to this particular effort I do not know. As long as stations established in the higher altitudes are connected with meteorology, or some other science, I am content, but I feel rather doubtful whether people adopt "higher altitudes" for a different purpose. Perhaps Lord Addison will tell us—indeed I am sure that he will tell us with perfect frankness—what has been done in 1948 through the efforts of this elaborate and well-paid international bureaucracy. I am not drawing adverse conclusions about the good work that has been done, but I do not know and it is very difficult indeed to find out from any documents to which I have access. I think it is plain that Parliament is entitled to know and ought to have reasonable information about it. It is to everybody's advantage that we should know what this good work is, and I am sure that none of us will be backward in giving our support to anything that gives promise of practical usefulness.
At the same time, I feel that no one can read these documents, from which I have quoted some extracts, without reflecting how easy it is to produce by the bushel high-sounding phrases expressive of noble sentiments without necessarily working out in a practical fashion what is sought to be achieved. I therefore do not stand here as a mere critic—certainly not as a contemptuous critic. I have the strongest desire that this effort, noble in its conception, should produce good results, and I am sure that we shall all rejoice if this has either already rendered, or will, by good guidance, in the future render real service to the world. This is a time when some people speak very contemptuously of international organisations. I certainly do not do so at all. It is so easy to rebuke, so easy to criticise and so easy to charge them with inability to conclude anything useful. Still, this co-operation between nations is probably the best hope for the future of the world, and I think we ought to be indulgent if this effort has not yet produced all for which one might hope. At the same time, I claim that it is in the interests of this organisation that it should proceed along sensible and practical lines.
There is one other reference which I must make before I conclude. To my mind, it is quite a minor point, and I am not seeking to exploit it unduly. Un-
286
happily, it is the fact that in its initial stages the finances of this enterprise—or rather the finances of the Preparatory Commission—were conducted in the most slipshod manner. It is claimed, and I expect that it is true, that since then a proper system of accounting has been adopted. But here a very curious thing is to be observed. The document from which I have quoted, the document produced by the British Government, is, in substance, a reproduction of the contents of this green-covered document the official records of the General Conference at Mexico, published in Paris, which is the official seat of the organisation. Practically everything—indeed I think everything—in the British Document is simply lifted from this large green-covered document. But one thing has been omitted. Look at the index to this Paris Document, the official one. At a certain point there are seven appendices. When one looks at the British Copy these are reduced to six. Appendix 1 has been omitted, and all the others, therefore, are re-numbered. I regret it, because the omitted appendix contains some rather pointed references to this unfortunate financial muddle. It is no good going back if they have cleared it up now, but it is certainly very distressing.
I see, for instance, in the omitted appendix this sentence:
"It is clear beyond doubt that, at least till the beginning of this year"—
that is the year 1947—
"the accounts of the organisation were kept in the most haphazard manner, not to put it stronger than that, and that there was hardly any control over accounts and expenditure."
The details are extremely surprising. I have checked them, but I do not propose to mention more than two or three. I hope these are mere matters of aberration at the beginning and that everything is all right now. The well known firm of Messrs. Price Waterhouse and Company, a London firm of chartered accountants, very properly were employed to audit these accounts and they made a report. Here are two or three extracts from it.
"Accounts produced to us for examination were found to contain many inaccuracies. There are numerous items recorded in the books for which we were unable to obtain satisfactory documentary evidence."
I do not want to read out all of this, I but there are three or four matters which

287
I think are worthy of notice. Here is one.
"Many debts due to or from various members of the staff are not recorded in the books."
Amongst many errors quoted is the fact that 247,576 francs worth of fuel oil used for heating was charged to car running expenses. There was an unhappy misappropriation by a cashier, who spent the money in gambling. That might happen in any institution. But rather more curious is that quite considerable sums in respect of private travel, telephone calls, and so on, were not entered in the cash book or paid into the bank until the date given. It seems possible that these sums had been misappropriated by the cashier and subsequently repaid. Included in another figure is the cost of tickets, and so on, for private travel, all of which is recoverable from members of the staff, but there are no records to show that the members have ever repaid them.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: For what year are these accounts?
VISCOUNT SIMON: These are the accounts of the Preparatory Commission, which was the body first set up before the actual organisation itself began in December, 1946. I wish expressly to say that while I think that is very regrettable, I regard it as a temporary phase. I have no doubt that the greatest effort has now been made to put this thing on a proper basis. But what is to me at least a little unfortunate is that when you look at the document which is here in the Printed Paper Office and produced by the Ministry of Education, it does not contain the appendix which made some very caustic comments on this matter. If it was omitted, it was at best an error of judgment, and I hope very much that we may assume now that everything is all right.
The broad point I wish to make is that I think Parliament and the public will agree that we ought to have more light thrown on the way in which U.N.E.S.C.O. in fact is proceeding. And I am very glad that I have been given this opportunity of raising the question, because I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has informed himself, and we shall all welcome sincerely any account he can give of the good work done. No doubt there has been some. I hope he will feel it right to indicate
288
the view that the purposes this organisation was formed to fulfil are not best fulfilled by covering page after page with these large and vague aspirations. It is only right to ask that such an institution should moderate its raptures and concentrate on practical objectives.
I conclude by reading a sentence from the inaugural speech of the new Director-General, this Mexican gentleman, which was put into my hand and which seems to me to be very wisely and prudently said. I must translate it.
"U.N.E.S.C.O. is up against different obstacles, but there is one obstacle which is infinitely dangerous—that is, the infinite number of projects and programmes which do not really obtain the adhesion of peoples. We ought to choose and we ought to undertake what we do undertake after long hesitation. The masses hope for U.N.E.S.C.O. concrete tasks, tasks that make a direct appeal to the general good will of mankind."
That seems to me to be a very wise directive given by the new Director-General, and it is in that spirit that I have raised this debate to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the subject of to-day's debate is one which can be treated in a variety of different ways. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in opening, while accepting the ideals and purposes for which U.N.E.S.C.O. was created, laid so much emphasis on points of criticism, that I think anyone who had not followed the subject of U.N.E.S.C.O. at all could not but have been left in the belief that all was bad and that nothing could be obtained from an institution which couched its resolutions and its programmes in the delectable words which he used in reading from the report of the Mexico City meeting.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Surely I said the exact opposite.
LORD RENNELL: The impression was left on me that the noble and learned Viscount was extremely critical of the U.N.E.S.C.O. organisation. I am sorry if I had a wrong impression, but all his criticisms, so far as the resolutions and language were concerned, were culled (I think I am right in saying, and I believe he will agree with me) from the Report of the Second Session in Mexico City. Since that date another meeting of U.N.E.S.C.O. has taken place in Beirut,

289
to which the noble and learned Viscount has certainly referred, and of which we have not yet had a full account. But since, if I am rightly informed, the delegates present at the meeting, or the collectivity of U.N.E.S.C.O. there, agreed that the resolutions and programmes of the Mexico City meeting were both obtuse and unclear—which they were—it certainly suggests that at Beirut, as I believe was the case, an entirely different attitude was taken by U.N.E.S.C.O. as to the work which might be performed.
I have in my hand a copy of what I believe to be a summary of the Director-General's Report for 1948, dated December 22, which summarises (again if I am rightly informed), the outcome of the Beirut meeting. This, I may say, is a totally different document; it is a year later and is only two months old. In this document I find a great deal of very considerable interest, although it is true that there are some individual points of criticism. But before going on to the particular aspects of U.N.E.S.C.O., may I emphasise what the noble and learned Viscount began by saying? I think it is of the utmost importance that it should be realised in this country that U.N.E.S.C.O. was born of an idea here in the United Kingdom. This is not an invention, or an attempt to create a body, by scatter-brained people who have no practical sense of what can be done and what cannot be done. U.N.E.S.C.O. was born during the year in which the war ceased. A beginning was made before the Armistice, either in Europe or in the Far East. It was born as an initiative of the educational authorities in this country, aided by Mr. Butler and, I am glad to say, very ably seconded and supported by the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, who did so much to bring the conception of U.N.E.S.C.O. into being.
May I remind your Lordships, if anyone has forgotten, that the Final Act constituting U.N.E.S.C.O., published as a White Paper (Cmd. 6711, Miscellaneous 16, 1945), records that U.N.E.S.C.O. was born at a meeting of a Conference of allied Ministers of Education on July 12. 1945, within a few days of the General Election, and all the preparatory work which led to that conference was done before the General Election, in which His Majesty's present Government came into power. That Conference for the establishment of an Educational, Scientific and
290
Cultural Organisation which followed this resolution was convened by the Government of the United Kingdom, in association with the Government of France. If anybody can aspire or lay claim to the paternity of U.N.E.S.C.O., it is we in this country. And it is for us in this country, first and foremost, to support our own child; to seek to educate it, and to bring it up through the inevitable period of adolescence to which all children, either national or international, are subject. Out of that idea, conceived and born here in this country, came what I believe to be one of the greatest movements of popular enthusiasm in the United States of America for this conception—for this organisation which was to lead to the better exchange and better understanding among peoples of intellect and good will throughout the world.
That is the task which U.N.E.S.C.O. set itself, for which we are responsible, and for which the United States of America have assumed the major responsibility—major, not in that the contribution of the United States exceeds 50 per cent. of the whole budget, but major because theirs is by far the largest single contribution. It follows that criticisms of U.N.E.S.C.O.—criticisrns of the idea and, indeed, of the execution—must in large part be considered in the United States as a direct criticism of those who have given so much of their time and money in its support. I personally would deplore a continuation of that form of criticism, which has been only too prevalent in this country and, latterly, in the press. In its early stages an organisation of this sort must obviously suffer the teething difficulties that: any big organisation must suffer. I, frankly, can attribute no importance to the defalcations, deplorable as they are, of a cashier and certain irregularities in the accounts.
Let us get in proper perspective what they really were. The total defalcations amounted to something of the order of £1,000, or, at the then rate of exchange, between £1.000 and £2,000; and that was over two years ago. Since then there has been, to the knowledge of anybody connected with U.N.E.S.C.O., a substantial tightening up of the administration; indeed, if criticism is possible to-day, it is that the tightening up has been much too great. I have an example of a man with whom I am acquainted—I have this at

291
first-hand—who was asked to go over to U.N.E.S.C.O. to offer some technical advice. He had his passage paid to go over there, and hoped to get his passage paid to come back. But owing to the tightness of the administration—set up largely, I believe, owing to our American friends, and the report of this very eminent firm of auditors—the time that it was calculated would be required to obtain sanction for the payment of the return passage was three weeks. As a result of popular criticism it is possible to swing from one extreme to the other. And here, apparently, we have now swung to the opposite extreme. I hope that a proper balance of latitude and discretion will be allowed to the new Director-General, now that he has come into office and taken a tight hold of the new organisation.
I do not propose to touch on any of the resolutions which are referred to in the publication to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, at the outcome of the Mexico City meeting, because I regard them as out of date. I prefer to turn to the summary of the Director-General's Report, which I have in my hand. The position here disclosed is that of a budget of 7,750,000 dollars, about 40 per cent. of which is devoted to salaries and administration, only the balance—namely, 4,358,000 dollars—has been allocated to the development of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s six major programme activities. Those sums are very small, considering what U.N.E.S.C.O. is trying to do, and what we in this country conceive that U.N.E.S.C.O. might—and what I still believe and hope will—do, with the support of this and every successive Government. As has been stated, our contribution is about £250,000, an infinitesimally small sum of money, considering the objective, and a very small sum of money, also, by comparison with the vote which is attributed to the activities of the British Council, which are solely devoted to the propagation and dissemination of our own ideas. The actual amount is about one-twelth or one-fourteenth part of what is voted for the British Council activities.
The conception of U.N.E.S.C.O., as I understand it, is two-fold. In the fields of education, science and culture—the
292
three words which go to form the name—there are two quite separate functions. There is the function of a clearing-house, for the exchange of information, to make it possible for people in their various fields to exchange that information, even if U.N.E.S.C.O. plays no part in so doing—for instance, by paying the passages of delegates to international conferences and meetings, which are by no means all called by U.N.E.S.C.O.; indeed, only a few of them are. As I see it, that is the main function of U.N.E.S.C.O.—to enable people to exchange ideas by lubricating the wheels, paying their taxi fares and paying for their journeys, and, in conjunction with that, when people cannot meet, to accumulate from various sources information about what they are doing in order to pass it on to others who are similarly situated. For that purpose U.N.E.S.C.O. has set up these field centres, as I think they are called, in Latin America, in the Middle East, in the Far East and, I think, somewhere else, where there can be local exchanges and central bodies to act as group centres for the exchange and clearing of information. There is no one in your Lordships' House who could do other than praise that particular objective. That is, moreover, the objective to which I think the major part of the funds at the disposal of U.N.E.S.C.O. are devoted.
There is then the second function, which is that of distributing grants in aid, or moneys, for purposes approved by the Assembly. That function falls into two parts. There is the distribution of those funds which U.N.E.S.C.O. itself possesses and can allocate to various fields, including the object to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, an object, incidentally, that interests me personally as a geographer—namely, the Hylean Amazon Institute, an international project which has fallen rather by the wayside, owing to lack of interest and of contributions, but which is a body that should be of interest to all the Riverain States of the Amazon, including ourselves in respect of British Guiana.
In addition to these direct contributions from U.N.E.S.C.O. funds, U.N.E.S.C.O.—as I read in the summary of the Director-General's report—contributed to the distribution of about 100,000,000 dollars of funds provided by other parties—"voluntary organisations," they are called. With

293
your Lordships' permission I will read the summary:
"U.N.E.S.C.O. itself has set aside 175,000 dollars from its 1949 budget for the Emergency Aid Fund to meet some of the high priority needs of war-hit countries. This sum will evidently not be enough. U.N.E.S.C.O., therefore, will continue to organise fund-raising campaigns and mobilise voluntary organisations. Already the contributions received through U.N.E.S.C.O's. campaigns and the efforts of voluntary organisations have increased from a small trickle to a steadily increasing flow which in 1948 topped the 100,000,000 dollar mark."
That is a great achievement.
U.N.E.S.C.O. has at any rate obtained the confidence of a sufficient number of organisations—many of which are in the United States—to be able to recommend to them, with success, the directions in which their funds are to be distributed and, with its own knowledge of the needs of countries, to provide those institutions with better information than they themselves would have been able to collect. I do not wish to name any of the particular organisations that I happen to know, because it may hurt the feelings of the many others of which I am not aware, but I do not think any greater praise or proof of confidence could be suggested than that these great American philanthropic institutions should have distributed their funds in accordance with the recommendations of U.N.E.S.C.O. Those recommendations are based on an assessment (which is still being made) of the needs of war-devastated and other countries. The first part of a publication in this regard has already appeared and a second one is in progress. For that, obviously, a staff and an administration are required. I cannot say—perhaps my noble friend Lord Perth, with his experience of a similar activity in the League of Nations, will know—whether a staff of 500 is excessive or not. I should not have thought that it was very excessive.
In short, what is it of which we have to remind ourselves? We must remind ourselves that we in this country, and not for the first time, have been responsible for the creation of an idea, for the birth of that idea and for its launching on the world. That idea has been taken up, supported and, indeed, acclaimed with enthusiasm, in America. If, in the course of working out the career of this Organisation, enthusiasts who have not perhaps had the advantage of a classical education and, therefore, of logic and tight-thinking,
294
have run away with long words and the highfalutin' ideas to which the noble Viscount referred, and have managed to get their resolutions accepted (and, after all, it is their resolutions which have been read out; they are not the work of the Director-General, but of the people who went to the meetings); and those resolutions appear to us to be funny, vague, even silly or even perhaps mischievous, is that a reason for condemning our own child to the criticism of the world? Is it a reason for allowing criticism to go abroad in America about something which is very near to their heart, and very near to that great strain of idealism which we must welcome in America, because to it we probably owe our very existence? That that criticism which we have heard here should hurt those people in America seems to me to be a terrible thought. I hope the noble Viscount, when he comes to wind up the debate, will agree with me that ideas of that sort outside this country must never be allowed to hurt or to injure what we ourselves have created.
I believe that this idea, the conception of U.N.E.S.C.O. in which information is pooled, distributed and made accessible to others in the font of facts and, above all, in the form of ideas, is the direct consequence and descendant of an idea which has probably always animated thinking people in this country. As Mr. Lionel Curtis very aptly says in one of his books, this theory of an infinite obligation owed by each to all as the bond which unites human society and makes it a living thing, even when realised in part by the few, has nothing in common with the social contract and materialist philosophies of other countries. That I conceive to be at the back of U.N.E.S.C.O., and that is what I would beg your Lordships—with all the criticisms that may be levelled at the Organisation—never to forget.
3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, your Lordships' House will no doubt appreciate, as I do, the opportunity that my noble and learned friend has afforded us to give some consideration this afternoon to what is a great adventure in the international field. The two speeches to which we have listened are a valuable illustration of the truth of the remark which fell from my noble and learned

295
friend, at the outset of his observations, as to the importance of the service it was in the power of this House to render on such a topic by the kind of discussion on which your Lordships are now engaged. As one who, vicariously perhaps, stood by the cradle of U.N.E.S.C.O. in 1945, I would like permission to join in the family conclave for a few moments over the growth and development of the child.
Let me make it quite plain that I do not think the child is likely to suffer at all by the examination critical—but which my noble and learned friend assured us was friendly—to which, in these early days of his life he may be subjected. Correction and discipline I have always been led to suppose, are likely to produce a better article in the end than undue ease and indulgence, therefore let us who are friends of U.N.E.S.C.O. not complain of criticism. There was only one point on which I thought that my noble and learned friend was unwittingly less than fair, in the sense that he was liable to be misinterpreted, and I am glad that the noble Lord who followed him made the correction—namely, in his reference to the matter of the keeping of accounts. I think it is important that it should be known that the matter to which my noble friend very properly referred concerned a state of affairs which existed three years ago in the Preparatory Commission and which is not, I think, very relevant to the health and good finances which I believe the auditors have certified for the last two years in the life of the U.N.E.S.C.O. organisation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I said so.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: Yes, I know, but I was only afraid that it might be liable to misinterpretation; but I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would hardly have mentioned it unless he thought it was relevant to the present situation. Some of our difficulties in all these matters, and in other similar matters, seemed to me to arise from the inevitable effort that we are making to deal with them on a universal basis. The reason for that is sufficiently familiar to us all, but it brings a very natural difficulty with it. All sorts of minds meet; they do not employ language in the same fashion; and therefore there is apt to emerge something which lends itself readily to criticism and laughter from one
296
quarter or another—reactions which are entirely legitimate. It is, I believe, inevitable; and the impulse to deal with the problems of mankind on a universal basis, which is now our common lot, seems to me to spring from a double motive.
There is first, of course, always the fear of and the recoil from war. Your Lordships will probably remember that in the Preamble to the Constitution of this Organisation these words appear
"Because wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defence of peace must be constructed."
That is undoubtedly true; but there are also positive reasons on which the constitution also lays emphasis: positive moral aims of moral defence against war; positive moral aims of the universal respect for justice and ordered law and freedom and the like. And those, of course, are among the great things which the Organisation (as the noble Lord who spoke last said) proclaims it to be the purpose of science, of education and of culture to try to promote. Those are also, I think, the purposes, or rather the goal, to which is directed the long march of man through all the stages of painful growth, through slow maturity and through difficult achievement, the sum of which we call civilisation.
Therefore, the task of U.N.E.S.C.O., as I see it, is not one of diagnosing and trying to find a remedy for political and economic anxieties that may be more acute this year than last, and may be different the year after, or for epidemics and diseases of the moment; it is really the task of trying to bring the mind of man in all nations to recognise and to accept a new and compelling loyalty. It is not less than that. It is quite obvious that progress with a purpose of that kind, and towards an end of that sort, is not likely to be measurable in years, and even if one were concerned with the mind of a single nation, I think our own experience through the nineteenth century would suffice to show us how very gradual such growth must be. Just look back a little. With all the resources of a great, vigorous and expanding economy and nation, the production of a comprehensive educational code—which is perhaps the nearest comparable thing one could take—has taken

297
us roughly a century to elaborate. I do not doubt that in the course of that century countless follies were committed by enthusiasts of different sorts, all of whom had their own nostrums and theories, but who were all concerned to try to put their bit of mortar into the big building of the code. I have no doubt that there may well be still, in the field of education, educational reformers who will excite derision one hundred years hence from educational critics who will have had the advantage of another century's experience. Therefore, in all these things we have to keep our perspective long.
For these reasons, I think U.N.E.S.C.O. almost certainly is gradually becoming—if I may use rather a mixed metaphor—airborne on what may seem to us extravagant flights of fancy. But I think U.N.E.S.C.O. will also undoubtedly demand a measure of indulgence as it sets out on this momentous task of trying to foster a process of spiritual growth and to try out new projects for the meeting of minds. I could not agree more with my noble and learned friend as to the immensity of the task that the Director-General was invited to undertake in 1948. It was obviously fantastic; but the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was able to tell us that the programme of the new Director-General is to be much more restrained, practical, and balanced.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am not sure about that. I hope it is so.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: I hope that when we are able to see the Reports that emerge from the meeting at Beirut we shall all be more fully informed. But that does not absolve us from the duty of trying to encourage the pioneers who have to work through U.N.E.S.C.O., the teachers of all sorts, broadcasters, film directors, the Press, writers, scientists, artists and all the rest, to unite in creating harmony in the world in place of discord, understanding in place of conflict, and peace in place of war. But the man will be very stupid who thinks that all that is easy to do. If mankind were content with a simple solution, he would not have to look very far or very long. The Churches are there; but the Churches have long ago found out that ideals, to become operative, have to be brought home in intelligible form to the thoughts and hearts of men, for so
298
limited is the individual experience of men, and so limited are we all by it, that language which is remote from that experience does not carry an effective message to the mind and brain. Therefore, the ideal must take form and come alive in projects through which teachers, children, artists and scientists of one country may come to realise intellectually and with their whole being that the teachers, children, artists and so on of another country are comrades with themselves in an effort that is common.
It is for that reason that it is important to help U.N.E.S.C.O. to get its programmes put into form, discussed and understood. It is for that reason that it is important that we should welcome the creation within the Member States of the national Commissions who are charged with the task of devising and sustaining such endeavour; because, as I see it, it is only when in each country men and women who are able to help can be aided and persuaded to give time and energy to such discussions that U.N.E.S.C.O. stands any chance of success. For only then, as I think, will it be possible for it to be seen to what extent large phrases represent large thoughts or practical possibilities of achievement.
If I may interject in passing, it is just because this kind of domestic co-operation and work was lacking to the analogous body under the League of Nations—the Committee of Intellectual Co-operation—that, in spite of the great efforts of Dr. Gilbert Murray, it failed to get to effective grips with its problems. Therefore, in my judgment, a real responsibility rests upon all of us who are concerned, not only with U.N.E.S.C.O. but with the United Nations. That is a responsibility that we all share in such a discussion as this to-day. As my noble friend reminded us at the beginning, where there are forty nations concerned it is no merely domestic matter which is involved. It is not domestic and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said, nowhere has greater enthusiasm and energy been displayed for this cause than in the United States of America.
If we are rapidly approaching, or if we are already at, the point where American devotion to international causes is taken for granted, let us not

299
forget that it was not always so. We can all remember the history of the League of Nations. We can all remember—some had occasion to see it more vividly than others—the dead weight of the opposition, both active and passive, with which the late President Roosevelt had to contend before the last war and in the early months of the war, as he strove to impart to his countrymen his own dire sense of the perils that were coming upon the world. To-day, the enthusiasm and energy of the United States for U.N.E.S.C.O. are an eloquent and most welcome proof of the strength of those benevolent forces that those who know America best know always to be latent in the American character, and to which President Truman gave what seemed to me notable expression in his inaugural address a few days ago.
As we have been told, the United States alone pays nearly one-half of the U.N.E.S.C.O. budget. Its National Commission has sprung over-night into the centre of the national discussion upon education, science and culture, as great forces that are moving the world. A few months ago I noticed that the Conference held on the Pacific Coast drew something like 3,000 men and women, notable in many sides of their national life, from far and wide, to take part in it. That is a remarkable effort, even in a country where conferences flourish. The United States has always sent a large and distinguished delegation to U.N.E.S.C.O.'s annual Conference, where it speaks not only for the Government but for the American people. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, truly said, they have made this cause of U.N.E.S.C.O very much their own. That development of the last two or three years seems to me as heartening as it is remarkable.
If U.N.E.S.C.O. can inspire such a measure of faith and loyalty, I think—and I hope your Lordships will think so too—that there is good ground for our continuing to trust the spirit which inspired the Government of this country in 1945, while we were still living amid the echoes and the wreck of battle, to invite the United Nations to come to London—or in whatever way it was done—to form this Organisation. I look forward to reading the fuller reports that
300
will come out of Beirut from the Lebanon meeting, which will show that sound foundations are being further laid. Meanwhile, I see nothing to make me think we have lost what is for me, as I look at this country, a proud position that has been earned by our efforts and our example. I am prepared to see mistakes made. I think it is profitable that mistakes should be pointed out. That in no way dims my conviction or my faith. I hope that we shall continue to strive, not for our own glory but loyally with all our Member States to try to use this instrument to help mankind everywhere to find in the assurance of security, order and freedom, compensation for these years of torture.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl is trebly welcome as a speech of one who vicariously assisted at the inauguration of U.N.E.S.C.O., as one who has been both Foreign Secretary and Minister of Education in this country and, not least, as one who knows the pulse of American opinion well. President Truman in his speech last week said that the next four years would be a decisive period in the history of the United States and of the world. In my humble opinion, a great deal of the way in which that decisive period is met is the responsibility of the United Nations expressed in U.N.E.S.C.O., if U.N.E.S.C.O. can devise a policy which will command the support of thoughtful people in different countries.
I thought that the noble and learned Viscount to whom we owe the opportunity of this debate underestimated, strangely for him, the force of nationalism. He seemed to think that the fact that national inquiries were being made into cultures, ideals and legal systems was really enough. What he did not, at any rate, bring out in his speech was the fact that these systems are at present not within bowing distance of each other. The former Director-General, Professor Huxley, in his report at Beirut, called special attention to the great difficulties in the differences of tradition, background, education, training and point of view which faces those who would bring the educational influences of the different nations together. In co-operation with

301
churchmen of many varied countries, I have had some little experience, and I know how large are the obstacles in the way of even a modest beginning. I am grateful to the noble Earl for calling attention to the long-range character of this complex problem, and to the fact not only that U.N.E.S.C.O. is in its youth but that the changing of men's minds and the changing of men's characters takes a very long time. But I should like to join with the noble Earl in encouraging the pioneer U.N.E.S.C.O. in these early years, and I express the hope that it will go forward and flourish in a voyage which is of the greatest importance to mankind.
I have myself read the full text, which was kindly given me by the Ministry of Education in this country, of Professor Julian Huxley's Report at Beirut. I have also read the programme for 1949, the estimates and the speech on the occasion on which the new Director-General, Dr. Bodet, was presented to the Assembly, and I am sure this House would wish Godspeed to Dr. Bodet as he takes up his new work. He has the rare combination of experiences shared by the noble Earl, for in Mexico he has been both Minister of Education and Foreign Secretary, and it seems to me, from the speech he made and from the quotations which have already been uttered in this House, that he is approaching his task in the right spirit. Indeed he says that he is concerned to advance the noblest and most urgent cause of humanity, which is (and I emphasise these words) to establish peace more surely in truth, on truth, and by truth. It is notable that both the late Director-General and the present Director-General are conscious of the existence of criticisms, but that both are also confident in the future.
I speak as a supporter of U.N.E.S.C.O., but I want to refer to a danger, as I see it, in the immediate trend, and to suggest a development in its programme which, in my opinion, would make a difference, not only in the confidence held in it but in the achievement of its aims. The danger in this immediate stage seems to me to be the preponderant place occupied by science and scientific technique. This is brought out clearly in the budget for the programme. In Part III, the budget for the programme of operations, out of a total of 4,300,000 dollars, 1,500,000 dollars are assigned to mass
302
communication, which is scientific technique in the main; 679,000 dollars to natural science and 286,000 dollars to social science. Moreover, the operation concerned with education and cultural activities and reconstruction is greatly occupied with questions of scientific technique and the rôle of science in education. I have no wish to belittle science in the promotion of human welfare, or the inestimable boons it confers on backward people, but I do quarrel with the idea that the more science there is in the world the better the world becomes; and in the report of the late Director-General and the attitude behind the programme for 1949 which he has helped to formulate, I do detect too great a belief in the perfectability of man by material means, and too little sense of the power of spiritual factors.
I can give illustrations but I will not take up your time with this matter. I would just refer to the statement made in the Director-General's report about mind control, and the way in which he defends the new title which he proposes as the popular description of the aim of U.N.F.S.C.0.—the advance of world civilisation—with the implicit assumption that civilisation has advanced a great deal during the last fifty years. But I am much cheered by a remark made by Dr. Bodet in his speech, from which the noble and learned Viscount has made one quotation. Dr. Bodet said:
"Each day brings home to us more clearly that that humanism, which was based on the intellect, no longer commands universal acceptance. It has not even succeeded in solving the problems peculiar to our own Western civilisation. The intellect has exercised all its latest energies in the field of technology, in the subjection of nature to man, but has proved incapable of bringing the true forces of moral greatness into play. After centuries of rationalism, disillusionment with reason has caused many to fall a prey to the irrationalism of dictatorships. What, therefore, has to be done is, without sacrificing the intellect, to combine it harmoniously with the human virtues. Classical humanism at one time confined itself to the Mediterranean region. Modern humanism should recognise neither limits nor frontiers. It is U.N.E.S.C.O's supreme task to help to bring this new type of humanism to birth."
I have spoken of a danger in the predominance given to science and scientific technique. I would suggest a development which would make a difference in the achievement of U.N.E.S.C.O's aims, which are international peace and the

303
common welfare of mankind. U.N.E.S.C.O. has as the third object in its title, culture. To this very important word too little attention has been paid, and there is a misunderstanding and an ambiguity as to its meaning. In the Constitution of U.N.E.S.C.O. itself two meanings are attached to this word. First, the Constitution says that a wide diffusion of culture is a sacred duty of the organisation, and in Article 1 it seeks to give a fresh impulse to the spread of culture. "Culture" thus used means a training and refinement of mind, tastes and manners—to use Matthew Arnold's words
"The acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world."
But in Article 1 of the same Constitution, U.N.E.S.C.O. recognises its duty to "preserve the independence, the integrity and fruitful diversity of the cultures and educational systems of its state-members." Now "culture" here means something quite different. It is the anthropological meaning, described by T. S. Eliot thus
"The way of life of a particular people living together in one place, made visible in their acts, in their social system, in their habits and customs, in their religion."
Incidentally, I should like to point out that this phrase in Article 1 rules out any idea of uniform ideology for a uniform culture. It recognises diversity.
It seems to me that the Report of Professor Julian Huxley, and the programme, speak of culture mainly in the first tense, although they recognise the second. Professor Huxley comments on a series of monographs which U.N.E.S.C.O. is preparing on the distinctive ways of life of different national cultures, and the new Director-General is instructed to promote inquiries into the distinctive character of various national cultures, ideals and legal systems. This second meaning of culture is the fundamental meaning, and it is supremely important, for the crisis of our world is neither a political nor an economic but a cultural crisis, and the heart of this is the spiritual factor. I would put it in another way. It means that a change in the way of life, a change of the human spirit, is the most vital need in the achievement of the objective of international peace.
I could give an illustration of this from the much-valued words of the noble
304
Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his speech on international affairs on September 24. He then said:
"I believe that nothing has happened in recent years more profoundly significant than the meeting at Amsterdam of the World Council of Churches. It may prove that no event of recent years has been of greater ultimate importance, because it indicates a much-needed movement of the human spirit and that is what matters more than anything else."
It is a fact of experience—present-day experience and the experience of history—that spiritual forces are not only real but the most real and the most transforming forces in life. The tragedy of to-day is that the world of reason and the world of the soul have fallen further apart than ever before, and that for lack of the old consecrated ways the soul has been left at the mercy of the forces of darkness.
It may be said that the breach of the communion between the spiritual and the rational order is the most formidable problem that confronts the modern world. That is why I say that the fundamental crisis is a cultural crisis which cannot be met by the diffusion of refinement, and cannot be met by a great many instruments on the material and scientific plane. It needs the help the artist, the poet, the writer, the painter, the sculptor. Above all, it needs the help of religion. It is, therefore, of extraordinary importance that U.N.E.S.C.O. is committed by its constitution to the interest and maintenance of cultures. And in my opinion U.N.E.S.C.O., in its operation and its whole approach to cultures, should recognise the place held by religion in culture.
Living, as we do, in a highly secularised society it is difficult for us to realise that the inner force of a society has always been hitherto interpreted by its religion. The greatest living authority on culture is Christopher Dawson, the Gifford Lecturer of last year. He says:
"Throughout the greater part of mankind's history, in all ages and states of society, religion has been the great central unifying force in culture. … Religion is the key of history. We cannot understand the inner force of a society unless we understand its religion."
Religions, then, are very relevant to culture. They are the keystones of world cultures. Buddhism tamed the Mongols—look at the peaceful inhabitants of Tibet. Islam, growing up in a cultural backwater, has influenced, converted and transformed millions of people. Judaism

305
has had, and still has, an immense influence. So has Christianity. I am not, of course, proposing that U.N.E.S.C.O. should propagate these religions or discriminate between them, but I am proposing that it should take a real account of their influence and existence in its work and make abundantly plain the fact that it does so. For this, I am sure, there should be a real collaboration between U.N.E.S.C.O. and the religions of the world. There should be no standing apart on either side.
In what I have been saying I have only been echoing the thoughts of some of the most powerful minds in English life to-day. There are not a few glimpses of this in Professor Arnold Toynbee's collection of essays Civilisation on Trial. But there are two writers, particularly, whose books should be read by the staff of U.N.E.S.C.O., the members of its Executive Board and others interested. One by T. S. Eliot is entitled Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. He is speaking of Europe, not as a Christian but as a sociologist, and he says:
"The dominant force in creating a common culture between peoples, each of which has its distinct culture, is religion. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian faith."
Above all, I would commend Christopher Dawson's Gifford Lectures, published last year under the title Religion and Culture. This work is a masterpiece. It shows the intimate connection of religion and culture right through history. It declares that religion is still a living force for culture to-day, but that a great schism exists between them. On the one hand there is a secularised scientific world culture, existing as a body without a soul; on the other hand, there is religion divorced from culture as a spirit without a body. He says (and what words could put it more truly?):
"There must be a return to unity—a spiritual integration of culture if mankind is to survive."
That is why, in supporting wholeheartedly the work of U.N.E.S.C.O., and wishing to give every possible encouragement to its Executive Board and its Director-General, I lay particular stress, for its future development in this uneasy and turbulent world, on the paying of special attention to that word "culture" in all its richness.
4.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as I wearied your Lordships last week by inflicting a somewhat long speech on international affairs on the House, I shall try to-day to be brief. I think any of us who have listened to what the right reverend Prelate said would be much moved by his observations, and I trust that his remarks, particularly about the relations between religion and culture, will be read and studied by all those who are working in any capacity for U.N.E.S.C.O.
I would say a few words only because I have had some experience of the subjects and activities for which U.N.E.S.C.O. stands—namely, the educational, scientific and cultural development of the world. As the noble Earl has pointed out, in the old days of the League of Nations there was an organisation known as the International Committee of Intellectual Co-operation. I am afraid that its work, too, was often derided, but people of such eminence as Professor Gilbert Murray. Madame Curie, Professor Bergson and Professor Einstein were closely associated with it and people began to realise that the work it was doing was really worth while. It was badly hampered by lack of funds and staff, but it made headway, and the fact that in those days science and culture knew no national boundaries, whatever may be the ease to-day, made it a real force towards the promotion of world understanding. The reason why it failed was not, in my opinion, that given by the noble Earl, but because of the general collapse: indeed, I think the noble Earl will agree that it was making considerable progress when the war broke out. U.N.E.S.C.O. was destined to carry on and develop the same kind of work, and as its resources and administrative possibilities are far greater, its ultimate possibilities are very much larger.
Your Lordships must remember that U.N.E.S.C.O. was faced at its foundation, and during its first years, with a terrific problem, arising largely because of the devastation caused by the war. That is particularly true in the educational sphere. I see that the first chapter of the 1948 programme is devoted to reconstruction. Excellent schemes are put forward for assisting those countries which have been the chief victims of the war to re-establish, materially and otherwise, what has been destroyed Of course,

307
it is easy to criticise an organisation which is just finding its feet. U.N.E.S.C.O. may have embarked on extravagant schemes and over-ambitious theories. I frankly think it has. But I regret deeply the speech with which the noble and learned Viscount introduced this Motion. I cannot help thinking that he himself did not altogether realise the amount of scorn and contempt which he managed to pour on some of the suggestions for U.N.E.S.C.O. activities, while at the same time he accepted warmly the main idea of the organisation.
The noble and learned Viscount gave us the impression that this programme was to be concluded in one year. That, of course, is quite impossible. I do not think his criticism is justified. The noble Viscount has based all these criticisms, except that on the Hylean Institute, on the chapter relating to human and social relations. I do not think he was quite fair. He said that the Director-General was instructed to perform a long list of things—which he read out—and implied that no Director-Genera] could possibly accomplish such a task. The noble and learned Viscount omitted to say, however, that the Director-General has to observe the following conditions:
"He shall enlist the resources and distribute the work among universities and other research centres in the various nations, utilising wherever possible National Commissions or Co-operating Bodies where they exist and appropriate international organisations. These organisations shall be free to propose such re-formulation of the projects enumerated above as may seem to them to be necessary either in order to ensure greater precision in the definition and delimitation of the projects or to enable them to investigate tensions with greater efficiency and by improved methods."
In fact, the Director-General is asked to devolve the work on other people, work which I believe many of these institutions are capable of performing. If that kind of criticism is made, then I think it is hardly justified.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should be very sorry if in tone or in substance I used language which justified the noble Lord's observations. What I am anxious to learn, and what I hope the noble Viscount will be able to tell us, is: What has been done under that directive? Surely that is a perfectly fair question to ask. It is not hostile to the body. It is necessary that one should at some time know if there has been this devolution
308
to the universities and other institutions. The university I know best is not, I think, engaged in this work.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think that is a perfectly fair question. I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, when he replies, will be able to tell us what has been done. But that was not altogether the tone of the speech the noble and learned Viscount made. I agree with him that some of the proposals have been too ambitious, but I am not sure that we should condemn U.N.E.S.C.O. for that. I have often thought that we Anglo-Saxons attach too little importance to ideas. We occasionally think over-much in terms of practical results. Surely in the long run it is ideas that are the main determining factor in human history. We cannot afford to neglect them.
I would like to turn for one moment (because I think this would be of interest to the noble and learned Viscount) to some of the practical proposals that have been carried out with regard to the reconstruction suggested in the programme. There is in this country and in America a great fund of good will towards the children of lands where education has been a victim of the war. But to bring that good will into action, and take all possible measures, is a task which is clearly beyond the capability of any voluntary organisation. In the programme we find two straightforward duties placed on U.N.E.S.C.O. One is:
"To advise contributors concerning priorities of need for books and other materials in the devastated countries in order that the most urgent needs may receive appropriate attention."
The other—and this is obviously most important—is:
"To purchase and distribute, within the limits of allocated funds, books, educational material, scientific and technical equipment."
I do not know how much has been done to put these suggestions into effect. I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will be able to tell us something on the point.
There is another scheme which is of practical value, which could not have come into being without U.N.E.S.C.O's help—namely, the new book coupon scheme. I think the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, will agree that the universities of this country feel a great lack of books from overseas, and particularly from the United States. He will also agree—in

309
view of the important official position he holds—that we do not want to see our centres of learning overwhelmed with overseas ideas to the exclusion of our own. I do not think the new book coupon scheme is likely to lead to that result, however, because it is only in experimental form, and it is for a period of one year. I hope very much that the experiment will succeed, and that when the year is up it will be continued for a far longer period.
I will give just one other example of the practical accomplishments of U.N.E.S.C.O.—namely, its contribution towards the teaching of international understanding. The United Nations Organisation cannot survive simply as a body of Government representatives and international civil servants. We know that it requires the support in all countries of people who believe in its aims and who have faith in its ability ultimately to achieve them. It is not too early (I hope it is not too late) to prevent the children acquiring prejudices about their own and other countries which will handicap their efforts to reach this belief and this faith in later years. U.N.E.S.C.O. has done a great deal of work in that direction. It has held two Conferences, in France in 1947 and in New York in 1948. Teachers and people concerned with education from over twenty different countries attended those Conferences. They exchanged ideas, talked about methods and prepared booklets; and on returning to their own countries—and this is the important thing—they are now inculcating those ideas into the minds of the children. I feel that that is a valuable and practical proposition. All of us who support with our efforts and our prayers the cause of international understanding, or at any rate the cause of international toleration, must wish U.N.E.S.C.O. well.
These are all practical propositions. Personally, for the time being, I think it would be well that U.N.E.S.C.O. should consider itself as a kind of clearing-house for educational and scientific ideas, and particularly as an organisation to stimulate and assist other bodies to perform those activities which are required. If I were to advise, my view would be that, in existing circumstances, U.N.E.S.C.O. should concentrate on a short-term programme, so that it will produce concrete results which the man in the street and
310
we ourselves can see, hear and feel. Then, when success in that narrower field has been achieved, the Organisation can go forward into the wider fields which are appropriate for it with far greater support and with confidence of success. It may well be that through the efforts of U.N.E.S.C.O. greater progress will be made towards that ideal of one world for which we all hope, rather than by political or even economic methods. With all its failings—and there have been failings—we cannot lightly condemn it. We agree that it should correct the errors it has made, but we feel also that it should successfully pursue its work. Its failure would prove a disaster for that world understanding for which we all hope.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the Government welcome this debate. It may well prove in the future to have been of critical importance. I would direct the attention of the House to the beginning and purpose of this body by quoting from its first Article, of which, owing to the overlaying of it by a multitude of suggestions and propositions which may obtrude themselves, we may well be apt to lose sight:
"The purpose of the Organisation is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the Nations through education, science, and culture, in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms."
That is what this Organisation, which is now only in the third year of its life, stands for. That is its purpose—a purpose which contemplates, and will certainly involve, generations. Despite juvenile errors, and perhaps extravagances, we have to keep in mind the potential value and the immense importance of this scheme of international cooperation. It is because we have that in mind, and we are anxious that it should not be lost sight of, that as Leader of the House, have undertaken to reply to the debate. We know that wars begin in the misunderstandings between peoples. We know how terribly ignorant for the most part, one nation is of another—even the best informed. Ignorance breeds distrust, and it is distrust and ignorance, and all that follows from them, that in times past have led to wars, and will do so again unless we can devote ourselves

311
by all the means in our power to their removal.
I want to take your Lordships through the history of this scheme, which we are proud to know had its start in this country. I shall refer later on to some of the quotations made by the noble and learned Viscount who introduced the discussion. It is true that the published summary of the plans and activities of the organisation covers a bewilderingly wide field; but, at the same time, if we look behind them, we soon learn of practical things that it is helping to do. It is, by various means, promoting the spread of knowledge in different countries: so far as books are available in these very early days, by making more books available; by getting meetings of teachers; by the institution of Fellowships to help students and other people to travel from one country to another (there are 200, I think, at the present time); by the spread of articles; by the use of the radio; by the use of films; by helping libraries; by distributing books in backward countries, and in a hundred other ways doing really helpful things to dispel ignorance and give people a better knowledge of one another.
It is very difficult indeed to assess these things in real terms, because they are things of the mind; they affect the thoughts of people. But in order to make them more realistic and practically helpful, twenty-eight out of the forty-four States already associated with U.N.E.S.C.O. have set up in their own countries what are called "National Commissions," which are national organisations to help in a practical way to forward the work that is in mind. We have a very effective national commission in this country, and, through the good offices of the Ministry of Education I have been supplied with a list of the different branches of activity which are being pursued, not in terms of dreams, but in reality, by different groups of people in this country. There are apparently about 250 bodies scholastic, scientific and cultural, represented on our national commission. I have before me a list of names of the men who are directing these different branches of activity and helping to spread knowledge and dispel distrust. Mr. Harman is the Chairman of the education body, Professor Adrian of the natural science and Mr. French of mass
312
communications—I suppose that means radio and films. So you go through a list of libraries, museums and so or., and of people who are helping, by the use of these institutions, both at home and abroad, to increase the spread of knowledge, to attempt to get people to know one another better, to remove distrust and so on. Those are practical things, and we are approaching it in this country with our usual national realistic disposition.
For an organisation of this kind, with the immense possibilities that it has before it, and the immense difficulties which tradition and national habits must impose upon it, there are obvious dangers. The noble and learned Viscount has referred to some of them. He has referred to what, quite frankly, I think are the extravagances of form of expression in this document. I do not think it does any harm to refer to them; it may lead to their being abated. I shall come to what practical steps have already been taken to abate them. When he asks me, as he did quite properly, if I understand what is meant by some of these things, I frankly tell him at once that I do not. I do not profess to understand—I am only a simple-minded person. I think that some of them are in rather an extravagant phraseology which is foreign to our habit of thought.
But let me just explain to your Lordships why it is not quite so absurd as it may seem. I believe that some of the propositions which are here translated into English originated in Arabic. You have to remember that forty-four nations are contributing to this document, and they submit suggestions in their own languages. In languages of many nations, even the same words are difficult to transfer from the phraseology of one into the phraseology of another, and it is particularly so in some oriental languages. These statements embody the result of collaboration in Mexico and the bringing together of different suggestions, but there is a considerable difficulty, which is obvious to any one of us familiar with these things, to try and bring into one common language the thoughts expressed in various forms of words by others who think quite differently. That does account—and you have to be fair about it—for rather obscure and polysyllabic language which to me, as a plain person, does not convey any real impression. We have all come

313
across people in life who seem to take a glory in what we call rather highfalutin' language, and my impression is that it is often used because they do not quite know what they mean themselves. That is all by the way, and is a small thing. But when we come to reflect upon what things make the most impression upon people, we find they are usually the simple things. Of all the discourses in the history of the world, I think the one which has made the greatest impression upon the habits and thoughts of people is the Sermon on the Mount, and nothing could be simpler than that.
We have to think charitably and understandingly of what, to me, quite frankly, are linguistic extravagances, and no Director in any one year would ever be expected to achieve any of the things here. Those are the things he has to aim at. If a succession of Directors achieve them in a century, then they will have done a good job of work. The fact that we have a high aim before us is no discredit. It is to our credit that we have such an aim. On the question of this drafting, I can reassure the noble and learned Viscount and give him, I hope, some comfort, because at Beirut this question was taken very effectively in hand, and a committee of five was appointed—of which our own distinguished public servant, Sir John Maude, was one—to try to get the project drafted in language which was perhaps more understandable and more concise. I can say that the British delegation at Beirut have done an extraordinarily good job of work in improving the drafting and in getting forward machinery from year to year to see that the aims and purposes of U.N.E.S.C.O. are set out, as clearly and realistically as possible. So it is not fair to U.N.E.S.C.O. to make fun of some of these strange sentences. Those who are directing the programme have already recognised that this may be the effect and are setting about remedying it in a very practical fashion.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I ask whether the report of the Beirut Conference will be circulated here in the same way as the other one?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have not consulted my right honourable friend or his Department, but I am quite sure that it will. We will make it our business to
314
make it available as soon as possible, for there is every reason why we should.
Then there are other matters which are being taken in hand for the purposes of improvement, including that of staffing. These questions have already been dealt with and are still being watched very carefully, so that in the course of time any extravagances, waste, or over-lapping may be eliminated. That work is already in hand. When one conies to think of it, here is a body with representatives of forty-four different notions; it has really only been going for two years, and it was inevitable that there should be trouble, and perhaps confusion in some respects, at the beginning, both with regard to the drafting of its programme and to the improving of its administration. But really effective steps have already been taken and are being pursued.
Now I should like to put in its proper place another feature of the progress of U.N.E.S.C.O. I must say that I regret that the noble and learned Viscount made so much of the financial difficulty which arose in 1946. It was not really U.N.E.S.C.O. which was responsible it was a preparatory body. There were gross irregularities, and they have been dealt with fairly severely. A very eminent firm of auditors, Messrs. Price, Waterhouse & Co., have been called in, and in their report for last year they noted a very substantial improvement. But I should like to make one comment before I come to what the auditors say has been happening in the last year and a half. Their report was issued and I will quote from it in a minute or two. But let me first remark that while we have had a great amount of publicity given to the irregularities which occurred two years ago, we have not had an equivalent amount of publicity given to the credit which the auditors have frankly given to the Organisation for improvements it has effected. It is only fair that that should be done, and I now propose to quote from the report.
After inspecting the accounts for 1947 the auditors say:
"In reviewing the alterations which have taken place in keeping the accounts and checking any mistakes, it will be seen from the foregoing that important improvements in the controls and accounts have been made and that further improvements are being introduced."

315
They go on to say:
"The present state of the accounts and records appears to be generally satisfactory."
That is with regard to 1947.
With regard to 1948, on June 7, 1948, they say:
"In our opinion, based upon our examination, the attached statement summarises fairly the recorded budgetary and financial operations of U.N.E.S.C.O."
In September of last year they said:
"As far as was disclosed at our tests and checks of the detailed operations and from inquiries we have made, money has not been obligated or expended for purposes other than those for which the appropriations voted by the general conference were intended to provide."
That is a very definite and explicit statement by this eminent firm of accountants. I think it is not in the interest of this great organisation that we should have wide publicity given to mistakes that were made two years ago before it really came into being, whilst failing to give the credit for the great improvements which have recently been effected and which are commended by the auditors.
There is one other point I wish to mention. It is true that all these millions of dollars seem a lot of money; and they are indeed a lot of money. But I would like to tell the House, as an example of the rapid improvement in the administration which the executive is bringing about, that the budget as presented at Beirut was 8,473,530 dollars; and the British delegation there was responsible for submitting this budget to a very critical examination. The proceedings at Beirut will record that the proposed budget was reduced by no less than 633,000 dollars. The budget was scrupulously examined in the process. I think if one remembers the great number of nations which are gathered together round the table in this scheme of co-operation, it is very fair to say that to have brought about this improved system in so short a time as two years is exceedingly creditable.
My Lords, let us not lose our sense of proportion. This is an organisation which is helping to promote the principles of better understanding throughout the world. That is its job. And the contribution this year of the United Kingdom is £261,586. I can only say that if at that price we can bring about an improve-
316
ment in the minds of people throughout the world, it is the best and cheapest investment we have ever made. In that light it seems to me to be an extraordinarily small contribution. I am putting these points before your Lordships only because I think that this organisation, in consequence of the kind of mistakes of which we have been reminded, has been subjected to considerable misrepresentation. It is of vital consequence that its work should be proceeded with in the world, and I say to your Lordships in conclusion that, in my view, it behoves us all, with all the wisdom and effort we can command, to help to guide and foster the services, possibly of quite incalculable value, of this great and important international enterprise.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will feel most grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, for the information which he has put before us. When I look back on the debate I do not think there is any real difference between us. My noble friend Lord Halifax very truly said that it is profitable that mistakes should be pointed out. We cannot proceed on the basis that nobody dare say anything for fear that somebody else should put a wrong construction on it. If this is a noble object, as I most sincerely believe it is—very well then; it is our responsibility and duty to do what we can to see that it is pursued in the right way. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was a little critical about my tone. I am sorry about that. I meant only to raise the question and point out things for consideration. He said, perfectly correctly, that the important thing was that we should concentrate on concrete results. I am sure that is right, and if I did not succeed in stating that in my opening remarks as clearly as I should, no doubt it is my fault; but I thought that I made it exceedingly plain that that is so.
I cannot expect the noble Viscount who has just spoken to say more than he did say about the passages in this document to which I thought it well to call attention. He says the language is obscure, extravagant and polysyllabic, and that some of the things there phrased could not be achieved in a century. I am concerned with the pursuit of only that idealism which is practical idealism. That

317
is the only sort of idealism that can achieve anything. If he thinks that I am not an idealist, then he knows very little about me. I do feel, however, that in pursuing an ideal it is important to pursue it in the right and practical way. I am glad to hear from the noble Viscount. Lord Addison, that we may shortly expect to have the Report of the Beirut Conference produced, just as we had the Report of the previous Conference. I wish to point out that I used only the latest material that was available.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Quite right.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have not been relying upon any stale matter. I hope it will turn out that when we read of what happened at the Beirut Conference much which I think are excrescences will have been removed.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I doubt whether he will find that the sort of matter which Lord Addison and I both feel is a little highfalutin' is all excluded. I did not like to use it because I thought it was still confidential, but I have a copy of the resolutions at Beirut. I find in them a phraseology which seems to me to indicate that some people were really not aiming at the proper target. I find, for instance, that there is a direction here that,
"The Director-General is instructed to promote the study of a subject matter treated by political scientists of various countries in recent publications, the number, method, techniques and terminology employed."
That may be right or wrong, but it is the same. Again, I find that he is to inquire into,
"the ideas which the people of one nation hold concerning their own and other nations."
And there are other repetitions. Right or wrong, those seem to be exactly the things which I read from the programme of the previous year. But I am not in the least anxious to exaggerate a critical attitude. I think it is useful to have had this debate. My concern is that it should be brought out that this Organisation has a great function to perform for the benefit of us all and that we are not serving that Organisation if we are too mealy mouthed to point out where it has gone wrong.
I think it is a good service to an international Organisation to point out where it appears to be wandering in desert places where it will not secure better
318
things. It is proper, as the right reverend Prelate said, to encourage people to pioneer. I am all for the encouragement of the pioneer. But if one finds that the pioneer, while doing many things well, is really pursuing some phantom, I do not think it is part of the duty of a high-minded man to say: "I must not mention that because he is a pioneer." The right thing to do is to take our responsibility in this matter and to do what we can—in moderate terms, I agree—to the best of our ability to direct it and to help it upon the right course. If that happens, I am sure that great and good results will follow.
I am reminded of one thing that has not been mentioned in the course of this debate, even by those who were seeking to point out how excellent much of the work of this Organisation is. That is that it has established a number of Travelling Fellowships for the purpose of helping people to go to other countries, in order to secure a better understanding between peoples. I am quite unrepentant in the view, which I share with many noble Lords in the House, that the most admirable object and determined intent of U.N.E.S.C.O. for promoting the good of the world is not necessarily stimulated by the use of very large and almost incomprehensible expressions I hope that the result of the debate will be that we have made a useful contribution to the work of this Organisation. I claim that with great respect, and I hope that in a small way I myself have contributed somewhat to this end. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY
5.16 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE rose to call attention to Command Paper 7540 Distribution of Industry: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I should like to follow the practice that is common in your Lordships' House in declaring a small interest that I have in the matter under discussion. For some years, I have been closely connected with a firm that is at the present moment establishing a branch of its activities in one of the development areas. I hope I shall not say anything that will make me liable,

319
however, to the accusation that that has influenced what I am going to say.
It seems to me that a debate on the distribution of British industries might, broadly speaking, take one or two possible courses. In one course, the subject might be approached simply from the point of view of considering the results that have been achieved by the distribution of industry policy from within the development areas. In such a course, no doubt, the matter would be considered both from the point of view of those who live in the development areas and from the point of view of those firms which are becoming established there. The successes they have achieved, the difficulties they have been up against, would be discussed. No doubt, in such a debate reference would be made to the ready assistance that has so often been received from various Government Departments, but I have no doubt either that reference would also be made to delays, and to the difficulty that perhaps has been found in co-ordinating the activities of the different Government Departments.
But that line is not the one which I propose to adopt this evening. I would like to approach the subject from the much wider aspect, in which the development areas are only one part of a far wider, larger and extremely complex subject. I would like also, at this early stage, to make the point that, whilst one would like to think that this subject was politically uncontroversial (certainly in one of the development areas of which I know, those who have been responsible have endeavoured faithfully to keep it so), I am inclined to think that, looked at from its wider aspect, we may come up against topics which are the subject of a Party political controversy. The White Paper to which I am referring is, of course, primarily a Report of the results that have been achieved in trying to bring prosperity into certain distressed areas in order to bring them up to a level of prosperity and stability comparable with the rest of the country. At this late hour I do not want to go into the history of the policy—your Lordships will be well aware of that. But I would like to remind your Lordships that it was initiated as far back as 1934, with the Special Areas Act, carried on by the Special Areas Act of 1937, and then,
320
following the Barlow Report of 1940, and the National Government's White Paper on Employment Policy in 1944, it was carried a stage further by the Distribution of Industry Act of 1945.
Looking through the debate that took place in your Lordships' House when that Bill was given a Second Reading, I should say, that whilst perhaps it did not go far enough then for some of your Lordships, it was generally agreed as a step in the right direction, if the problem of these particular areas was ever to be solved. I wonder whether before the war a somewhat misguided belief did not exist in certain quarters. I will not go so far as to say that British industry had reached its zenith, but at any rate, so far as the development areas were concerned, industry there had little to look forward to but a policy of retrenchment, sometimes camouflaged at that time under the word "rationalisation."
At that time we appeared to be a wealthy country. We had tucked away considerable wealth which we had built up in more spacious days, and no doubt we could indulge in the sort of comfortable feeling that that wealth afforded. But I wonder whether it was not perhaps responsible for the way in which this problem was sometimes approached. Would it be far from the truth to suggest that the problem of these areas was sometimes regarded rather as a moral obligation—the sort of obligation that a rich family may have to a down-and-out and perhaps somewhat senile relation, rather (to change the metaphor) than as a symptom of a disease from which the whole country, and indeed the whole world at that time, was suffering? Today, of course, with our economic position having changed so drastically as a result of the war—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, that as a result of the war the changes which were already in operation having been so vastly accelerated and become more apparent—the point of view that the development areas could be regarded merely as a poor relation is obviously (and I think everyone will agree with this) no longer tenable.
I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree with me if I suggest that the real position to-day is that, whilst some moral obligation may exist so far as individuals in the development areas are

321
concerned, no one who saw anything of the development areas before the war can fail to appreciate that by far the greater problem to-day is that the whole family is now a poor one. What we have to ensure is that the efforts of all its members, irrespective of their particular circumstances fifteen years ago, are put to the best use for their general good, and that that same criterion shall also be used when deciding how we are going to spend such resources as are available for capital investment. One of the things that has struck me so much about the White Paper has been the repeated reference in it to the fact that the success of the present schemes in the development areas, as it says, can be regarded as assured only provided that no general economic depression intervenes.
I would like to read one or two instances of that to your Lordships. Dealing with the North Eastern Development Area, the Report says this:
"New industrial development which has taken place or is planned should, however, go a long way towards providing most districts with a high level of employment, provided no general economic depression intervenes."
A similar point is made in the case of the West Cumberland Development Area:
"… But as long as a high and stable level of employment is maintained in the country as a whole, the new industrial developments should eventually provide work for the chronic surplus of labour of pre-war years."
Again, of the South Lancashire Development Area the Report says:
"… Provided the general level of purchasing power is maintained, the new industrial developments should go a long way towards utilising all the labour resources of the Area."
And, again, in the case of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Development Area, the same point is made:
"… provided the general economic situation remains favourable."
I should have thought, however, that was placing the emphasis entirely on the wrong point. Obviously, should there he a general world economic depression, we should in some respects be bound to feel its effects in this country, but surely what we want in any policy is not a "fair-weather" policy that will provide results only under favourable conditions but one as a result of which the industrial
322
structure of this country will be so strengthened, by taking the fullest advantage of all available resources—man-power and others—that we shall be better able to compete in the world markets to-day (for most industrialists realise how difficult hat is already becoming in many respects), and be better able to weather any world depression should one develop later. My Lords, whilst that object is not necessarily incompatible with a policy of giving preference as regards development within the development areas, I submit that it does not necessarily follow that the reverse is also true.
It is in the light of that sort of argument that I hope your Lordships will agree that a discussion on the whole policy of distribution of Industry may be of value this evening. I have been encouraged in that point of view by two articles that have appeared in the newspapers within the last few days. Your Lordships may possibly have read them. There was a double article that appeared in The Times on the 21st and 22nd of this month, which dealt with the problem from the Scottish aspect, and there was another article which appeared in the Manchester Guardian only yesterday, which referred to the Report on the East Coast that has just been issued.
I would like to look for a few moments at some of the results which are described in this White Paper. Undoubtedly, the important figures of employment and unemployment there given are by no means unimpressive. So far as the employment figures go, they do not perhaps give us a complete picture of the situation, though I rather suspect (particularly from one or two points that are made in the White Paper itself) that that may be intentional on the part of the writer, owing to the difficulty of allowing fairly for the numbers of men and women who at different times have migrated from the areas in order to find employment elsewhere; and I gather that these numbers are not inconsiderable. One big figure is quoted in the case of South Wales, but it is certainly very encouraging that compared even with 1939, when the effects of rearmament must already have been considerable, we see that in July, 1948, there were at least 250,000 more people in employment in the development areas than previously.
It is, however, the unemployment figures that are more impressive and give a more complete picture. I will avoid, so far as I can, giving too many figures, but in order to make the point which I wish to make I shall have to quote a certain number. Whereas there was an unemployment total in the development areas in the year 1932 of 820,000 (the figure dropped to something over 320,000 in 1939), in July of last year it was down to something just under 102,000. Putting these results for the same years as percentages of the insured population, we find that in 1932 it was 38 per cent., in 1939 it was 13 per cent., and in July, 1948, no more than 4 per cent., a figure which compares very favourably with the corresponding percentage for the whole of the rest of the country, which is no more than 2 per cent.
I feel that we can record a very real measure of satisfaction at these figures, but I suggest that we must be careful how we interpret them if we are not to reach wrong conclusions. We want to be quite sure that we do not allow ourselves to think that they necessarily represent the success of a policy of bringing new industries into these areas. As I shall point out in a few moments, there are other factors which have been largely responsible for these figures. Actually, so far as the new industries that have been introduced there are concerned, I see that the total employment found by them since the war is of the order of 105,000 persons. Some of that has been found in surplus Government munition and other factories or other existing buildings, and a certain amount in postwar buildings, new factories—a figure, in fact, of about 32,000.
That figure of 32,000 may not seem very high, but I realise that it does not by any means represent the total employment to be found ultimately in these new post-war factories, and that schemes have been approved for factories some of which are under construction, but some of which, I admit, have been deferred owing to difficulties of capital expenditure. But, on the whole, schemes have been approved which together are estimated to raise that figure of 32,000 to one of 216,000. To give you an idea of what that means may I say that it represents approximately one-tenth of the insured population of the whole of the
324
development areas. Even so, we come to this very important fact: that by far the greatest source of increase of employment in these development areas compared with pre-war years appears to be due not to the new industries which have been introduced there but to other reasons—to the service industries, to some extent to the building industries, and, to a large extent (and this is a very important point, I think) to the increased activities of the basic industries, mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel and so forth, which predominate in those areas and which act as a very definite barometer of the general industrial activity of the country as a whole.
To complete my picture and to bring out the point which I am trying to make, I would now like to turn for a moment to the capital expenditure that has been incurred and approved in the new factories, some of which of course is being financed by the Government and some privately. From what I see, both in the White Paper and in the Monthly Digest of Statistics, between December, 1944, and September, 1948, the total authorised expenditure on new factories in the development areas, not including the cost of the services to them where they were inadequate (and of course I need hardly say, not including any machinery which would ultimately be put into these factories) was approximately £92,000,000. That figure compares with £95,000,000 approved for the whole of the rest of the country. Out of these two figures, £92,000,000 and £95,000,000, actual building licences have been granted in the case of the development areas for £70,000,000 and in the case of all the rest of the country for £64,000,000.
Now, to my mind, that is a really important figure that we must consider, and it is so important that I would like to repeat it though I would put it in another way. Although the development areas include only about one-sixth of the insured population of the whole country, present proposals are to incur a capital expenditure of approximately £92,000,000—substantially the same as that for the whole of the rest of the country—and for that we hope to get in the development areas further employment compared with pre-war years of 216,000 persons. Bearing in mind that these immense figures include only the cost of actual factories, to suggest that it has been an extremely

325
expensive way of finding that employment is, I believe, to state the obvious, even allowing for the enormously increased cost of building to-day. But, having said that, I would not go so far as to say that it was necessarily, in certain circumstances, an improper course to pursue. I believe that there are some very good reasons for it, and I would like to mention one or two in a moment. But I do think it provides a sound reason for wanting the matter discussed, in order that we may all be quite clear in our own minds as to what is happening now and also, I hope, in order that we may glean something from the speech of the noble Lord who is to reply as to what His Majesty's Government propose to do in the future.
May I turn for a few moments to some reasons which I suggest would, to some extent, at any rate, justify that present policy, the bare facts of which I have given your Lordships. Some people might perhaps give overriding priority to the moral obligation to those who suffered so much in those development areas before the war. As I have already said, an obligation undoubtedly exists, but in the interests of the industrial prosperity of the country as a whole, and, not least, of those who live in the development areas, I suggest that it is an obligation that is not always best met by taking the work to the workers. The reverse may sometimes be preferable. No; so long as the basic industries continue to be the backbone of this country, and so long as the basic industries continue to predominate in the development areas—a very important condition, I submit—so long, taking the distant view, must we see that the facilities for employment there are as diverse as possible, so as to be sure of attracting and maintaining a balanced population there. That is essential, if we are to make quite sure that there will be growing up in those areas a body of young men who will in time become recruits to man those vital basic industries.
I am well aware that previously in many of these development areas it was not nearly so common for women to be employed in industry as it was in other industrial areas; but, with the times, so the status of women has been changing, and what I have just said justifies, I think, the introduction into those areas of new industries which require a high
326
proportion of women operatives, and also industries that can employ disabled persons and those who are unattracted by, or unsuited to, the heavier industries. I believe that, for the long distance benefit of the country as a whole, that is a very strong and important argument for introducing a number of new industries into those areas. But, of course, it does not necessarily mean to say that in any particular area the population has to be maintained as high as it was previously. That may not be the case, for instance where we have had a coalfield or iron-ore field gradually becoming exhausted. An example was quoted in the newspaper I mentioned earlier on, in the Report on the Hartlepools area made only a few days ago by the Max Lock Group.
Second only in importance to that argument in favour of the present policy is the value of dispersal for strategic reasons, particularly in the North and West where so many development areas exist. Your Lordships are well aware that Government and munitions factories were erected in many of these areas during the war. Many of those factories have been leased or sold to private firms and for work other than war work. That, to my mind, is certainly all to the good, particularly if it means that these factories are being maintained in good condition and will be available for war purposes should the unhappy event occur again. One hopes that in the new factory areas that have been established an eye has been kept on the strategic allocation of factories, and that those factories that have been financed by the Government, at any rate, are under an arrangement that, if required, they will be available for rapid conversion to war purposes in any future war. No doubt there are other good reasons that could be brought forward in support of the policy of the distribution of industry that has been carried on up till now. No doubt it offers opportunities for relieving excessive concentrations of industry in such areas as Birmingham and London, a fact which was very strongly reported on by the Barlow Commission, both for social and strategic reasons. That would especially be the case when dealing with industries that perhaps are either new to this country or have no particular need to be located close to some other subsidiary or, to use the word of the Barlow Commission, "cognate" industries.
But, having tried to make the best of all the arguments in favour of the present policy, I am afraid that I have still some doubts. I doubt, for instance, whether anyone can truthfully say that development has always been governed by a definite plan covering the country as a whole, and has not sometimes been perhaps rather over-influenced, in Parliament and elsewhere, by over-zealous protagonists of a particular area. I would like to ask the Minister who is to reply one or two questions. Is it not a policy of rather doubtful wisdom, at this time in particular, to build factories for which there are no specific tenants in mind—the so-called "unallotted factories" referred to in paragraph 48 of the White Paper? I know that there are not very many of them, but they could so easily become an invitation to non-essential or non-exporting industries, especially when we remember that while, under the Town and Country Planning Act, the Government can prevent development by refusing building licences, they can only encourage industry to go to a particular area and have no positive power of direction.
Again, how often have existing firms outside a development area, wanting to extend their activities, been refused building licences unless they were prepared to go to one of the development areas which may have been quite unsuitable for their particular needs? Or again, how often have existing firms on essential work, perhaps short of labour in their own home towns outside a development area, not having (as paragraph 45 says) "desired to build factories in new locations" but having agreed rather reluctantly to go and open up branches elsewhere, thereby involved either themselves or the State in considerable capital expenditure when their own factories were not fully occupied? Might there not have been cases where it would have been preferable to have built more dwelling houses near the existing factory areas, or—and I know that in mentioning my next point I am entering on a very wide subject—to have considered overhauling the whole system of control which has had the effect of drawing so many operatives from essential to unessential occupations?
I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will say something about this
328
matter. I ask him not to make too much play of the fact that, as we read in the White Paper, two-thirds of the new factory development has been financed by private means, implying, of course, that had it not been calculated to be profitable it would not have been undertaken at all. I can imagine cases where it was a matter of "Hobson's choice." Perhaps the decision was not completely uninfluenced by the existence of considerable available sums from post-war E.P.T. refunds which could be spent only on capital expenditure. I have no doubt that only firms who could see their way clear, or at any rate could see their way during the first post-war years, actually agreed to go. But I suggest that that is not good enough. What is vital to-day is not that the project be merely economic, but that it should be capable in the national interest of achieving the maximum economic advantage.
I think it would not be out of place here to mention that, as was so clearly brought out in the Barlow Report, the great, old industrial areas were not developed in a way so haphazard or devoid of economic reason as is sometimes popularly thought. There were usually sound reasons why development took place. Of course, I recognise that those reasons may not have the same force to-day. I have already instanced the case of a coalfield becoming used up, and one could give a completely different example: the existence to-day of an electricity grid, which makes it far less necessary for a firm to establish itself in a coalfield to get power. Even so, I suggest that many reasons which resulted in the growth of these big industrial areas are as potent to-day as ever.
There is one other question I would like to put to the Minister. I am not going to ask him whether all the new factory projects financed by the Government are expected to give the Government a proper return on their expenditure, because it is quite clear from the whole policy on development areas that this answer would be, "No." And he would no doubt make the point that there are other good reasons for the expenditure. But I will ask him this question: whether he does not feel that to-day and from now on those other reasons will not become much more difficult to find and to justify. I have put a number of ques-

329
tions to the Minister of which I have given him a certain amount of warning, and I hope he will not consider they have been unduly and destructively critical. The dangers I have instanced are, to my mind, very real dangers, particularly from now on; and it is in the light of that that I would now like to turn for a moment, before I finish, to the future.
Different people, I know, hold different views as to the extent to which the present policy should be allowed to go. Most people would agree whole-heartedly that a great deal of excellent work has been done, and is yet in hand, in the development areas which would justify a very real measure of congratulation to those responsible—though not (may I suggest?) congratulation to which His Majesty's present Government are solely entitled. But there are, I know, a few who feel that the policy has gone too far already; that the policy has been too parochial in outlook, without having sufficient regard to the wider aspect—a point of view which could, I suppose, be substantiated by figures included in the White Paper itself. For instance, I see that existing projects for development, even if we set aside those projects I have already mentioned as having been deferred, are calculated to provide employment far in excess of the quoted figures of registered unemployed. There may be good reasons for that; I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to throw some light on that. However, one thing is certain—namely, that from now on it will be increasingly difficult to put forward propositions which are both economically sound, from the national standpoint, and sufficiently attractive to manufacturers to encourage them to start up new factories in these development areas.
I am strongly of opinion that the time has come for a review of the whole policy, and that is really my object in putting down this Motion. I am inclined to think that it would not be going too far to suggest that, so far as the deferred projects are concerned, they should be regarded as indefinitely deferred—unless, of course, after exhaustive examination of individual cases, a sound case can be produced for them. I realise that one could not consider changing or holding up projects that are already in hand. That would probably be wasteful. The
330
White Paper makes two suggestions for the future. It refers to Merseyside and the Highlands, and suggests that they should become the new scheduled areas. It then goes on later to give a list of other areas for which adduces good reasons why they should not be so scheduled, although admitting that they have their own special unemployment problems. I am not going to comment this evening on the two new proposed development areas, because that is a problem in itself. But if we can accept the Government's arguments as to why these other areas referred to are not suitable for scheduling now, I fail to see why, in most cases, they should ever become suitable for scheduling.
The question therefore arises: What is to be the future of this distribution of industry policy? Will it die a natural death; or in what direction will it turn in the future? I would like to suggest, at any rate as a basis for discussion, that the time has now come to forget the distinction between the development areas and elsewhere, and to encourage development, not necessarily by means of such financial powers as are included in the 1945 Act, but where it would seem to be in the best interests of the country. Having said that, I have no doubt that I shall have my attention drawn to paragraphs 78, 79 and 80 of the White Paper, which deal with other areas. But I am afraid the fact that in a White Paper of 115 clauses and a great number of schedules, only three small paragraphs have been allotted to the effects on other areas of this policy, may be indicative of the point of view that has prevailed when allotting preferences to the development areas.
The White Paper refers, on page 32, paragraph 66, to the Government policy of full employment, a policy that is not the prerogative of any one particular Party. But if we are to achieve and maintain such a condition, we must see to it that it must not be allowed to become an excuse for lowering productive efficiency. Up to a point, the present policy of taking work to the workers in the development areas is not incompatible with the maximum productive efficiency; but if it is carried too far there is bound to come a time, depending on local circumstances, when it will lead only to rigidity, waste and an uneconomic location of industry, a time

331
when, for any further reserves of labour, the Government should surely rather create conditions and facilities for a high mobility of labour. I am inclined to think that that time has already been reached—possibly we have already passed it—and that, at any rate for the future, we need a different policy from the existing one. So far I have seen little in the White Paper to indicate that anything like that is in the mind of His Majesty's Government.
I therefore very much hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply, he will be able to tell us that—here I quote from the White Paper—
"as a result of a constant study and examination of the needs and resources of every part of the country,"
and as a result of the research work described in Part V of the White Paper, His Majesty's Government realise that a thorough review is now overdue, and that he will be able to indicate the direction which future policy is to take. I beg to move for Papers.
5.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am in some difficulty in this matter, not because I have any direct or indirect interest in it, but because (to use language adopted in certain circles) owing to a prior engagement of a political nature I considered myself a doubtful starter. On arriving at your Lordships' House, I found myself put down as a certain runner, and I therefore feel obliged to do what I can. I have been precluded, in the circumstances, from giving the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, notice of the one or two points which, with great brevity, I hope to put before your Lordships. I am not enamoured of this White Paper, but I do not go so far as the Manchester Guardian, which I think described it as almost as thorough a failure as any ill-digested collection of wrong information could be. The principles in this White Paper are no doubt sound but, like medical treatment, if applied injudiciously they can be disastrous; but if they are applied with care, the patient's life may be saved. The damage that can be done to industry by a reckless or careless application of the principles contained in this White Paper is very great indeed. I have seen some of its effects actually on the spot, and I propose to give one brief example of what in fact has happened.
332
The purpose of this White Paper is to direct industry where there is a surplus of labour. But, surely, there is a fallacy here. Industry does not depend on labour alone. Industry needs an assurance of a copious, abundant and cheap supply of the fuel and raw materials which it uses. This particularly applies to some industries which are high up in our export drive. I have particularly in mind the pottery industry. We cannot remove potteries from, let us say, Stoke-on-Trent, to some area in Wales without irretrievable damage and extreme cost handicapping us beyond hope in the export market. If we turn to labour, it is not a question merely of getting the labour; it is a question of getting the labour suited to the task, and labour which, by inherited talent or tradition, is fitted for the work it has to do.
When I was in Manchester recently I was told of a case where it was desired to build a factory, and the building licence was refused because it was felt that the factory should be erected on Merseyside, where there was a surplus of labour. There is a surplus of labour on Merseyside, but it is not labour which this particular man needs. The result was that this factory was never built. I would like to give your Lordships a more concrete illustration. I cannot go into the matter in detail, but the letter is here with the names and particulars if my noble friend would like it. I have been asked to mention what occurred when a vice-president of a large American enterprise visited this particular town with the idea of starting a new factory. The noble Lord will forgive me if I do not say what the factory was, although I will gladly show him the letter. In the ordinary way the American would have decided to locate his factory here, but the Government told him that it would be impossible to grant a building licence because of the shortage of workpeople in the area. As a result he expressed himself so disgusted that he returned to the United States; and Britain lost a factory which would have done a large export trade. That is one illustration of the disastrous results of the interpretation of the theories enunciated in this paper.
It is true that industries are short of labour, but I feel that the proper course is not to try to drive the employer into

333
areas in which it is uneconomic and unprofitable for him to go, but rather to build houses and to attract the type of labour required to the areas where it is wanted. In other words, do not build the factories where they are not needed, but build the houses where they are needed. I wonder whether your Lordships have fully appreciated the vast sums of money involved in this issue. A figure of nearly £100,000,000 has been put to me as the cost of establishing these factories in areas where some theorist thinks they should be advisedly set up. But have we stopped to think what could be done if only a fraction of that £100,000,000 could be spent in building the houses in the towns and the districts where the labour is in fact needed? I have tried briefly to put before your Lordships one or two points which I trust are not without substance. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be able to assure me that the principles of this White Paper will not be applied without reason and restraint. I hope that he will also encourage me by saying that he feels able to give careful thought to the points which I have tried to make.
6.5 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that this is a subject which is most suitable for debate in this House, and that you will feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, for raising his Motion. If I may say so, his speech was a most helpful and constructive one, in which he analysed thoughtfully the employment figures in the White Paper and made valuable suggestions arising from that review. I feel sure that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will study his speech with the thoroughness it deserves.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, and the noble Viscount who has just spoken, stressed several points which I hope to bring into the few remarks which I shall make. One point in particular, which appeared from both speeches was the desirability of encouraging the mobility of labour so far as possible and getting away from what may prove to be old and preconceived ideas not applicable to to-day's situation. My reason for wanting to intervene for a few minutes in this debate is that through three Departments and for nine years this problem has
334
dogged me. I remember when I was in the Overseas Trade Department of the Board of Trade I was continually urged by my chief to do my best to extend the particular exports which affected what were then known as the depressed areas. Then again, when I went to the Treasury, the financial aspect of this problem was always on my desk. Finally, in the Scottish Office I had perhaps the most stubborn and difficult of the depressed areas to deal with, and in that work the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, took command and did yeoman service. Therefore, the subject is one which interests me, and I make that explanation and apology for detaining your Lordships for only a few moments while I deal with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, gave a thumbnail historical sketch of development. I would remind the Government that in 1945, when they came to office, they fell heir to the result of much preparatory work and there was no unemployment problem. That was because, of course, the Forces were mobilised, the momentum of war production was still at its height and there was literally no unemployment problem. But they had, of course, the prospect of an unemployment problem in the future, and they properly applied themselves to measures to meet those dangers when they arose. Perhaps I may refer to an earlier document—namely, the White Paper on Employment Policy which was published by the Coalition Government in May, 1944. In that White Paper it was stated that the Government accepted as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the war.
Your Lordships will recollect that the Paper went on to outline the methods by which this policy would be put into practice, including special action to encourage the establishment of new enterprises in areas which had previously suffered from high unemployment. The decision of the Government of the day to accept responsibility for maintaining a high level of employment was a momentous and courageous one. Previous Governments had done their best to alleviate unemployment and to reduce unemployment, but the Coalition Government of the day, recognising at that time that there was no unemployment problem, looked ahead and courageously and wisely took the responsibility on their heads. The Distri-

335
bution of Industry Act, 1945, followed upon that decision, and I do not quarrel with it. It was directed to preventing mass unemployment, and it marked an important step in dealing with the problem of maldistribution of population. I do not quarrel with it, but I think the time has come when we should review it and its results in the light of present day circumstances.
May I say a word on maldistribution of population? There can be no doubt that concentration of population in one area of the country, inducing the depletion of human resources over other areas, is unstrategic and uneconomical. Strategically, it is unsound if that concentration is, as my noble friend has said, in the vulnerable South-Eastern area. The maldistribution of population also brings in its train administrative problems of the first magnitude. Any large concentration of population must have an effective economic hinterland behind it to draw on. If it feeds its own growth by drawing its population from that hinterland, and thereby depletes the hinterland, the great centre of population accelerates its own decline, and a vicious circle may be set up. That is one of the problems which the Government had before them in the distribution of industry. A great deal has been done in distribution of industry but it has been done expensively. No doubt the Government say that they realised that it would be expensive, but the fact remains.
The operation of the Act itself has raised some new problems to which attention should now be directed. However right and necessary the policy may be, it should not be followed too narrowly, and without watching its implications as time goes on. As one noble Lord said, it is a medicine to be used wisely and sparingly, and not administered when not required. One highly important question is that of maintaining a really effective balance of development between the scheduled development areas and the other areas of the country, particularly those which are naturally developing. There are certain areas in the country which are naturally developing, and it is most important that they should not be penalised artificially by unwise application of this policy. This problem is rendered acute
336
in certain parts of the country by the fact that some of the old coal-bearing areas are being worked out, and that in future the main coal areas which may be developed are not necessarily within the present development areas as scheduled. The Lanarkshire coalfield, for instance, is within the development area but in some measure is worked out, and miners are being removed to Fife, the Lothians, and Ayrshire, which are outside the development area.
If coalmining is allowed to develop in these areas without the provision of ancillary industries, the old problem of lack of industrial balance may be repeated. It is therefore necessary not only to plan wisely beforehand but to take early practical steps to ensure that there is balanced development of indusstry in the areas of natural industrial growth. A new coal area to which men are going is a naturally developing area. It is important that such an area should have ancillary industries to back up this great basic industry, otherwise we shall repeat our problem of an unsound balance.
I should like to ask this question. In these migrations of men that are taking place in consequence of coalfields being worked out, is it the National Coal Board or the Ministry of Labour who are responsible for co-ordinating the movement? I am in doubt as to who is responsible. The need for an overall balance of development is obvious. In Scotland, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has been pressing the view that there is need for vigilance to ensure that communities immediately outside development areas are not unduly prejudiced by the application of development area policy. That is true of other parts of the country besides Scotland. There are in various parts of the country instances of towns which, though they cannot be said to have suffered as yet from mass unemployment, are definitely in need of further industrial development; but because they are situated just outside development areas, new industrial projects tend to pass them by and to settle in the development areas where powerful attractions are available. In consequence, workers are often drawn from such places to the development areas either permanently or as day travellers. Your Lordships will agree that there is need to keep watch on that situation.

337
There is also need for reasonable discrimination in the attraction of new industries to the development areas. Hitherto, the emphasis has been laid rather on acquisition than selection. We have been glad to acquire almost any new industry in an area, but I think we now have to watch selection very closely. It is economically unwise to concentrate in one area too many industries of any particular kind, and it is ultimately of no benefit to attract industries which have not a reasonable expectation of survival in worse times than at present. The roots should be deep.
I should now like to touch upon another point. In my view, no area can be fully prosperous or economically secure if its economy depends unduly on outposts of concerns which have their main sources of vitality elsewhere. Remote control has its dangers. Broadly speaking, it is where the heart and brains of the concern are situated that there will be the most progress and most development, both of the main products and of the ancillary developments which usually flow from modern industry. I cannot, of course, apply that too narrowly, because in large concerns a measure of remote control is inevitable. Conversely, in times of depression and retrenchment it would be the remote outposts which would tend naturally to be closed down first if curtailment were necessary. It is therefore essential to attract, not only to the development areas but also to areas needing new development, industries which will strike roots and which have a natural and good chance of survival. In this connection the importance of research and development cannot be over-emphasised.
There is another consideration. It is generally recognised that we must export more than in the past if we are to maintain our existing standards of life. There was a debate on the export trade in this House just before Christmas, when the Government made a statement on the situation. As was pointed out then, there was cause for a certain amount of satisfaction, although not for complacency, because a highly artificial situation existed, in the sense that the home market was being curtailed heavily in order to make goods available for export. But another factor has arisen which is going to add to our difficulties, and that is competition coming from re-
338
vived sources. I believe that Japanese competition and possibly even German competition may be factors to be dealt with in the future. In the manufacture of many mass-produced goods, certain countries other than ours start with great advantages. They start with vast material resources, with plentiful capital equipment and a large and well-protected home market. Therefore, it seems wise for us to concentrate, above all, on goods of really high and inimitable quality and products which require the high level of intelligence and ingenuity which the workmen and designers of this country can show. The latter are, in general, those requiring a large measure of research and development to produce. Therefore, I stress—and I hope that the noble Lord will bring out this point in his reply—the advisability of more research being done.
I mentioned earlier to your Lordships the work of the Scottish Council. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the work which the Council has done in the promotion of research and development work. Strenuous and systematic efforts are being made to increase research-consciousness among Scottish firms. In some ways, some of them have lagged behind in research-consciousness, particularly in the smaller firms and the newer industries. Many of the major Scottish firms in the established industries have research departments, but there is need for more such effort in industry. I think that this is true of other parts of the country as well. But in addition to private firms, there is much that the Government can do. I hope that the Government will play its part in effecting a reasonable measure of devolution, not only to Scotland and the North but to other parts of the country generally, of their own massive scientific research effort now mainly concentrated in the South. I think there ought to be more research laboratories in other parts of the country than in the South, and more Government Department research contracts. I think it is proper that Scotland should have her share of the £60,000,000 or so which the Government are spending annually on research; but far more important is the contribution that Government laboratories and Government research contracts make to the development of a scientific atmosphere and the

339
furtherance of those industries which will not be fully effective until they are developed in that atmosphere.
There has recently been one such research laboratory promised to be established near Glasgow. It will be of great value to that district. While I am speaking of the Clyde, I note that in the White Paper there is a reference to shipbuilding. I see it refers to the "highly vulnerable" condition of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Shipbuilding is very active indeed at the present time; but, to use the words of the White Paper, it is "highly vulnerable." In my opinion, a good contribution to the stability of shipbuilding would be a graving dock on the Clyde large enough to take the largest ships. Here is a matter in which the Government might interest themselves. If one of the basic industries employing large numbers of men can be made better balanced, so that the refitting and repair of large ships can be carried out, I think it will be a greater contribution to employment in that area than anything else that can be done through new industries in factories. I hope that the Government will take into account the suggestion I have made, and, although I can hardly expect the noble Lord who is to reply to give me a graving dock for the "Queen Elizabeth" across the table to-night, I throw out the idea as one worthy of consideration.
I make no apology now for mentioning one of Scotland's most beautiful areas—the Highlands—which suffers from depopulation. Paragraph 105 deals with this problem. Some progress has been made in this area. Hydro-electric schemes will, I believe, play an important part in the revival of industries in the Highlands, but peculiar and special problems arise. I believe it will be necessary to provide special facilities to ensure the utilisation of hydro-electric power in these districts, such as the services of an industrial estate in the Highlands and an adequate dock at a suitable point, because most of the industries going there as a result of hydro-electric power will require to import raw materials. There is one question I should like to ask specifically before concluding. On page 34 of the White Paper, in paragraph 115, there is a reference to the Committee which was set up in 1947 under the chairmanship
340
of Sir Henry Clay. I understand that this committee is studying long-term problems in relation to the location of industry. Its Report has been sent to the universities for consideration. Would the noble Lord tell us whether we can expect some information about this Report soon?
In conclusion, I would urge the Government to scrutinise carefully the effect on the United Kingdom as a whole of the policy which is being pursued, and to consider whether the time has not come when hard and fast territorial limits should be abolished and assistance given on its merits to areas in any part of the Kingdom which could demonstrate the value to our national economy of new industries there located. I realise it would be a difficult policy to carry out. The butter might have to be spread more thinly, and with a wise and steady hand, but it is worthy of consideration whether a rigid adherence to development areas should be continued, for I fear that there is danger that the very problem which successive Governments have sought to correct may be repeated through unbalanced development.
6.27 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, your Lordships have been brought with a suddenness from the altruistic aura of the cultural and moral world in which your Lordships have spent a delightful afternoon to the hard material fact of "How do we earn our daily bread?" As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has put the case exhaustively in a well-reasoned and balanced speech. I can only regret that we have had to debate this subject (than which there is no more important before this country at the present time) at such a late hour and on such an inconvenient date. The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, had given me notice of quite a a number of the points he was going to make. I hope that my replies will prove to be satisfactory.
I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster thought better of "scratching" himself, and that he did after all appear at the post. As is usual with him, he had a furious if short gallop. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, again addressed your Lordships in that constructive manner which we have learnt to expect from him and to enjoy.

341
As he quite rightly surmised, I am not going to hand him a graving dock over the table. I might get into trouble with the county of my adoption, and there might be trouble in Southampton if I tried to appease Glasgow as he would like me to do. But, before I attempt to answer some of the questions that have been put, I think it might serve a useful purpose if I tried to clear the air by restating briefly what is our policy. I do not intend to attempt to make debating points; the subject is too serious. But the conflict of argument between the three noble Lords who have spoken from the opposite Benches really only points to the complexities of one of the greatest problems we have to solve.
The purpose and policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the distribution of industry is to provide in all parts of the country regular work for the greatest possible number of people who want it, and provide the workers which industry is seeking. We hope to achieve that aim, first, by guiding enterprises seeking new locations to areas with labour (I will deal with the more intricate point raised by the noble Lord on that question later on); and next, by limiting industrial expansion and preventing overcrowding in congested areas, such as Greater London and Greater Birmingham. Therefore, in pursuance of those aims, we give special attention to those parts of the country known as the development areas, the overall object being to raise the number in work and the nation's total output to the highest possible level. That is the basic policy upon which we are working, and I think we can confidently claim that since the introduction of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, a very large measure of success has attended the efforts of His Majesty's Government.
I hope I may be forgiven if I deal with the development areas first—and in that I am following the example of the Government, because they had to deal with first things first. The development areas have had, and will continue to have, preference for reasons apparent to all. The job in these development areas is not yet completed, as I hope to illustrate to your Lordships as I go along. In the past—and this bears out exactly what all three noble Lords who have spoken have said—these areas were far
342
too dependent upon our basic industries. The great need has been to provide them with a much broader-based industrial structure than they had in the past. That is what the Government's distribution of industry policy has been aimed at, and I think it has been successful. Of course, difficulties have arisen. The general overall shortage of materials has hampered us. If we had had all the materials we wanted for these development areas, the numbers in employment would have been far greater than they have been.
That brings me to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. He said that only a relatively small proportion of the new employment is due to new industries introduced into the development areas at enormous cost, and he asked whether this expenditure could always be justified. My Lords, no one is yet in a position to judge finally the benefits which will accrue from our factory building programme. It is true that new employment created up to the present has flowed mainly from the conversion of war-time Government factories to civilian use. But this state of affairs will change, and we are confident that in the future the number of employed in the new factories will grow and grow. By September the completed factories in the development areas, about one-third of the whole programme in terms of area, were employing 38,000 people, and this has been rising by about 5,000 to 6,000 per quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, was quite fair. He pointed out that there were good reasons why this could be justified, but he asked, could it go on being justified? As I have already pointed out, the job in the, development areas is not yet completed, but a return on the capital invested is received in the form of the rentals for the factories. It might interest your Lordships to know that the rentals upon those factories are based on 1939 values and are arrived at by the district valuer. Every person put to work in one of these factories, your Lordships will I think agree, effects a diminution of the calls upon the unemployment fund, which is a substantial benefit, and the community also obtains the benefit of the goods produced, so there is a double benefit. We shall have to go on with this policy until we can see that the task is being got under way.

343
Then the noble Lord asked me another question, to this effect: Can the building of unallotted factories really be justified? By "unallotted factories" is meant those on which the Government speculated and built in anticipation of demand. No new factories for which tenants are not available have been started since October, 1947, and I think the figures which I will give to your Lordships are indicative of the success of that anticipatory policy, if I may put it in that way. All factories built or building amount to 4,800,000 square feet in area. The factories definitely allotted amount to 3,500,000 square feet. We have tenants in view for an additional 800,000 square feet. Of the balance of 500,000 square feet, we have only one unallotted factory completed, of 5.000 square feet in size. I am certain that without these factories at our disposal we should never have attracted the volume of new industry which we have. Applicants for unallotted factories have now to pass a very stringent test of essentiality before they are accepted.
The noble Lord then asked a series of questions, the purport of which, I gathered, was to inquire whether or not the rest of the country had been sacrificed for the benefit of the development areas. The Government distribution of industry policy is on a broad basis and is not directed entirely towards solving the problems of the development areas to the exclusion of all others; nor has the Government concentrated on the need to create employment to the exclusion of industrial efficiency. Industrialists who can prove that to transfer their production, either to a development area or elsewhere, would be uneconomic and not in the national interest, have not been prevented from building new factories or extensions in existing locations.
The noble Lord mentioned figures for building in the whole of the country, and then split them up between the development areas and the other areas. I would like to elaborate those figures and bring them up to date. In Great Britain as a whole the number of projects licensed up to October 30, 1948, amounted to 3,126. The square footage of that was 87.283,000, and the capital cost was £137,964,000. That was split up as between the non-development areas and the development areas in this ratio: In non-
344
development areas the number of projects was 2,068, the square footage was 46,420,000, and the capital cost was £66,172,000; in the development areas, projects numbered 1,058, the square footage was 40,863,000 and the capital cost £71,792,000. On that I would make the point that the non-development areas have not been excluded for the benefit of the development areas.
When speaking of costs—and this was a matter which was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster—the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale laid emphasis on strategic necessity. Now stategic necessity and cost go hand in hand, because the strategically important parts of this country are just the very parts where the industrialists do not want to go, and where they have to be tempted to go. Noble Lords have only to think of the wastes of Cumberland, and certain other parts of this country, which were strategically the right districts in which to build our factories during the war but which as commercial propositions before the war held no attraction whatever to industrialists, so that they never went there. I will return to that point later.
Lord Rochdale also raised the question as to whether these areas were developed at the call of salesmanship or pressure groups. The answer is: No. I can give him that reply quite definitely. I am not going to say that some have not been better developed than others, by reason of more intelligence being used, but although the representatives of particular areas do press their claims, the Government are well armed with all the information they require. Moreover, research is continuously undertaken, and the relevant claims are weighed in a very fair manner. The noble Lord asked how often firms have been refused building licences unless they would agree to move to development areas. No figures are available, but I have already pointed out that if they could prove the economic necessity of remaining where they were they have not been hindered unduly. That, I think, was illustrated by the figures which I have given. And, after all, there are other reasons for refusing building licences than the one which the noble Lord mentioned.
Another question which he asked was how often have established firms in other areas, on essential work, reluctantly had

345
to move a part away owing to their inability in their present location to find sufficient operatives to man fully existing factories. The answer is: Not many, though there have been some outstanding cases. I could point to established firms which have benefited very much by reason of their not being affected by new demand for labour. Then the noble Lord asked whether there might not have been cases where, for the sake of efficiency and economy, it would have been preferable that more dwelling-houses should be built in existing areas. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, also made that point. I know that that sounds the easiest solution in the world, but as a matter of fact it is the most difficult.
Consider, for a moment, the overall shortage of houses. I am sure there are many noble Lords in this House who are members of local authorities who know well how every local authority in this country has a waiting list of local inhabitants—people whose names, in many cases, have been on the list for years. What kind of trouble would His Majesty's Government store up for themselves if they brought in a lot of new labour, and built houses specially to house these workers to the exclusion of those who had been on the waiting lists of the local authorities for long periods? There are other considerations to be borne in mind as well. Perhaps when the day arrives when we can build all the houses that we want, and are able to build with less hindrance than we have to put up with at the present time, we may be able to go a substantial way towards solving this problem. But I would impress upon noble Lords that while it is easy to say: "All you have to do is to build houses," to act on that is far more difficult than it sounds. As I have said, there are so many other considerations to be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, further asked whether there might not have been cases where all these difficulties would have been swept away if only we could modify the system of controls. I am afraid that raises, as the noble Lord admitted, very wide issues—such wide issues that I should hardly be forgiven if I went into them to-night. I can only say that the Board of Trade have set a very good example to other Government Departments in
346
recent months in getting rid of controls, and that it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government to get rid of every control as soon as it is practicable to do so. The noble Lord asked what is to be the future course of events after Merseyside and the Highlands have been included in these new areas, and when the orders will be laid. I can tell the noble Lord that the orders affecting Merseyside and the Highlands will be laid within the next few weeks, when consultations about the boundaries have been completed.
Then Lord Rochdale asked whether we have had any adverse comment—a point also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I twit him slightly on the fact that he, from the Conservative Opposition Benches, should have had to return to his first love, the Manchester Guardian, in order to get ammunition to fire across the table this evening. I would be glad if I could have the noble Viscount's attention for one moment, as I am on a point which he raised. I will not repeat my gentle chiding. No doubt he will read it to-morrow, and will enjoy it as much as I have enjoyed administering it. I shall be interested to see the details of the case to which he has referred, but I must confess that I was not much impressed with the criticism of the Manchester Guardian. I am surprised that such an authoritative and responsible organ should say that there were no grounds for scheduling an area in which to-day there are nearly 30,000 unemployed. I am afraid that His Majesty's Government would be vulnerable to very harsh criticism if they allowed conditions in Merseyside to continue as they are to-day. I will study with very great care what the noble Lord has said. At the moment I have given him a brief answer, but other points which he raised will require mature consideration.
Another question put to me by Lord Rochdale was this: Having got so far in improved employment results, is it not time to forget the distinction between development areas and other areas? I can only repeat that the work in the development areas has not been finished. Unemployment in parts of South Wales to-day is between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., and it is necessary to conserve our resources—which are not limitless—and to limit these schemes to areas where the need is greatest. Have we not

347
reached the stage, asked the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, where, if we are to maintain a so-called full employment policy, and at the same time achieve maximum production, we require a policy not so much of work to the workers, as of workers to the work. That is a very fine distinction. I can assure your Lordships that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty. I am afraid that if we followed the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, we would find ourselves once again in the position well illustrated in Paragraph 80 of the White Paper. I am sure your Lordships must be impressed by these figures. In the Greater London area, the effect of restriction has been to limit new industrial building to 5.3 per cent. of the total for the country. The contrast with pre-war is striking. Between 1932 and 1938 Greater London and the whole of the Midlands had 57 per cent. of new industrial development. A roughly comparative figure for the post-war period would be 19 per cent. I assure your Lordships that it is no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to go back and present themselves with such problems as Greater London presents to the Government to-day.
The noble Lord also asked me as did Lord Clydesmuir: Where do we go from here; what is the future policy? On this point I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. What is needed is not so much a change in principle as a better and still better working out of present policy. I repeat—and I cannot emphasise this too much, because the whole tenor of the discussion has been that the job in the development areas is approaching an end—that this task is a long way from being finished. It may be that we can say in West Cumberland that it is nearly finished, but that is the only area about which I would offer any optimistic assertion about completion. As the noble Lords, Lord Clydesmuir and Lord Rochdale, have said, this is no static problem. In paragraph 113 some of the changing difficulties are set out. It illustrates the coalfields, which the noble Lord also gave as an illustration. The same could be said of the steel industry. Lord Rochdale suggested that we were pursuing a "fair-weather" policy. But it would obviously be imprudent to rely upon an indefinite continuance of conditions of prosperity in the
348
basic industries brought about by world inflation and the post-war need for capital goods produced by those industries. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, made my point for me when he talked about Lanarkshire, and the need to bring in ancillary industries, to secure a broader basis so that this area may not become a depressed area again. The pattern of demand will change; it will change unceasingly. Industrial efficiency will produce many new problems. Redundancy is bound to occur as development goes on. We anticipate it in the steel industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked me about the Clay Report. The Report is a confidential document, and therefore I cannot disclose what is in it. But as a result of that Report the Board of Trade have asked the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to carry out research on subjects for which it is well fitted, and the universities are being asked to give their co-operation. I anticipate very good results from this research. I am afraid that that is all I can say about the Clay Report at the present time. I would impress on your Lordships that research has been going on, and is still going on. There is not a square mile in Great Britain which has not been surveyed, and is not continually being surveyed, and its changing future assessed. Merseyside and the Highlands are tangible results of such research. Perhaps the other areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, are published examples because application has been made by the local authorities.
I wish I could give your Lordships some examples of others that have not been published; but that would be dangerous. If I did, we should find tomorrow a queue of indignant local authorities outside the Board of Trade saying that I was either calling them depressed areas, and that they were going bankrupt, or that the information I gave your Lordships was entirely wrong. There is to our hand, together with the Distribution of Industry Act, Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which must be regarded in future as a permanent feature of Government policy. It is linked up with the broader aspects of development of the national resources as a whole.
Before I sit down, I would like to answer the specific question which the

349
noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked me about who looks after the movement of labour in the coalmines. The responsibility rests with the National Coal Board, who act after consultation with the Minister of Labour and the National Union of Mineworkers. It is really an agreement between the three. Perhaps I may conclude by giving the assurance that there is not one problem that has been raised in this debate which is not receiving the careful and daily consideration of His Majesty's Government: the question of population, and its past, present and future trends; the structure of industry and whether it is dependent too much on the capital goods industries; past and present trends in the number and composition of the unemployed—all with a view to finding whether, and if so how much, additional industry can be established in any particular place and what types are desirable.
The White Paper has been a valuable contribution. It may be that the time will arise for another. White Papers cannot be produced too often. Sometimes we are asked for them, though there are those, like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whom I have heard say that the only thing the Government produces is White Papers. But I expect that at a reasonable period another document will be produced, and I hope it will be an account of successful stewardship. Though I have already overstepped the time I had set myself, I am conscious that I have not answered many of the questions raised, and I apologise if I have omitted anything. For instance, I have said nothing about the difficult question of female labour, which has to be taken into serious consideration in mining areas, where there has been an absence of any employment for females. I thank your Lordships for being so kind to me. This debate, though short and at an inopportune time, will have some lasting benefit.
7.0 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, at this late hour I certainly do not intend to keep your Lordships for more than a few moments. There are, however, one or two points I would like to make before I withdraw my Motion. I wish to thank my noble friends very much for the support which they have given me, and for the strong points which they made underlining what I had to say. I would also like to thank the noble Lord,
350
Lord Lucas, for the way in which he dealt with some of my points, and for the trouble which he has evidently taken over the matter. I hope I am wrong in thinking that I detect a slight trace of complacency—perhaps that is a little too strong a word. I must say that if I had to make over again the speech I made earlier, nothing which the noble Lord has said would lead me to alter my remarks.
Turning to what the noble Lord said as regards the future, I was disappointed that he did not give me a little more encouragement in what I had asked for. He seemed rather to take the point of view that what we were asking for was a sudden, clear-cut stop to what was going on in the development areas, and to have something new. Obviously that is not what we want. These policies take a long time to formulate, and they take even longer to put into effect. I still feel that the time is ripe for consideration of those matters. However, one looked for encouragement, and I was glad when the noble Lord said that the Government realise that this is no static problem, and that constant research is going on. I am delighted to hear that, and I hope the noble Lord will keep the Government up to it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CIVIL AVIATION: ASSOCIATE SERVICES
  CIVIL AVIATION: ASSOCIATE SERVICES