Sitting of 9 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment and Short-time Working
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the widespread anxiety arising from the continuing trend of increasing unemployment, the reduction in overtime and the increase of short-time working; and if he will make a statement on the present position and future prospects.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am aware that anxiety has been expressed about the employment situation in recent months.
    In the week ended 24th May the number of operatives working overtime in manufacturing industries was 180,000 less than three months earlier. Overtime was, however, still being worked by nearly 1,300,000 operatives or 22 per cent. of those covered by the returns. The seasonal fall in unemployment, which I told the House in February might be less than usual, was delayed until last month, when a fall of 18,000 occurred. While there was a fall of 25,000 in the number wholly unemployed between February and June, there has been an increase in short-time working which was reflected in a rise of 30,000 between these two months in the numbers registered as temporarily stopped. The number in civil employment is still high.
    The usual seasonal increase in unemployment in the second half of the year must be expected to begin after July, but it is too early to say whether or not it is likely to be more than usual this year.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the upward trend of unemployment
    368
    for so many months, the information he has just given is very welcome? Whilst the difficulty of forecasting the future can be appreciated, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this fall is likely to continue, or does he feel that the 2 per cent. may be increased in the next few months?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that the unemployment figure may go beyond 2 per cent. as the seasonal factors continue to move against us, as they will in a few weeks' time. The latest figures, as the House will have seen from the newspapers this morning, are a little more encouraging. They show a little improvement in the adverse trend of the last few months.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the Minister agree that, although we are all happy to see the reduction of 18,000 in the number of unemployed, there are now about 44,000 more unemployed than at the same period last year and that the number on short-time work increased by 50,000 during May? For those reasons, would the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his colleagues in the economic Departments the need for widening the scope of industrial activity?
    Mr. Macleod: We are conscious of that, and the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 3rd July showed that.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the Minister think, in view of the information he has given us, that the time has now come to limit immigration into the country?

    Trade Union Officials (Northern Rhodesia)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour whether a reply has yet been sent to the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation, answering its inquiry as to whether full freedom of movement has been restored to trade union officials in Northern Rhodesia; and what are its terms.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As the next meeting of the Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association will not take place before November, the International Labour Office has been informed that it is proposed to defer a reply so that account may be taken of the latest information then available.
    Mr. Prentice: Can the Minister say why it has taken so long to prepare a reply in view of the fact that this inquiry was made some months ago? On the wider question, can the right hon. Gentleman state the reasons why in this territory normal standards of freedom of movement of trade union officials do not apply?
    Mr. Macleod: The reason it has taken a long time is that a fuller explanation was asked for on the second point, which is the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question. I am sure it is right that we should consult carefully with the Governor of the territory concerned before we make our reply in November. On the subject of complaint, that, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    School Leavers
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies for boys have been notified to the Youth Employment Bureau in Blackburn; and how this compares with the number of school leavers who will be requiring jobs this mid-summer.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): On 2nd July there were 43 notified unfilled vacancies for boys. More are expected to be notified in the next few weeks. About 380 boys will be requiring jobs this summer and it is thought that about 100 of them may have to wait for a time before they find employment.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this situation is alarming? Is not it a fact that the bulge in the schools is now passing into the labour market at the very moment when, on the one hand, National Service is coming to an end and, on the other, there is a recession in the cotton industry which is intensifying the problem locally? Will the right hon. Gentleman get his Department to enter into consultation at once with the Ministry of Education and any other appropriate Department to ensure that we do not have a repetition of the situation that existed in the old days in my constituency when young boys were leaving school with no prospect of employment and no alternative but to mess about in the streets?
    Mr. Wood: I think the hon. Lady would be wrong to paint this picture too black. Last year, as she knows, there were rather fewer school leavers in her area and all but a very few of them were placed in employment within two months of leaving school. I suggested in my Answer that it will, I am afraid, take a little longer this year, but I am as convinced as is the hon. Lady of the need for finding employment for these boys and girls as soon as we possibly can.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that there are sufficient youth employment officers employed by his Department to deal with the increasing number of young entrants to industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wood: Careful consideration has been given to the staff which will be required by the Youth Employment Service to deal with the additional numbers of school leavers during the next few years, and I am satisfied that adequare provision is being and will be made.
    Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman, while bearing in mind the increasing number and the importance of the educational aspect, also consult the respective Ministers in England and Wales and in Scotland about making the best use of these young people by helping and advising them about jobs consonant with their educational attainments?
    Mr. Wood: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, those education authorities in Scotland which operate the Youth Employment Service have been asked their requirements of employment officers in the next few years. They have made certain suggestions which we think are reasonable, and therefore the service to help these boys and girls will be increased as they have suggested.
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour (1) in view of the growing problem of finding suitable employment for school leavers, if he will make a further statement;
    (2) what action is being taken in conjunction with the joint committee of industry and trade unions to deal with the provision of employment for school leavers.
    Mr. Wood: The best assessment I can make at present is that there will be difficulty in some areas, but the general prospects of employment for this year's school leavers are satisfactory. The job of placing them in employment may take a little longer than in some recent years and the choice open to them may not be so wide. The local Youth Employment Committees on which employers and workpeople are represented have an important part to play in developing employment opportunities for young people.
    Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that in certain parts of the country the youth employment officers are getting really concerned at the impact of the school bulge upon youth employment in the community? While recognising that this is a problem which perhaps at the moment is not immediate, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that its ultimate effect over the next two years will be challenging? In view of that, may I express the hope that the Government will not regard this matter with complacency?
    Mr. Wood: I do not disagree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said. He will probably agree that the availability of employment opportunities is a rather more important factor than the bulge itself, although of course both are important. I can assure him that I feel no complacency about this. I regard it not only as a great challenge; I regard the bulge itself as being an opportunity for industry, and I hope industry will take advantage of it.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in South Wales the outlook for school leavers is worse than it has been for twenty years? Will the Government make some plans to provide for this situation?
    Mr. Wood: I had a chance of seeing some of the problems of South Wales when I was there. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this depends very much on the general employment position and the coming of industry to South Wales. This is the real answer to his problem and I hope more industry will be forthcoming.

    Industrial Health Services
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour what decision was reached at
    372
    the 42nd Conference of the International Labour Office on international action to establish occupational health services in places of employment.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Conference adopted a series of general conclusions directed towards a recommendation on the organisation of health services in places of employment and decided to place the question on the agenda of its next session for a second discussion.
    Mr. Brockway: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to inform us whether the I.L.O. has been supplied with a copy of the recent report on industrial health services in this country, and particularly whether its attention has been drawn to what, if I may say so, is the admirable pioneer work done at the Slough Industrial Health Centre?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I am confident that it has a copy, but I will make sure.

    International Labour Office (Conventions)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour (1) what decisions were reached at the 42nd Conference of the International Labour Office regarding a convention to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, creed and sex;
    (2) what decision was reached at the 42nd Conference of the International Labour Office on a convention on safeguarding the conditions of plantation workers.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Conference adopted a Convention and Recommendation on discrimination in respect of employment and occupation and on the conditions of employment of plantation workers.
    The text of these instruments will be included in a report by the Government delegates to the Conference, which will be laid before the House in due course.
    Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that news, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will ratify these instruments for the abolition of discrimination and for minimum conditions for the plantation workers?
    Mr. Macleod: I think the hon. Gentleman must wait until this is done in

    373
    proper form and the announcements are made to the House. Of course the Government delegates voted for all four of these instruments and we have no objection in principle, though in detail some of them may cause a little difficulty.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour how many persons whose last jobs were in the steel industry are now unemployed; and how many still in the industry are working on short time.
    Sir P. Robertsasked the Minister of Labour the latest figures of unemployment and short-time working in the steel industry, compared with similar figures of a year ago.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 16th June, 1958, 9,040 workers, whose last employment was in the iron and steel industry, were registered as wholly unemployed, compared with 3,190 on 17th June, 1957. In the week ended 24th May, 1958, 25,697 operatives were working short-time compared with 5,556 in the week ended 1st June, 1957. I regret that separate figures for the steel industry are not available.
    Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that those figures from such a vital industry as the steel industry, which is the genesis of so much of our manufacturing industry, are most alarming, and does he know that the Paymaster-General gave me a reply yesterday that they were now running at some 80 per cent. of capacity, which experts tell me is an overestimate? In view of all this, does not the Minister agree that extra effort must now be made to increase our steel production again, otherwise the engineering and other manufacturing industries will be in great trouble before long?
    Mr. Macleod: I certainly agree that these figures are distinctly disturbing. On the wider Question which the hon. Gentleman put to the Paymaster-General yesterday, I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend and with the President of the Board of Trade and with my other colleagues in the Government on all these questions and on how best we can stimulate activity.
    Mr. Robens: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, there are any plans for stimulating activity, in view of the reply he gave in the House some
    374
    time ago that the Government had plans ready for such an occasion?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think one can go into all the details. That point is covered by my previous Answer and the answer is, yes, we have planned as far as possible what we can do.

    Training for Skill (Report)
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour what response he has received from industry and commerce to the suggestions contained in the Carr Report, Training for Skill."
    Mr. Wood: The Report has been widely circulated among employers' associations and trade unions. In general, the recommendations call for examination and action within each individual industry, but the Committee considered that there was need for a central body to keep apprenticeship and training arrangements under review. This will be a function of the new council which is shortly to be established and to which I referred in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) on 25th June.
    Mr. Owen: While appreciating that the council has still before it the essential suggestion of action, may I express the wish that the Minister will expedite as much as possible the convening of the meeting of the council and its functioning, in order to ensure that the problem of school leavers and employment, which is now growing, will be met as effectively as possible?
    Mr. Wood: As regards the meeting of the proposed council, I told the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend a fortnight ago that it is likely to meet and come officially into being later this month, so it will not be very long delayed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced of the urgency of the problem, and I am sure the council will be too.

    Pottery Industry, Stoke-on-Trent
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the figures for employment in the pottery industry in Stoke-on-Trent for December, 1955, December, 1956, and December, 1957, and the number of workers unemployed and temporarily stopped for the latest available date.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Statistics of employment in local areas are obtained only in respect of the end of May in each year. The figures for 1955, 1956 and 1957 for the china and earthenware industry in Stoke-on-Trent were 58,470, 57,170 and 51,630 respectively.
    On 16th June, 1958, the numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Stoke-on-Trent, whose last employment was in the china and earthenware industry, were 785 wholly unemployed and 614 temporarily stopped.
    Dr. Stross: Do not these figures imply that the blood-letting which the industry received as a result of the imposition of the 30 per cent. Purchase Tax two or three years ago has done it a great deal of harm? While it is fair to say that the industry is today fairly prosperous, is it not now at a much lower level?
    Mr. Macleod: It is certainly true that it is at a lower level, but some of the indices of prosperity are today more comforting than they were a year or so ago.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has just given of people unemployed and temporarily stopped do not include large numbers of married women not registered at the employment exchanges; and that, therefore, in an industry like pottery, in which women are employed, that fact makes the position very much more serious?
    Mr. Macleod: With respect to the hon. Lady, I tried to make this point in connection with the cotton industry a week ago. It is not true that married women are not included in the figures. If they are looking for another job and if they are registered, they are included. These figures include applicants for employment, whether or not they are qualified for unemployment benefit.

    Pottery Industry (Health Survey)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to publish the pilot health survey of the pottery industry; whether the publication will be fully comprehensive; and whether he will make a statement at this stage of the general findings.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Inspectors of Factories have now completed their
    376
    survey of the pottery industry, and I am arranging for the results to be considered at the next meeting of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee in October. Further action will be settled in the light of the views of that Committee and of consultation with both sides of the pottery industry.
    Dr. Stross: Would it be true to say that our suspicions that this is a most interesting report are correct, and, if that be so, may we have an assurance that it will be printed as fully as possible, so that we shall be able to study it with care?
    Mr. Macleod: I should be surprised if the hon. Member does not know a good deal about this report. I have not read it myself yet, but I am told that it is one of quite exceptional length. I dare say that the presentation of it for publication will be a little difficult. After the consultations which I have indicated have taken place, we will take a decision on publication.

    Factory Inspectorate (Engineering and Chemical Inspectors)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now succeeded in trebling the size of the Chemical and Engineering Branch of the Factory Inspectorate; and if he will state the number of new inspectors recruited for the General Inspectorate since the survey of 1955.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Since the publication in October, 1956, of the White Paper on the Staffing and Organisation of the Factory Inspectorate the number of engineering and chemical inspectors in post has been increased from 18 to 24 and 6 more are in process of appointment. An open competition to fill the remaining vacancies will shortly be advertised.
    Since the same date, 61 inspectors have been recruited into the General Inspectorate.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the fairly reassuring figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House, may I ask him if he can guarantee to us that his Department is getting a sufficient priority in obtaining these highly skilled people, such as engineers and chemists?
    Mr. Macleod: I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that the comparative slowness of recruiting, which I regret very much, has nothing to do with economy or anything of that sort. I have always had full support from the Treasury in this matter.
    Mr. Slater: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will publish in the report the areas which are covered by the chemical inspectors?
    Mr. Macleod: I am not quite sure it would be possible to do that; but, if I may look into that point, I will write to the hon. Member.

    Catering Wages Act
    Mr. Rees-Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the views expressed in recent annual Reports of the Catering Wages Commission on the subject of workers in unlicensed residential establishments; and if he will now state what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Catering Wages Commission has repeatedly drawn attention to the need for revision of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, and to the unsatisfactory position of the Unlicensed Residential Establishment Wages Board, which during its period of activity from 1946 to 1949 never submitted any recommendations to the Minister. Since 1950 the Board has not been reconstituted.
    It does not appear that the problem can be solved without legislation. When Parliamentary time permits, and that will not be possible this Session, Her Majesty's Government propose to repeal the Catering Wages Act, abolish the Catering Wages Commission and to convert into Wages Councils the four Catering Wages Boards now functioning. The wages and holiday regulations made under the Catering Wages Act will remain in force.
    Only after an Act has been passed will it be possible to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Wages Councils Acts to consider whether a Wages Council should be established for workers in unlicensed hotels and boarding houses. Such a Commission of Inquiry would be free from the legal restrictions which have hampered the work of the Catering Wages Commission.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as I am quite sure it will, the whole catering industry—and, no less, my hon. Friends on this side of the House—will be delighted with what the Minister has just said about the future of this important industry? Since the Minister has covered a great deal of ground in his Answer, may I pose this further question to him?
    With regard to the Catering Wages Act, may we take it that legislation will be introduced in the forthcoming year, and that it will cover what one might call the whole of the ground which is dealt with in the Reports of the Catering Wages Commission and will be a comprehensive review?
    Mr. Macleod: Legislation, when it can be introduced, will take the form of an amendment to the Wages Councils Acts. I cannot give a guarantee about the time, beyond what is included in my main Answer, but it is certainly intended to cover all the main points to which I have referred in reply to the Question.
    Mr. Robens: May I, first, thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving the House such early notice of his intention to repeal the Catering Wages Act and to take the other steps which he has indicated, which will give us good time to consider the implications, because, as he will appreciate, this may be a very controversial matter?
    May I ask him whether the decision he has made has been based upon consultations between all the parties concerned in the industry—that is to say, representatives of the organised workers, hoteliers and others—and whether it is on their advice that he has proposed to do this?
    May I also ask him if he would recognise that, while his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may be particularly interested in protecting the interests of those who own and control these establishments, we on this side of the House, and I hope also the right hon. Gentleman himself, are very much more concerned with protecting the workers? Will the Minister see that this is adequately done?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the question of consultation, this is a Government decision which I am

    379
    announcing. I have discussed this, particularly in the light of the series of Reports, with which the House is familiar, with Professor Shimmin, the chairman of the Catering Wages Commission. As to the position of the fifth board, dealing with small boarding-houses, it is really impossible, as has been pointed out on many occasions, to solve it in the situation as it is at present, and, therefore, after a great deal of thought, I have brought forward this solution. I believe it is the most flexible way of dealing with the problem, because it has been made clear that the Catering Wages Act, 1943, is too inflexible for the catering and tourist industry.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that this new legislation which is contemplated by the Government, no doubt, after careful thought by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will not lead to any reduction in the present wages standards, but, on the contrary, may lead to some improvement?
    Mr. Macleod: I made it clear in my Answer, and, because it is important, I will repeat the sentence:
    "The wages and holiday regulations made under the Catering Wages Act will remain in force."
    What I have said today does not affect that in the least. As to the future, the Wages Boards, which will become Wages Councils, are the main authorities in matters of that sort. I do not direct to them what their standards should be.
    Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman be more specific on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) about the attitude of the trade unions concerned? Has he discussed this with them, and have they given an opinion?
    Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have based this on the position as laid down in the Reports of the Catering Wages Commission over a period of years. I have had no discussions beyond that informal discussion which I have already indicated.
    Mr. Robens: In view of the decision and the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him whether it is his intention, as is normal when dealing with
    380
    legislation of this kind, to have informal discussions with both sides of the industry before finally making up his mind on the nature of the legislation?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed. I am putting these matters to the National Joint Advisory Council in a fortnight's time.

    London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed in the London area at the latest available date, and at the same date last year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The figure was 54,322 at 16th June, compared with 32,526 at 17th June, 1957.
    Mr. Lipton: While the Minister can say that the position is worse in other parts of the country or the percentage there is higher, would not he agree that, although there has been an improvement this month compared with last month, the unemployment figures in London are higher at present than they have been for a long time in a comparable month of the year? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman has given the answer to his own question very well.

    Redruth and Camborne
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of persons unemployed at the Redruth and Camborne Employment Exchanges at the latest convenient date; and the percentages.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The numbers were 372 at Redruth and 270 at Camborne at 16th June. The percentage unemployed for Redruth and Camborne combined was 4·2.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take into account the fact that this is about two and a half times the average for the South-West? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade to ascertain whether something can be done to divert new industries to my constituency and Cornwall generally, because we are frightened when we see so many new factories going up between Reading and London?
    Mr. Macleod: This is a long-standing problem made more difficult by the remoteness of the area. The area is one of those that we had in mind in connection with the recent Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill. I am in touch with my colleagues, particularly the President of the Board of Trade, about the matter.

    Glasgow
    Mrs. McAlisterasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the steadily rising unemployment figures in Glasgow; whether he is aware that a substantial proportion of these figures refer to tradesmen, such as painters, who are normally busy at this time of year; and what steps he is taking to find alternative work for them.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Although unemployment in Glasgow is higher than it was a year ago, it has declined very slightly in the last two months and the number of painters unemployed is small. My officers will of course continue to do all they can to place unemployed workers in vacancies notified to them by employers.
    Mrs. McAlister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it amazes me in the extreme. Is he aware that at least one big firm in Glasgow, Scottish Signs, which does not object to being quoted, has told me that painters are normally very hard to get at this time of year but this year they are ten a penny? What is more, semi-skilled men who normally find no difficulty in getting work in the yards at this time of year are also in the market. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
    Mr. Macleod: I will certainly study what the hon. Lady says. I understand that the number of painters unemployed in Glasgow is 52.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pattern of employment and unemployment is now worsening in the sense that people in manufacturing trades and industries are falling out of work and the tendency is for them to go into professional work, so that we are losing the basis of our manufacturing capacity?
    Mr. Macleod: That is more properly a matter for debate. I dare say that it will arise a good deal in tomorrow's debate.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Deferments
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many men are at present deferred from call-up; and what is the current intake of men whose deferment has expired.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The number of men whose call-up was deferred on 31st March, 1958, the latest date for which information is available, was 403,020. The call-up of men whose deferment had expired averaged about 2,800 a month during April and May, 1958.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of those rather formidable figures—formidable to the Services but not to those to whom deferment is granted—will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not allowing deferment to get so out of hand as to make it necessary for men born in the last quarter of 1939, for example, to be called up? Is this one of the factors which is still keeping those men in a state of suspense?
    Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; it is not a factor in that. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a break-down of the 400,000, which is of considerable interest. It includes the indefinite deferments of coal miners, those engaged in agriculture, seamen and so on. Postponements on account of hardship are not included, and that figure is only about 2,000 at present.
    Following is the information:

    NUMBERS DEFERRED AT 31ST MARCH, 1958

    Apprentices

    133,401

    Post-apprenticeship deferment

    4,213

    Articled pupils, etc

    34,160

    Agricultural workers

    52,796

    Coal miners

    76,859

    Seamen

    38,292

    Fishermen (Royal Naval Reserve Patrol Service).

    1,673

    Shale oil miners

    144

    Police cadets

    1,550

    Teachers and scientific workers

    5,245

    Boys at school

    3,081

    Students (full-time)

    51,606

    403,020

  SHIPBUILDING

    Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement on the preparation of new Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations.
    Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. The revised version of the preliminary draft of the Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations referred to in reply to the hon. Member on 23rd April, 1958, was published on 20th May and those concerned have been invited to submit observations on this new version by the end of this month.
    Mr. Willey: While I fully recognise the aid given by the Department to expedite these proceedings, will the Department do its utmost to ensure that we get these very desirable Regulations as soon as possible, because we recognise that there has been appalling delay?
    Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir.

    Lowestoft
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what official contracts for shipbuilding and ship-repairing have been placed with firms in the port of Lowestoft during the past twelve months; what contracts have been entered into for the present financial year; and whether, having regard to unemployment in these industries, he will take steps to ensure for them a reasonable share of Admiralty contracts.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): During the past twelve months a contract has been placed for the docking and refit of an oil lighter. For the reasons I gave to the hon. Member during the debate on 19th June, I can hold out little hope of sufficient contract work for the Royal Navy becoming available in the immediate future to enable further work to be allocated to Lowestoft.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Civil Lord aware that his Answer will be received with very deep disappointment not only in Lowestoft but in the smaller shipyards generally? Is he aware of the importance of Admiralty contracts to the smaller shipyards and of the very fine service that Lowestoft in particular has rendered to the Admiralty in the past, particularly since the war? Will not he agree that as our order books do not extend very far—they are empty beyond 1959—the Admiralty ought to think a great deal about it because this may lead to the closing of some very important auxiliary works there?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am very sympathetic towards places like Lowestoft which have in the past relied to a certain extent on Admiralty contracts, but, with the reduction in the amount of money the Admiralty has, I am afraid there is nothing more that we can do. We have great difficulty, but we try to spread the small amount of money around as fairly as we can.

    Orders
    Mr. Willeyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many orders for new tonnage to be built in British shipyards have been cancelled this year so far; and what is the total value of the orders so cancelled.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Eighteen licences, totalling approximately 200,000 gross tons, for new merchant ships to be built in United Kingdom shipyards, were cancelled during the first half of 1958. The approximate total value of these cancellations was £25 million.
    Mr. Willey: Can the Minister say whether there is yet any slackening in the cancellations?
    Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the Minister think that a number of these cancellations could be avoided if the naval slipways at Devonport were made available for the commercial building of craft? Is he aware that it is because of delays in deliveries that these cancellations arise?
    Mr. Galbraith: I could not agree with that at all.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of orders placed with British shipbuiders and the amount of tonnage ordered this year, as compared with the number and amount for the corresponding period last year.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Fifty-six new orders, totalling just over 130,000 gross tons, have been placed so far this year, compared with 159 orders, totalling 1,326,000 gross tons during the first half of 1957.
    Mr. Willey: Can the Minister say whether there are any recent signs of an improvement in the placing of new orders?
    Mr. Galbraith: Not without notice.
    Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend bring these figures to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out to him that possibly some improved rate of depreciation allowance for ships might be a great help in this matter?
    Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly bring these figures to my right hon. Friend's notice, but this is not a problem which arises only in this country; it is an international problem.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has it not dawned on the Admiralty and the Government generally that these cancellations of shipbuilding orders in the United Kingdom will continue and will become a very grave problem until we solve the problem of the flag of discrimination and the flag of convenience? Why do not the Government take their courage in both hands, if they have any courage, and ask the United States Government to be reasonable with the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Galbraith: That is another question. We had a debate on that subject a week or two ago.

    Dockyards (New Construction)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the dockyard new construction programme for 1958–59.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: There is a programme of new construction, including three frigates, now going on in the dockyards. While I cannot give details about any future programme, I can assure the hon. Member that, as I told the House during the Navy Estimates debate, it is our intention to make use of the dockyards for new construction as far as possible, without undertaking the very considerable capital re-equipment, which would be required for further expansion in that direction.
    Mr. Hayman: Can the Minister say whether two of the three frigates are to be built at Devonport or not?
    Mr. Galbraith: One is being laid down at Devonport and the other two are at Portsmouth.

  ROYAL NAVY

    N.A. 39 Aircraft
    Mr. Steeleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent any pre-production or production orders have so far been placed for the Blackburn N.A. 39.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): An order was placed in July, 1955, by the Ministry of Supply for a development batch of twenty N.A. 39 aircraft. No production order has yet been placed.
    Mr. Steele: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why no production order has yet been placed? In debates we have been promised that these aircraft would be forthcoming. Can he explain why they are not being ordered?
    Mr. Allan: The aircraft flew successfully only at the end of April, and the time is not yet ripe for placing production orders.
    Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the trials are proceeding satisfactorily and that the Royal Navy still badly needs these aircraft?
    Mr. Allan: Yes, Sir; certainly. The trials are satisfactory, and there still is a strong naval need for the N.A. 39.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is there some internal controversy about the aircraft? Is not it correct to say that the Minister of Supply has had some difficulty with the Royal Air Force about the provision of the aircraft? Has that now extended to the Admiralty?
    Mr. Allan: I have just said that the Royal Navy has a need for the aircraft. What goes on between the Ministry of Supply and the Royal Air Force is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Steele: Can we have an assurance that the Royal Navy will order these aircraft and that its order will not be dependent upon their being sold in America?
    Mr. Allan: I do not think there is any question of the order being dependent

    387
    upon sales in America, though it would be nice if they could be sold there. The naval order is not dependent upon sales in America.

    H.M. Ships (Disposal)
    Mr. Wallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, fleet minesweepers, and motor, gun, or torpedo boats that will be disposed of in the year 1958.
    Mr. R. Allan: Decisions have been taken to dispose of 5 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 33 frigates, 9 ocean minesweepers and 31 fast patrol boats and motor, gun, or torpedo boats.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures, taken together with the figures of ships scrapped in 1956–57 show that a half to a third of the offensive strength of the Royal Navy has been disposed of without replacement? That excludes frigates and minesweepers, which are purely defensive vessels. May we have an assurance that adequate replacements are being provided to strengthen the offensive side of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Allan: I know the concern which is felt about the position of the Reserve Fleet, but I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that in present circumstances we must reduce the Reserve Fleet if only to maintain and develop the Active Fleet. In doing this, we discard only those ships whose condition or characteristics appear to be of least use. For instance, all the ships that I have mentioned except eighteen of the patrol boats are of prewar or war-time construction. It is, of course, the intention to sell rather than scrap the patrol boats. With regard to replacements, this year and next year 2 aircraft carriers, 2 cruisers, 13 destroyers or frigates, 16 minesweepers, 17 miscellaneous craft and a number of submarines will come into service for the first time either as new ships or completely modernised.
    Mr. H. Hynd: In view of this great reduction in the number of ships, how many admirals will be available for scrapping or disposal?
    Mr. Allan: That is another question, but I hope that the hon. Member saw recently that we have already reduced the number of admirals by fourteen this year.

    H.M.S. "Ark Royal"
    Mr. Haymanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the further modernisation of H.M.S. "Ark Royal" will include the provision of lifts.
    Mr. R. Allan: It is intended that "Ark Royal" should be taken in hand in September for a special refit. This is not a complete modernisation. During this refit modifications will be made to the forward and after aircraft lifts and to one of the bomb lifts. No new lifts are being installed.
    Mr. Hayman: May I ask the hon. Member to consider whether he or the First Lord of the Admiralty should not consult the American naval authorities on the subject? I am informed that the American aircraft carriers have passenger lifts. Surely in these days the British aircraft carrier ought not to be behind any carrier.
    Mr. Allan: I did not realise that the hon. Member was referring to passenger lifts or crew lifts. Her Majesty's ships are supposed to be manned by young and ablebodied seamen.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: It is a new ship.
    Mr. Allan: The "Ark Royal" is not a new ship. I have seen reports giving rather damaging comparisons between United States carriers and our own, particularly about replenishment, but we are developing new replenishment techniques, and I recently attended an exercise where the time was reduced by half. I am also told that an aircraft carrier recently embarked at sea in a few hours stores which it would have taken two days to embark if she had been alongside. I am sure that our American allies would be the first to admit that most of the important recent operational developments in carriers have been British inventions.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Boots
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War the total original cost of the 1,250,000 pairs of boots and 1,080,000 half-soles which have been found to be surplus to requirements.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The original cost of the boots was about £2 million and of the half-soles about £250,000. All, or nearly all, the half-soles will be kept for future use.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the Secretary of State for War give the House some information about what action has been taken towards those in his Department who had these boots produced knowing full well that they would never be required? In view of the fact that the boots have been in stock in a depôt near Burton-on-Trent for over two years, will he say what is to happen to try to prevent an undue waste of public money in selling them?
    Mr. Soames: As the hon. Member knows, I cannot discuss the Report of the late Auditor-General at present, because it is being discussed by the Public Accounts Committee and will be presented to the House.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision rejecting the claim to a disability pension of Mr. E. P. Le Fleming, arising from his Army service; and whether he will arrange for an appeal to be heard by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, so that this man can exercise the same right of appeal as those whose cases are dealt with by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
    Mr. Soames: For reasons which have been explained in correspondence with the hon. Member the disability suffered by Mr. Le Fleming is not regarded as being attributable to war service.
    The Pensions Appeal Tribunal was set up to consider cases dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and this is not such a case.
    There is a special consideration, however, in this case, in that Mr. Le Fleming was born in Egypt and was called up in that country. Soldiers called up in Egypt were at one time given the right of appeal in pensions matters to an independent referee appointed by the British Embassy. These arrangements exist no longer, but because Mr. Le Fleming might once have benefited by them, I am prepared, if he so desires, to seek an independnt adjudication in this country on similar lines.
    Mr. Prentice: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that everyone would agree that a man who joined the British forces abroad ought to have the same rights of appeal as a man who joined in this country.

    La Salle College, Hong Kong
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement about the derequisitioning of the La Salle College, Hong Kong.
    Mr. Soames: I am afraid I am not yet able to add to my previous Answers.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the twenty-seven years of its existence the college has been used as a school for only nine, that it has been requisitioned since 1949 and that in the Hong Kong Legislature several debates have taken place on the subject of derequisitioning? Cannot his Ministry decide now on what date they will hand it back as a school?
    Mr. Soames: It has already been announced that we are determined to hand this building back. We realise the importance of this college to the citizens of Hong Kong and we are anxious to hand it back as soon as possible. On the other hand, we have a considerable number of troops in Hong Kong and they must have hospital facilities, and until we can devise some other way of meeting the need for hospital facilities, I am afraid that it will not be possible to release this building. We are doing our best to give it up as soon as possible, and I will make a further statement as soon as I am able to do so.

    Territorial Army (Training Payments)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the changes in training payments to the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Soames: We are providing enough money this year for what is considered to be the necessary amount of training. It will cover an average of 13 days weekend training for officers and 16 days for other ranks, over and above the attendance at annual camp and evening drills. Broadly speaking, this is the same amount of out-of-camp training as was carried out in 1956.
    Mr. Strachey: While appreciating that the Secretary of State cannot countenance what might be called training for the sake of training, may I ask whether he can assure us that this reduction, or apparent reduction, will have no discouraging effect on Territorial Army recruiting, which has been so encouraging during recent months?
    Mr. Soames: We have fixed this at what we consider to be the level to provide the necessary amount of training. If we discover that it does not provide sufficient time, we will certainly review it again, but, broadly speaking, it will provide the same amount of training as was done by the Territorial Army in 1956.

  POST OFFICE

    Kirkby, Lancashire
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Postmaster-General when he expects to provide an adequate central post office for the new township of Kirkby, Lancashire.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): There are at present three branch offices and two sub-post offices in Kirkby, and these meet requirements reasonably well. A new central post office will certainly be required when the new township has developed further. This project is still, however, at the planning stage, and I cannot yet fix the timetable.
    Mr. Wilson: As both the Postmaster-General and his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General have Merseyside constituencies, will he kindly arrange for one of them to look at the utterly inadequate conditions provided in the main post office in the area—and particularly at the facilities provided for the staff in cold weather? Will he also study the sickness rate arising from people being absent with colds as a result of those conditions?
    Mr. Marples: I will certainly arrange for the post office to be looked at. I agree that the present facilities are inadequate, but when the new Crown office is built it will replace the present inadequate facilities.

    Central Post Offices
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Postmaster-General how many towns with a population of over 40,000 have no central post office.
    Mr. Marples: I could not obtain an exact answer without a great deal of inquiry, but most towns of the size mentioned have a centrally-situated post office.
    Mr. Wilson: Would not it be better if the Postmaster-General devoted his energies to building post offices instead of doing this research? Will he look again at his Answer to Question No. 42—in which he says that he can do this only when the town has developed further—since its population is about 40,000 and the existing services are utterly inadequate?
    Mr. Marples: The population is now 37,000, and it is rising to 60,000. It is hoped to start building round about 1960 or 1961, and the Ministry of Works is making a comprehensive plan for Government offices in the town centre.

    Envelopes (Standard Size)
    Mr. Tileyasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider introducing a standard size envelope and encourage its general use by giving it a reduction in postage stamp duty.
    Mr. Marples: The development of postal machines is likely to make some modification of the present sizes and types of envelope very desirable, and the subject is now being studied both in the British Post Office and in the Universal Postal Union. But we must await the results of these studies before deciding what should be done, and I see no prospect at present of any development which would permit a reduction in postage rates.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend believe me when I say that I did not expect that he would announce any postal reductions today in answer to this Question? Nevertheless, will he press on with the investigation, bearing in mind the fact that technical skill and modernisation have enabled him to reduce our telephone charges and his customers are expecting them to have the same effect on our correspondence costs?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall press on with our experiments. We intend to take a town of reasonable size and try out a standard envelope and see what impression we can make.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this investigation has been going on for at least ten years—long before I became Postmaster-General?
    Mr. Hirst: What did the right hon. Gentleman do about it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: —long before I became Postmaster-General. Is there any possibility of the International Postal Union agreeing in the near future to a standard size of envelope?
    Mr. Marples: I should not like to be responsible for saying what the International Postal Union is likely to decide, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we, in the British Post Office, will make this experiment.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: The right hon. Gentleman has no powers.

    Postage Rates
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the heavy burden now falling on the business and professional communities by the present rates of postage, especially for packages between two and four ounces; and how soon he anticipates that still further efficiency and improved methods will enable some reduction to be made in postage rates.
    Mr. Marples: The higher charges for postal packets were the fairest we could devise to meet increased costs. We shall spare no effort to improve methods and increase efficiency, but I see no prospect at present of reducing postage rates.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is not it a fact that from a costing point of view within the Post Office business letters are carried at a profit and private letters at a great loss? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the scales are not weighted rather too heavily against the business community?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, I am quite satisfied on that point.

    British Empire Games (Special Stamps)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General what kind of special stamps he is issuing in celebration of the British Empire Games.
    Mr. Marples: Three special double-sized postage stamps in the 3d., 6d., and 1s. 3d. denominations to mark the British Empire and Commonwealth Games will be put on sale on 18th July; details of the designs were published on 4th July.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain why he has given three special-sized stamps to Wales? I have no objection to Wales getting the stamps, but does the Minister know what the Scots will say when, Wales having got the stamps, he refuses to provide Burns stamps? Is not this adding insult to injury?
    Mr. Marples: The stamps are not to commemorate Wales; they are to commemorate the British Empire and Commonwealth Games, which happen to be taking place in Wales. In any case, these Games are an event, and the Post Office has often issued stamps commemorating events, whereas Burns is a person—a very notable person, I agree—and the British Post Office has never issued a postage stamp to commemorate a person.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have full sympathy for my hon. Friend's desire for a Burns stamp, but may I express my gratitude to the Postmaster-General for having provided stamps for the British Empire Games, in which teams from thirty-seven countries within the Commonwealth, and from all the Continents, will be taking part?

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Shared Services (Charges)
    Mr. Shortasked the Postmaster-General whether a telephone subscriber who dials a shared service subscriber and does not get any tone is automatically charged for a call for the unsuccessful attempt.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. But only if certain faulty conditions exist in the shared subscriber's circuit, the chances against which are 5,000 to one. With

    395
    other types of fault, should these occur, the subscriber's meter does not record the call.

  TELEVISION

    Highlands
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to enable the British Broadcasting Corporation to fulfil its duty to the people in Sutherland and other Highland counties who are denied television because there are not enough of them to make the service pay, in view of the fact that its present policy is at variance with the conception of a nationalised broadcasting service.
    Mr. Marples: The B.B.C. has much in mind the needs of the Highlands but it regrets that because of limitations on its capital expenditure and its existing commitments, it does not expect to be able to start any extension of its television service to this area before at least 1960. Resources available for the extension of the television service are not unlimited, and I am sorry to say that there is no prospect of earlier provision.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend need to plead lack of finance? Has he noticed that a television programme company has made a net profit of £4 million this year?
    Mr. Marples: That may be so, but that is not relevant to the capital expenditure of the B.B.C.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does not it reveal that there is a considerable amount of money in the industry? Is it not within his powers to get hold of some in order to provide these people with the service to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Marples: The Postmaster-General has no power to expropriate people's profits.

    Coverage
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General which areas of the country have not yet been provided with any television transmission; and what is the total population of such areas.
    Mr. Marples: Most of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the East Borders of Scotland, Central Wales and parts of
    396
    North and South-West Wales, parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone, the Peterborough area and the extreme west of Cornwall, are at present beyond range of television, although within some of these areas there are people receiving signals of varying quality. The total population concerned is about 900,000.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the Postmaster-General refuse to provide a channel for a third programme either to the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., until these areas get at least one programme?
    Mr. Marples: I quite agree with the importance of these areas getting a programme—and the B.B.C. is pressing ahead as fast as it can—but I should not like to give an undertaking of that nature.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman will be considering—sympathetically or otherwise—an application for a third programme in the densely populated areas, to the detriment of those areas which have no programme?
    Mr. Marples: If the B.B.C. or I.T.A. asks for a third programme, I shall have to consider it.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to say when Central Wales will get a television programme? It is important for the rural population in that area at least to know something of what is happening in the outside world, in order to stop them leaving the area.
    Mr. Marples: I agree that it is desirable that people in that part of Wales should know what is happening outside, but I should be grateful if the hon. Member would put down a special Question in respect of any area which he has in mind.

    Band III (Third Service)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet received any advice from the Television Advisory Committee on the allocation of further channels in Band III for the provision of a third television programme.
    Mr. Marples: It has advised me on the technical point that it is possible to allocate channels in Band III to provide a third television service with substantial

    397
    national coverage. It does not advise me on who should operate such a service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Among the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has received, does the Advisory Committee suggest that a 100 per cent. coverage is possible with the present two programmes if a third programme is provided on Band III?
    Mr. Marples: The Committee did not mention the existing channels. The four channels of Band III which will be available when we move the people at present using them would allow for a coverage of between 95 per cent. and 98 per cent.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has not got my point. I asked whether or not the use of those four channels by the I.T.A. or the B.B.C. for a third programme would prevent a complete coverage by the other two programmes.
    Mr. Marples: Nothing in respect of the four channels has any bearing upon the other channels.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General What proportion of the population has been provided with two television programmes.
    Mr. Marples: At present 75 per cent. of the population can receive both B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes

BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (INMATE'S ESCAPE)
Mr. H. Morrison(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the escape of an inmate from the Broadmoor Institution.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Yes, Sir. I regret to say that Frank Samuel Mitchell escaped from the Broadmoor Institution in the early hours of Tuesday morning. He was in the maximum security block, and consequently occupied a single room with the door locked, and the window barred and shuttered. His day clothes had been removed from the room. I understand that he escaped by opening the window shutter with a duplicate key, sawing through the window bars, and climbing
398
30 yards along a high coping. Subsequently, he climbed the outer wall. At or about 4 a.m. he broke into a, house at Wokingham and stole clothes and a a car, in which he drove away about an hour later.
Shortly before 5.30 a.m. the institution were informed by the police of the events in Wokingham. An immediate check was made but, since Mitchell had left a dummy in his bed, no patients were observed to be missing. At 7 a.m., when the doors were unlocked, Mitchell's absence was discovered, and the police were at once informed. The search for him is being prosecuted vigorously.
A full, detailed report is being prepared by the Medical Superintendent, and should reach the Board of Control tomorrow.
Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why this particular inmate was given a room to himself? Can he also tell the House why there was, apparently, a material delay in sounding the siren after the escape, and, indeed, after the escape became known? Can he assure the House that an inquiry—which, I suggest, might be an independent inquiry—will be instituted into this escape?
Mr. Walker-Smith: Mitchell was accommodated in the way considered appropriate for the maximum security block in which he was.
Regarding the siren, at the time when the institution became aware of the escape, that is to say, at 7 a.m., the staff were acting on the information that Mitchell had made his escape in a stolen car. In those circumstances the Medical Superintendent considered that it was highly improbable that he would be in the locality, and did not, as I understand, give the immediate signal for the siren because of that circumstance; and his desire not to alarm the neighbourhood in what—if that hypothesis had been correct—would have been an unnecessary way.
I think that perhaps it would be better for me and for the House that I should await the report which the Board of Control is receiving from the Medical Superintendent before deciding on the point about an inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the fact that this man returned to the neighbourhood of the establishment show that the decision not to sound the siren was an unfortunate one? Would not it be better for a standing instruction to be given that the siren should be sounded as soon as an escape has been discovered? Can my right hon. and learned Friend also tell me—if it lies within his Departmental responsibility—whether any delay occurred in informing police stations in the surrounding countryside of the escape of this dangerous person?
Mr. Walker-Smith: The question of action by the police is not a matter for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The principle is that the warning siren should be operated by the responsible officer on duty "as soon as an escape has been detected"—that being the phraseology of the Scott Henderson Report. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it obviously right now to say that the judgment was an unfortunate one because, so far from Mitchell having left the locality in the car, it was subsequently discovered that the car had been abandoned. But that is not to say that the appreciation which was made at the time was not a reasonable one, or might not have been a reasonable one, in the light of the facts as then known to the Medical Superintendent.
Mr. Lipton: As one who lives in the immediate vicinity of Broadmoor, may I ask the Minister very seriously to bear in mind that there is considerable local misgiving about this episode, which is not the first one of its kind—I will not refer to an unfortunate previous case? Will not he now consider that, so far as security precautions are concerned, there is reason for saying that the administration of Broadmoor should be returned to the Home Office?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I have every understanding and sympathy for local feelings and apprehensions, as expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but I think it right that the right perspective of this matter should be borne in mind. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a number of escapes. It is right to say that this is the first escape—with one relatively minor exception, which was a break-away from a working party—since the publication of the Scott Henderson Report in the summer of
400
1952, and since action was taken following on the recommendations made therein.
The hon. Gentleman's question about the transfer of jurisdiction raises a rather wider issue which I should not wish to enter into at this time.
Mr. Hurd: Does not this episode raise again the whole question of the desirability and wisdom of keeping dangerous criminal lunatics in a district which is fairly thickly populated? Is it really reasonable that the people of Berkshire, and particularly the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)—unfortunately, my hon. Friend could not be present this afternoon—should be put in jeopardy by a man who can escape, is determined to escape, and, within a few miles, and a short time after escaping, breaks into a house, terrorises people, obtains clothes, steals a car and is away, and neither the police, nor anybody at the institution have a clue as to where he has gone? Is that reasonable?
Mr. Walker-Smith: Institutions of this sort, obviously, are not a popular or an agreeable feature of any locality. While I have every sympathy with the point of view which my hon. Friend has properly expressed on behalf of his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), I must remind my hon. Friend that Broad-moor has been used for this purpose uninterruptedly since 1863.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is it not a fact that a substantial number of cures have been effected at Broadmoor, and that that would be less likely if the inmates were cut off from ordinary contact with their families, and people outside? Is the Minister aware that, while all of us insist on the maximum security arrangements, many of us would regard it as a retrograde step if the institution ceased to be a hospital and reverted once again to control by the Home Office?
Mr. Walker-Smith: In all these matters we walk the razor edge between trying to have the maximum security, on the one hand, which is a very proper objective of public policy, and on the other, ensuring the maximum possible rehabilitation which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, works very well in a large number of

401
cases. It is along that rather difficult razor edge that we try to make the best progress we can.
Mr. Gough: In view of the information that this man was possessed not only of a skeleton key, but possibly also of some form of saw, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us how often thorough searches are carried out both of the men themselves and of the rooms in which they live?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am awaiting that information, as part of the expected contents of the full and detailed report from the Medical Superintendent to the Board of Control.

ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1956–57
Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Army and Air grants for the year ended 31st March, 1957, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Tuesday next.
Appropriation Accounts for the Army and Air Departments [presented 27th January] referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Heath.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—
Class III, Vote 15 (Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services))
Class III, Vote 16 (Police, Scotland)
Class III, Vote 17 (Prisons, Scotland)
Class III, Vote 19 (Fire Services, Scotland).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with Safeguards for the Consumer, namely:—

    Civil Estimates, 1958–59

    £

    Class VI, Vote 1 (Board of Trade)

    10

    Class VI, Vote 8 (Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements)

    10

    Class V, Vote 4 (Ministry of Health)

    10

    Class VIII, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

    10

    Class V, Vote 10 (Department of Health for Scotland)

    10

    Total

    £50

  CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: When the present Home Secretary delighted the Conservative Party Conference in 1954 by saying that he saw no reason why we should not double our standard of living in the next twenty-five years, cynics on this side of the Committee suggested that the right hon. Gentleman had possibly been misreported and that "cost of living" was what he said and not "standard of living". For the sake of the right hon. Gentleman's reputation as a prophet, I hope that the cynics were correct, because the Government have made better progress towards doubling the cost of living than they have towards doubling the standard of living since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: That is not true.
  Mr. Greenwood: If we were to double the standard of living in twenty-five years it would involve a cumulative increase in industrial production of 3 per cent. per

  403
  annum, whereas, since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, the cumulative increase has been only 1½ per cent. per annum. That the Government have made much better progress towards doubling the cost of living is shown by the fact that what cost £1 when the Labour Government went out of office would cost 26s. today. At that rate, a Tory Government would more than double the cost of living in twenty-five years.
  Mr. Osborne: Is not the hon. Member making the most astonishing accusations against my party? Will he not now give the figures of consumption of basic foodstuffs in 1952, and the comparative figures for today?
  Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that only the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is astonished. Nobody on this side of the Committee has been astonished. I have given the facts and figures which are relevant to the speech which the present Home Secretary made in 1954.
  The Government's achievement is the more surprising when we remember the drop in raw material prices that has taken place over that period. The latest figures, given in International Financial Statistics for June, 1958, issued by the International Monetary Fund, show that, since the present Government took office, import prices have dropped from 112 points in 1951 to 106 in 1957. Over the same period—perhaps this will satisfy the hon. Member for Louth—wholesale prices have risen from 100 to 112 points. It is clear that the Government have not yet succeeded in ensuring that housewives get the benefit of any changes in world prices.
  It is true that the cost of living fluctuates slightly from month to month and that there has been no sudden increase, but, nevertheless, the increase is a steady one. The Index of Retail Prices, for example, was 102·5 for May, 1956. It was 104·6 in May, 1957. And it was 109·2 in May, 1958. The Observer of 15th June pointed out that although there had been no sudden acceleration in the rise in the cost of living recently there was no mistaking its continued upward trend.
  In those circumstances, we believe that wise buying, guarantees of quality, and
  404
  safeguards for the consumer are especially necessary when the value of money is steadily falling. The Labour Party will publish, on 20th July, our "Plan for Progress", which will detail our plans for expanding the economy, increasing production, raising the standard of living, and securing reasonably stable prices. It will also set out those safeguards which we believe to be necessary for consumers. Lest the Press should overlook those points, in favour of our more basic economic proposals, I propose to outline the safeguards for the consumer very briefly this afternoon.
  We propose quality labelling of all goods which reach a reasonable quality standard, and effective descriptive labelling of goods, giving information of their composition and performance. We say that where safety or health is involved, as in the case of electrical equipment or children's footwear, the production of goods below a proper standard should be prohibited. We declare that we shall tighten up the hire-purchase Acts to prevent the present exorbitant rates of interest. And we shall implement the Hodgson Report, on which the President of the Board of Trade has now been sitting for the past seven years.
  We call for a real drive to ensure clean food. And we emphasise the need for informing and instructing the public about its rights and about where information as to the quality of goods can be obtained. In these proposals we are resuming the work of the last Labour Government in protecting the consumer. I do not want to weary the Committee with going into too much detail about the ways in which the last Labour Government protected the consumer, but I would emphasise particularly the maintenance and development of the Utility scheme, and the establishment of consumers' councils in nationalised industries. In the light of that record we believe that we are entitled to ask how the Government are dealing with the problem.
  As a start, I want to stress what I believe all hon. Members would agree with, that the quality of British goods is generally high, but that in some respects it could be higher still; that most manufacturers and tradesmen are men of responsibility and integrity, but that there are bad ones as well. It is against the latter that we wish to safeguard the public.

  405
  The first point I want to put to the Government is this. What progress is being made in the matter of monopolies and restrictive practices? I touch on this matter very briefly, because I hope that some of my hon. Friends will deal with it more fully in the course of the debate. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I presume, is to reply, what the Government are doing about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the Supply of Electronic Valves and Cathode Ray Tubes. It was signed in September, 1956, and it is not at all clear yet whether the Government are proposing to take steps to deal with the serious situation that that Report revealed.
  On restrictive practices, all we know about the immediate future is that the Lord Chancellor announced at the beginning of May that what he called three "heavy and important cases" are to be heard by the Restrictive Practices Court in the Michaelmas term, presumably after October. But there are 40 other cases which the Registrar has said he is proposing to refer to the Court. Could we be told by the Government about the sort of programme that they have in mind, and how long it will take the Court to deal with all the cases which are being brought to its attention?
  One racket that I want to stress this afternoon is the hire-purchase racket. It is true that, thanks to the enterprise of private Members, notably the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, the worst abuses of hire purchase have been mitigated by the Hire-Purchase Acts of 1938 and 1954 and by the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, which the House passed last year. What is the Board of Trade doing, by persuasion or in any other way, to end the remaining abuses?
  I will give the Committee an example of what I have in mind. Many hire-purchase advertisements still state that the finance charge for hire purchase is, for example, only 10 per cent. per annum, but the amount advanced is constantly being reduced as payments take place. What is announced as a 10 per cent. finance charge on a £100 advance over two years is, in effect, a finance charge of 18½ per cent. There is no doubt that many people sign hire-purchase agreements under a complete misapprehension.
  406
  I was shocked to find that the finance charge for small advances of, for example, £15 varies from 28 per cent. for a one-year agreement to as much as 50 per cent. for a three-year agreement. When we remember that last year £150 million worth of furniture and furnishings were sold on hire purchase, and that the average family today carries a hire-purchase debt of £40, we begin to realise the importance of this problem and the need to protect the consumer against those who misuse the system.
  I turn now to the rather difficult question of quality standards. When the Government wound up the Utility scheme in March, 1952, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) emphasised that in ending the old scheme the Government must provide a safeguard for the future. He said that he had discussed it with the British Standards Institution, and then used these words:
  "The Institution have agreed to establish a range of British Standards … specifications for the purpose. I have received assurances from a number of trade bodies that they will at once proceed to devise with this Institution specifications based on those Utility specifications which provide some guarantee of quality or performance for the consumer.
  In particular, the cotton industry have told me that they propose within a few weeks to deal in this way with the most popular specifications, which cover a wide range of cotton cloths and household textiles up to about 75 per cent. of the trade in those particular types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1584.]
  The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, promised the cotton industry would do this within a flatter of weeks and the following year, twenty months later, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) tabled a Question to the right hon. Gentleman to which he replied:
  "A standard for tickings for domestic bedding was published on 6th October. Apart from this, the cotton industry has not found it possible to devise agreed standards based on utility specifications as originally proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1119.]
  The general progress with the working out of this scheme has been deplorably slow. The right hon. Member for Monmouth was infinitely more successful in his rôle of Lancashire's hangman than in his self-appointed rôle of St. George defending the British housewife because, outside furniture and bedding, only a

  407
  very limited section of goods bears the Kite mark and the value of the Kite mark itself is very doubtful.
  I want to remind the Committee of the weaknesses of the Kite mark scheme. First, these marks do not state what they are certifying. There is no quality grading on the Kite mark. They give no indication of whether or not there is value for money. As they indicate only a minimum standard, many—probably most—of the best manufacturers refuse to use a Kite mark.
  It is perfectly true that some inspection and testing takes place, but I submit to the Committee that the value of the Kite mark is best illustrated by the case which was decided at the Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court, in April, about the sale of pillows. Here I would emphasise that on the back of "Shoppers' Guide", published by the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, we find a description of the value of the Kite mark, which says, under the heading "Pillows":
  "The Kite mark means there is no skimping the amount of filling, and when labelled 'down' or 'feathers' you will find just that inside. The tick has to be strong and feather-proof."
  It was disclosed in the course of the proceedings at Marlborough Street, in April, that the Retail Trading-Standards Association had caused three pillows marked with the Kite mark to be purchased in a London store. All three pillows bore labels claiming that the feather fillings conformed to Kite mark standards of cleanliness, which call for a maximum total of extracted matter of 2 per cent. In fact, the three pillows contained an average of 3·7 per cent., 3·9 per cent. and 3·1 per cent. respectively. The magistrate awarded 500 guineas costs against the company concerned.
  The Economist commented on the case by pointing out that apparently the British Standards Institution had no hint of the impending prosecution until the writ was issued, and the article ended by saying:
  "So the B.S.I. is in the undignified position of having its barking done for it by another watchdog."
  I think that we should give credit to the fact that trade and industry have bodies like the Retail Trading-Standards Asso-
  408
  ciation and the Trades Advisory Council, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) has been associated for some time. They are bodies to which industry subscribes and which are prepared to take vigorous action to protect the public against unethical trading.
  The failure of industry to agree standards is a serious failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who has been most assiduous in pursuing the Parliamentary Secretary on these matters, elicited from him recently the fact that deadlock had been reached in respect of children's footwear. It is quite clear that while perhaps deadlock has not been reached with reference to other goods, progress is dismally slow. Moreover, when standards are agreed they are not necessarily applied by the industries concerned.
  I say bluntly to the Board of Trade—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey this criticism to his right hon. Friend, whose absence this afternoon we find it difficult to understand—that there are those in this Committee and in industry as a whole who believe that some industries will not "pull their socks up" and enforce standards so long as the President of the Board of Trade continues to insist that he has no intention of resorting to compulsion. So long as the right hon. Gentleman emphasises that, he cuts the ground from under his own feet in any negotiations. Many of us feel that the President of the Board of Trade has yet to convince the House that tact and discretion are included among his no doubt very numerous and very great qualities.
  We are entitled to assume that the Government regard their present powers as adequate, except, of course, in the case of the Hodgson Report. We have been promised on numerous occasions that the Government would implement that Report, and the last time the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the matter he said that the Government would implement it when time permitted. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that many people throughout the country will regard it as a great pity that the Government found time to introduce a Bill protecting the landlords, but could not find time to introduce a Bill protecting consumers and housewives.

  409
  In the meantime, even if the Government cannot find time for a full-scale weights and measures Bill, could they not introduce regulations which would make the fullest use of their existing powers? I hope that in response to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this is the intention of the Government, because we cannot wait very much longer for the implementation of the Report of the Hodgson Committee.
  I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, too, whether the Board of Trade is trying, by persuasion or in any other way, to get effective labelling, quality labelling or accurate labelling of goods. I say "by persuasion or in any other way," because I know that the powers of the Government are limited in that respect. At present, the Merchandise Marks Act is very far from clear, and after the last one had been passed, Mr. H. Fletcher Moulton and Mr. P. G. Langdon Davies, writing in "The Law of Merchandise Marks", commented:
  "The new law does nothing to remove the uncertainties and obscurities of the earlier Acts."
  The present Lord Chief Justice had on a number of occasions, I believe, commented on the ambiguity of the Merchandise Marks Act.
  This is clearly a sphere in which positive action is needed from the Board of Trade. I wear what are called "drip dry shirts", which are labelled, "You need not iron." Up to a point that is true. It is also true that I need not clean my shoes or brush my hair, but both my shoes and my hair look, I hope, infinitely better if I do. Equally, the shirts I need not iron look infinitely better when an iron has been applied.
  On Saturday afternoon, in the light of this debate today, I did rather more shopping than is normally my practice. I bought four tins of talcum powder. I found that only one, Morny's French Fern, indicated the weight on the tin. How easy it is for the other manufacturers to increase the price of their products by reducing the amount of powder in the tin! Obviously, a reduction of approximately 10 per cent. in the amount of powder, which no one could detect unless he weighed the tin, would involve an increase of approximately 10 per cent. in the price of the article.
  410
  I bought four packets of toilet soap and I found that not one of them indicated the weight. My most remarkable experiences, however, were in the case of detergents and breakfast foods. I found that on not one detergent or soap powder packet was any weight shown. Also, there was no indication of whether any potentially harmful substances were included in the powder. I was, however, amazed by the claims which were made for these preparations.
  For example, I found that Daz is described on the packet in this way:
  "For the world's whitest boil. One boil in blue Daz will get your clothes more radiantly white than ever before."
  On another side of the packet it states:
  "It's true! Blue Daz is specially designed to give you the world's whitest wash in just one boil. … Blue Daz for the whitest wash on earth …"
  That is a detergent made by Thomas Hedley, of Newcastle.
  I also bought a packet of Tide, which, I found, bears the slogan, "Tide for the cleanest whites". It also states:
  "Until Tide came in you never had your clothes so clean. … Now today's Tide has even greater cleaning power. A new magic ingredient actually gives your whole wash an extra cleanness. We guarantee you'll see the difference."
  Strangely enough, Tide is also made by Thomas Hedley, of Newcastle.
  I also bought a packet of soap powder which is called Fairy Snow, on which I read:
  "Fairy Snow is unbeatable for whitness—it gives you white, white clothes—whiter clothes than you would have thought possible."
  On another part of the packet it states:
  "Fairy Snow gives you the whitest, brightest wash you've ever known!"
  I should add that Fairy Snow is made, believe it or not, by Thomas Hedley, of Newcastle.
  Omo, on the other hand, which is made by Hudson and Knight, "Adds brightness to whiteness" and the packet states:
  "You'll see! The moment your first Omo-bright wash goes up on the line. Never, never have whites been so bright, bright, BRIGHT. They put ordinary whiteness completely in the shade!"
  And everybody knows, of course, that "There's no whiteness like Surf whiteness". Surf is made by Levers.

  411
  It is obvious that at least one of those detergents is making an exaggerated claim. They cannot all be right in claiming that each of them produces the whitest wash on earth, and yet I have no doubt that there are many people who are deceived by this detergent advertising, just as at election times, unfortunately, they are deceived by propaganda from the party opposite.
  In the case of breakfast foods, I was surprised by the free presents and bonus schemes which are operating. For example, I learned that in a packet of Cubs I would find "an exciting plastic scale model aircraft." The packet read, "Start collecting your own air fleet today." That is quite a tip for the Minister of Defence.
  Now, Cornflakes I found to be most generous. On one side of the packet I found that I could "win a 14-day holiday in America." On another side I found that there was a silverware offer of a fish knife and fork for
  "… only 6-plus 4 Silverware Tokens from Kellog's' packets."
  On the back I found that if I was a "kid" I could get a—
  "9-inch build-it-yourself model of the Pan-Am jet clipper."
  Shreddies make three staggering offers. There is the offer of an exciting new space wheel that really flies! There is an offer of
  "Stainless steel tableware at a special price 3 Dessert Spoons for only 4/11 and 6 tokens."
  The most interesting offer of all, I think, is an "Amazing, inflatable cushion bag" which is "Yours for only 2/9." It is a cushion bag which inflates so that people can sit on it; it might be a tremendous boon to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious about their seats.
  If these offers are genuine, and no doubt they are, somebody has to pay for them. Without these schemes, and without the monster advertising by many of these firms on television and in the Press, there is no doubt that the price of many of these articles could be reduced substantially.
  I do not think that I should conclude without paying tribute to those organisations which are now defending the consumers. First, there is the Co-operative movement, which is a consumers' democracy, and which has recently appointed
  412
  a special lecturer in consumer protection. Then there are two organisations, the Consumers' Advisory Council, which produces the "Shoppers' Guide" and the Association for Consumer Research, which produces "Which?". I find the latter a good deal less inhibited, a good deal more astringent and a good deal more helpful than the rather more officially minded "Shoppers' Guide", but I think that through all these organisations and the publications for which they are responsible we are at last catching up with the United States, Canada and Scandinavia.
  The weakness of these publications is that both of them cost 10s. a year, and they are, therefore, unlikely to go into the homes which, perhaps, most need guidance on how best to spend the money which is available. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary what steps his right hon. Friend is taking to make the information they contain available to the general public through libraries, through post offices and through shops, and to inform the public on this whole issue through the schools, through the Central Office of Information, and by radio and television.
  Let us, however, never forget that ultimately the most effective protector of the public is Parliament itself. If we are vigilant and persistent, as many of my hon. Friends have been in this matter, we can uncover abuses and we can press for reforms and for amendment. It was in that spirit and in that determination that we asked for this debate today. Unless the Government are able to satisfy us that they are doing their utmost to face the responsibilities which Parliament has conferred upon them, we shall find it necessary to divide the Committee.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Hurd: We are very grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for opening this debate in such an entertaining way. We have greatly enjoyed his speech. We should be not so delighted if it were all true. The hon. Gentleman painted a very gloomy picture of the downtrodden consumers. I do not find housewives downtrodden or submissive at all. When I go shopping I keep my eyes about me, and my wife keeps her eyes about her, too. She gets good value, as the other people do, who shop in the places where we do

  413
  our shopping. Of course, it is great fun, as the hon. Gentleman did, to trot out all the advertising gadgets which are part and parcel of large-scale marketing today.
  I do not want to do that, but to consider some fundamentals. I shall speak about one side of the business of providing what consumers need, a side that I happen to know something about—the food production side. I should like the Committee to take note of what our own farmers are achieving in meeting the needs of consumers. It is vital that they should and that they should make even more progress than they have hitherto. This is a competitive age. We do not have bulk buying by the Government in a Conservative régime. We have to stand on our feet and are judged by the quality and the reputation for value of what we produce and have to sell.
  There are two products which are particularly delicate, particularly open to abuse and to deterioration if not properly handled. One is milk and the other eggs. We can take credit, whether we are producers or distributors of milk, for the fact that today we are turning out a first-quality product with the least possible risk of disease or contamination attached to it. It requires a great deal of care on the farms, and in the depots where the milk is first treated and also, of course, at the retail point; and, indeed, all the way to the housewife's doorstep. It is rarely today that we hear of a housewife complaining about the quality of the milk which is provided. As soon as 1960 we shall have the whole country clear of what has been a bad scourge for cattle and human beings, bovine tuberculosis. That is a great advance in which all of us in this Committee and in the farming community and veterinary profession can find real satisfaction.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: Is not the advance really due to two factors, first, to the Co-operative movement, which led the way for a clean milk supply, and, secondly, the Government, who themselves have accepted a great amount of responsibility for making sure that there is the necessary protection for the consumer in getting a good, healthy, clean milk supply?
  Mr. Hurd: The Co-operative movement has played its part, but ii is a quite small operator in the milk business.
  Mrs. Slater: Nonsense.
  Mr. John Stonehouse rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Let me finish. I know the facts. There happens to be a co-operative depot not far from where I live, and there also happens to be a Milk Marketing Board one, and big creamery units of the United Dairies and other private enterprise firms.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the Government's part. I agree. I have said that all of us in this Committee, where we have some say in what Governments do over a period of years, can take our full share of the credit for the lead which Governments have given, and for the full co-operation with which the producers also have answered it. Whether we are speaking for the Co-operative movement, or whether we are farmers, we can all take credit for the advance which has been made. We have made great progress with our milk supply. It compares well in quality and freshness and soundness with that of any other country in the world.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has got the facts completely wrong? The Co-operative movement distributes 35 per cent. of the country's milk supply, and that proportion has increased in the last twenty years.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I was talking about getting milk from the farms. It is that end of the line which decides whether the milk is clear of tuberculous infection or not. It is not what happens in the retail shop.
  We have made great progress, too, in providing consumers with fresh, reliable quality eggs. Perhaps the British Egg Marketing Board was too forthcoming with some of its publicity to start with. Be that as it may, we are producing a really top quality product. I was impressed last week at the Royal Show, at Bristol, to find the British Egg Marketing Board devoting much of its demonstration to showing farmers and their wives how vitally important it is to handle eggs aright from the start to protect them from contamination or deterioration which can all too easily affect eggs.
  It was stressed how important it is to keep the hen from fouling the nest if we

  415
  want clean eggs. A demonstration under ultra-violet light showed the horrified spectator what happens when dirty eggs are washed. The dirt in the solution smeared over the shell will spoil the keeping quality.
  This is just one advance which producers, packing stations and wholesalers are pursuing which will add to the reputation of our home produce. I am glad to think that now over 90 per cent. of the eggs consumed in this country are home produced. We have no need to-day for further regulations by Government, whether comprised of the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, to safeguard consumers. The producers are doing this job and doing it as it should be done, because it is good business to provide what the housewives want.
  I would say a word about the public being misled by descriptions of food. I am not at all happy about the scope which the ingenious advertiser and marketeer can use when he is selling a product which is a substitute for a dairy product. I am thinking, at the moment, not so much of butter as ice cream. One can buy a choc-bar today in a silver packet, with the word "milk" repeatedly written down the centre of the wrapping. I do not think that that ice cream has any milk in it at all. It is merely a milk chocolate coating that is taken to justify the label "milk". I hope that when the time comes—and it should not be long now—for us to look again at the Food Regulations, we shall make quite sure that if a foodstuff purports to be a dairy product—for instance, ice cream—it shall have genuine dairy produce in it and shall not contain a substitute product.
  The substitute may be good stuff, such as vegetable oils—there is no harm in them—but the product is not what it purports to be. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture examines the regulations again, I hope that he will keep much in mind the need for the public to know quite clearly, by the labelling and the advertising, just what they are buying. Otherwise, it is fair neither to the housewife nor to the dairy producer.
  In conclusion, I want again to stress that many of us—certainly those in one producing industry which has direct contact with consumers—are doing our
  416
  utmost to safeguard the consumers' interests. This is not because it would be against the law if we did not, but because it is common decency and good business to do so.
  4.21 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I often find it difficult to agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), although I assure him that it is for no lack of good will on my part, but I can now accord him a measure of agreement with what he has just said. I willingly admit that we can be overenthusiastic in seeking to safeguard the consumers. We should realise that when people shop they enjoy using their own judgment, and we should not seek unnecessarily to inhibit people doing that when we are seeking to save them from themselves. I also think that a nation that spends so much of its time filling in football pools must also contain an element of gambling, and we must recognise that when some people shop they gamble, even when they buy shoddy goods.
  Having said that, and accepting that salutary caution, there are three objectives that we can quite properly seek to attain. The first is to reduce the cost of distribution, because we all pay for it and, moveover, it may mean a diversion of our national resources that the nation cannot afford. Secondly, we are entitled to protect ourselves against avoidable danger. Thirdly, we are entitled to give ourselves guidance when we go shopping.
  As I have said, we should not, unless there is an element of danger, necessarily prevent people from selling shoddy goods, but we should make the sellers of those goods reveal the fact that they are shoddy. We should seek to ensure an element of fair play between shopper and shopkeeper.
  Dealing, first, with the cost of distribution, which has affected the cost of living, I make these two points about foodstuffs, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We have a considerable and welcome extension of the pre-packaging of foodstuffs. That has to be paid for in the final price. That being so, we are entitled to drive for greater efficiency in distribution to cover the increased costs. The second factor—
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Our usual safeguard used to be that the grocer took the time to put the poke on the scale and weigh it out in front of the customer. We have been told for years that the quick way, and the cheap way, is to run it along an assembly line in packaging it. Are we now to be told that that is actually a more expensive way?
  Mr. Willey: No. I was saying that the prepacked article costs more than the article that is not prepacked. Therefore, there is a burden on the distributive industry to be more efficient, as my hon. Friend has indicated, in order to cover that cost, and, if we are to have pre-packing, we are entitled to new forms of distribution, such as the self-service shops.
  My other point is that during the war, as we all know, the retail margins for foodstuffs were very tight indeed. We also know that since decontrol there has been a considerable increase of the margins. We do not know what that increase is, but I think we are entitled to some reply about it from the Government. If they cannot give that reply, we are entitled to expect them to take steps to find out what that increase is. As I say, we suspect that there has been a considerable increase in the margins. There is no real justification for it because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are very anxious to point out, there has been an increase in through-put, so there should not have been such a substantial increase in the margins at the same time.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Utility products. I do not think we should exaggerate what we can do by way of Utility production, but we should recognise—and I hope that the Government will—that there are some things we can do. Backed by Government orders ensuring long runs, we might get cheaper blankets, cheaper children's clothing and shoes. That sort of commodity might well be provided much more cheaply. And I say this about standards. It is not only a question of providing better standards, but the standards themselves should provide a more efficient means of production. We should press for them, not only to get the standards themselves improved, but also to get cheaper goods.
  My hon. Friend referred to advertising. I say at once that I have no objection to
  418
  flamboyant advertising. I am one of the few Members who travel by Tube, and I enjoy the contribution that advertising makes to the journey. I enjoy flamboyant advertising. I do not think that it really deceives anyone.
  My objection to advertising concerns something much more important. Advertising is a very heavy on-cost on distribution. That on-cost is far too great, and we cannot overlook it. Again, in the United States they are finding that advertising is also affecting the national economy. It is not the actual needs of the people that are shaping the economy, but advertising which is dictating the needs of the people, creating the needs of the people, and affecting the whole national economy.
  In this country we are living on such a tight economy that we cannot afford to allow that to happen. For that reason if for no other, we have to look very carefully at the new demands created by advertising and see how far they are socially necessary. In so far as it affects foodstuffs, I would say we should also see how far they are desirable nutritionally, and how far, in fact, they are going against higher nutritional standards.
  The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned ice cream. I am not particularly upset by the description of what we now consume as ice cream as ice cream, but what I am concerned about is increasing the consumption of liquid milk. This is a legitimate concern. Knowing the milk production difficulties that farmers have been in over the last few years, it is quite legitimate that we should encourage greater consumption of milk through the medium of ice cream. The Government should have the courage to recognise that that it is desirable, now that we no longer have to rely on vegetable oils for the production of icecream to encourage consumption of milk through this medium.
  So much for the cost of distribution. I turn, now, to protection. In retrospect, I believe that one of the appalling factors of our present civilisation will be the little regard we pay to the individual. We have the terrible toll on the roads, yet how little impact it has made on public conscience. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and others have repeatedly called

  419
  attention to the frightful toll of household accidents, yet what little impact that toll has had on the general public and on the manufacturers. We are entitled to be assured that all avoidable dangers will be avoided. We ought to be much more vigorous in ensuring this.
  I should like to refer to detergents. My recollection is that when we had a catering trade working party it was suggested that there should be a committee set up to supervise the development of detergents. I should like to know what is to be done about that, because there are inherent dangers in the continued use of detergents. We are entitled to know whether we are properly safeguarded in using them.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the departmental committee reported on the effects of detergents and made it clear that there were great dangers to sewage disposal and sanitation works, even though there were some detergent producers on the committee? The Government have had the report about a year now, but nothing or very little has been done about it.
  Mr. Willey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I share his anxiety. Whether or not we have grounds for feeling this anxiety, we are entitled to be assured that proper investigation is being made all the time while these new detergents are put on the market.
  The Food and Drugs Act has been in operation for a few years, and it has been of considerable benefit in ensuring clean food, but we still have to provide for the registration of all catering establishments. The Government gave way on this under the pressure of what we then called the "dirty food lobby" and we have now discovered that that is the only effective step we can take to ensure that our restaurants are properly looked after. This is more than a matter of clean food. This is a question of decent standards of life. In fact, if we enforce standards of clean food in restaurants we shall have far better attention and service in them.
  On the question of guidance to shoppers, as I have said, I do not object to shopkeepers selling shoddy goods provided their shoddiness is revealed; then, I think, we shall have fair buying between the shopkeeper and the shopper. Just as
  420
  we had the Food and Drugs Act, we had the Merchandise Marks Act a few years ago, and again in the light of experience we know that this ought to be strengthened.
  Reference has been made to self-service. What self-service means is that there is much greater reliance upon package labelling and description. There is not a friendly shopkeeper between the customer and the packet to advise her to avoid buying a particular commodity in the light of complaints from customers. Therefore, we should pay more serious regard to package labelling.
  I think, too—we argued this on the clean food Bill—that we are entitled to take much stricter measures on questions such as the composition of food. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made fun about the loaf which is sold in Canada which is covered with a wrapping on which is stated the constituents of a loaf of bread, but in fact we know that all sorts of steps are taken in the preparation of foodstuffs which ought to be revealed, so that the appropriate authorities may take steps to assure us whether what we consume is safe and healthy.
  When we buy household goods and take them home, we do not know until we use them whether they are a good buy or not. We should ensure in every sort of way that proper description and labelling is an obligation upon the person who sells durable household goods, such as furniture and so on. In fact, this would be a safeguard to the manufacturer. When we buy clothing, for example, we are told how it should be treated, whether it should be dry-cleaned or washed.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is done in a great many instances in the textile trade, and the habit is growing. It is a very good one.
  Mr. Willey: I know that the habit is growing. I am pleading that we should encourage and press forward with the rapid growth of such habits.
  I have not the time to deal with the many more ways in which we can provide guidance. I should like to mention two cardinal points which arise in a debate of this sort. First, there is a great deal of work to be done. The trouble is that at present much of it is being done

  421
  in a haphazard and piecemeal way. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that there should be a Ministry of Consumer Welfare. That may be a little too ambitious, but we certainly need some effective co-ordination of these methods.
  Mr. George Darling: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who said that this kind of labelling is done by the best firms—a fact with which I agree—surely unscrupulous competitors can copy the labelling and put it on inferior goods. That is the danger.
  Mr. Willey: I can only agree with my hon. Friend and say that this is one of the important factors, that the good manufacturer should not be put at a disadvantage. He should not be made to suffer unfair competition.
  The second factor which emerges from a debate such as this is that the Government lack the drive, initiative and vigour to deal with this problem. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade of one or two things which have happened under this Government. We have had the clean food Bill and we had the sell-out in another place. That was merely being weak-kneed in the light of representations from sectional interests. As some of my hon. Friends know, we went through exactly the same experience on the Slaughterhouses Bill, the Government again giving way to sectional interests. That, of course, is not surprising from the party opposite. What we want is not a weak-kneed approach in the light of sectional lobbies but greater resource, initiative and imagination in providing this service.
  Reference has been made to broadcasting. I should like the B.B.C. to retaliate against commercial advertising by giving a good consumer service on the B.B.C. I would like people to turn from commercial television to the B.B.C. for consumer advice about the goods which are being advertised on commercial television. I concede at once that when we talk about a vigorous approach, it applies equally to the nationalised industries. I would not pretend that the consumer councils have been entirely satisfactory in the nationalised industries. We must do more. I think that yesterday's debate illustrated that there exists a tenderness towards this matter generally. I believe that some
  422
  hon. Members opposite are now becoming tender towards the nationalised industries because they do not want to encourage individuals to speak up against industries generally.
  Mr. Donald Wade: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he had in mind when he referred to consumer interests being catered for on the B.B.C.? Surely, if he refers to the specific goods which have been advertised on I.T.V., it would merely be another form of advertising; or does he suggest that some alternative goods should be mentioned on the B.B.C.?
  Mr. Willey: I made the point in broad terms. What I would like the B.B.C. to do would be to give time to consumer advice organisations to reach a much wider public.
  Mrs. Mann: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that if the B.B.C. were to give any more time to that purpose there would not be nearly so much time for propagating the Liberal Party point of view, which would be unknown but for the B.B.C.?
  Mr. Willey: If we are to have more time for safeguarding consumers, I would even allow more advertising of the Liberal Party.
  In very different circumstances, the Labour Government tried to ensure fair shares. We are now trying to ensure fair prices and to ensure that the customer gets value for money. I want to do more than that. I want to encourage not only fair prices but decent design and high standards. We are talking about very mundane things, but these are the things which shape our civilisation. I hope that we shall not only encourage the Consumer Advisory Services but use our influence to see that the things which we use in daily life are well designed and pleasant to be with.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will forgive me if do not go along with him in his arguments, but, broadly, I was in agreement with very much of what he said.
  I was very interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in opening the

  423
  debate. The Committee and many consumers will be glad to hear that we are shortly to be told the Labour Party's policy on the protection of the public and consumer standards and the quality labelling of all goods which reach reasonable standards. It is very difficult to determine exactly where a reasonable standard ends and an unreasonable standard begins. It is all a question of the price range which the public wish to pay and are able to pay.
  I hope that before it produces this policy document the Labour Party will have considered all those points. I hope that when it puts this policy forward it will advise the public, who are not to be the arbiters of what is reasonable and what is not. It is a very interesting subject, to which we all attach great importance.
  I understand that the Labour Party state that in the production of children's goods the manufacture of any goods below a certain standard will be prohibited. I hope that in saying that hon. Members opposite will not deny the opportunity to many poor people who want to buy garments for children which, perhaps, will not last long, and who do so because their children are growing rapidly. All those things must be taken into consideration.
  We know that there has been vigilance by some back-bench hon. Members opposite on consumer standards in the last few years, but there has been equal vigilance on this side of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was at one time Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government, and he will remember that since I entered the House in 1950 I have spoken on these subjects on many occasions. Although hon. Members opposite have not admitted it today, I hope to be able to show that much more has been done by this Government to ensure the standards of goods than was done by the Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North shakes his head, but he will have an opportunity of listening to what happened when the Labour Party had this job to do and what has happened since.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the hon. Member tell us how many Questions he or anyone else has asked,
  424
  for instance, about the Hodgson Committee's proposals in the last year?
  Mr. Burden: No, I cannot answer that off-hand, but I will read in a moment a quotation from the last Merchandise Marks Act. It was I who proposed the Amendment which gave force to the Act and which has been the basis of many prosecutions which have taken place since. That is some measure of the success that I have had in endeavouring to protect the public.
  Mr. Norman Dodds Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford) rose—
  Mr. Burden: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way at this stage. I have not yet made the quotation. The problem of the Labour Party and of the way in which it intends to fix the standard of goods and to decide how those standards shall be determined is not made easier by the movement towards European free trade. It might create difficulty, and I hope that in the preparation of future policy the Labour Party will ensure that it does not cause considerably greater difficulty in bringing about the trade fusion which we all believe to be in the best interests of our countries.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North shook his head when I said that much more had been done since the present Government came into power to preserve the public from exploitation by unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers than was done by the Labour Government. Let me read what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said about wool cloth on 10th February, 1949, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "… woven wool cloth is material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of wool or animal fibre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 510.]
  It did not have to be wool as we know it; it could be any animal fibre and yet could still be described as wool cloth, provided that it contained not less than 15 per cent. of wool or animal fibre in its make-up.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could the hon. Member say in what context my right hon. Friend made that remark?
  Mr. Burden: He was answering a question about what should rightly be described as wool cloth.
  Mr. Osborne: It was the Socialist standard.
  Mr. Burden: It was the standard set by the Labour Government. I have not yet finished with quotations from remarks by the right hon. Member for Huyton about wool cloth. On 24th March, 1949, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "… the term 'wool cloth' should not be used in Statutory Instruments, to refer to any cloth containing more than 15 per cent. of wool …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 46.]
  Thus on one occasion he said that a cloth can be called wool cloth if it contains not less than 15 per cent. of wool. If it contains 85 per cent. of cotton and 15 per cent. wool it can be called wool cloth. Later, however, the right hon. Gentleman went further and said, in effect, that it need not have any wool in it at all and could still be described as wool cloth. Those are facts which must be borne in mind when hon. Members opposite make strictures on this party about consumer standards. We are quite prepared to accept them, but it seems to me that they must accept responsibility for their own actions when they were the Government of the country.
  Mr. Coldrick: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was replying in 1949 surely he was merely giving information about the standards which had been laid down by the Coalition Government. They had not been changed.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. This was four years after the Labour Government had come to power—four years during which they had been responsible. They must accept responsibility for those four years after the advent of Socialism and the end of the war.
  Sir L. Plummer Sir L. Plummer rose—
  Mr. Burden: I have given way twice and I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I now proceed. I shall be happy to give way a little later, but I hope that I may be allowed to continue for a while with my speech.
  In the standards of retail practice—which is probably the basis of attack today—the Socialists now claim that
  426
  wool cloth should be a cloth containing not less than 90 per cent. wool. I am a clothing manufacturer and interested in these descriptions. I came back from the war and found cloth described as wool—after the advent of the party opposite in Government—that had so much fibre in it that one could push a finger through the cloth without any difficulty. On 14th December, 1950, the right hon. Member for Huyton was asked whether he would ensure
  "that utility wool cloth made partly from fibre and any garments made therefrom are clearly marked with the composition of the cloth."
  He replied:
  "No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1326.]
  If it is right for hon. Members on both sides today to demand that cloth shall bear the composition, then it was equally right in 1950. The Parliamentary Secretary of those days, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), in replying to the then Member for Totnes, said:
  "I am hoping that it will be possible some time in the future to define 'wool cloth' a little better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th December. 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1297.]
  That is the sum total of what was done by the party opposite. They were pressed by Members of my party to label the goods so that there should be no possibility of the consuming public misunderstanding. I can appreciate the difficulty that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was in, because he is a cloth manufacturer. He was torn between his duty to the party opposite as a Parliamentary Secretary and his honesty and desire as a woollen manufacturer to ensure that wool cloth should be properly described.
  In his reply to which I referred a moment ago on the question of description, the right hon. Member for Huyton said that the prevailing description of cloth had proved satisfactory. How could it be satisfactory to describe as a wool cloth one that could contain only 15 per cent. of wool?
  I know that all hon. Members regret these things. We should like to see a better description given to these goods, but hon. Members opposite should not argue with their tongue in their cheek and say that the Conservative Party is

  427
  guilty while they are completely whitewashed over these things. Hon. Members opposite really did mislead the public over a long period.
  The Retail Trading Standards Association is an organisation that has often been quoted by hon. Members on both sides. It is an organisation that has been set up by the big retail stores. Its governing body comprises directors and executives of those big retail stores, but it has an independent operation. It is provided with funds by stores and retailers, but its function is to ensure that the public are not misled by descriptions and that dishonesty in description by retailers is at once prosecuted to the utmost degree by the association.
  It has done much good work. I think it should be made clear that it is an organisation that was founded by retailers in order to ensure that the public get a square deal. That cannot be stressed too strongly. It proves that the vast majority of traders in this country are highly reputable people and are determined to give the public good value, and a square deal. It is doing its utmost to ensure that the black sheep are exposed and dealt with by the courts of law.
  The association in its booklet says:
  "In all other cases other than that of sheep's wool"—
  and this is in direct contradiction to what the right hon. Member for Huyton said when he was at the Board of Trade—
  "it is recommended that the word 'wool' should be abandoned and the material be known by the name of the fleece from which it is made."
  I think there would be no quarrel with that, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite would support it. I am also certain that the hon. Member for Rossendale would do his utmost at all times to ensure that a label is affixed now that he is a Member of the Opposition—and I hope he will remain in Opposition for a long time—and not called upon to make these decisions.
  In the last two years of the Socialist Government, there were a series of debates criticising the fall in quality of Utility merchandise. We all know about that fall, and the then Government's attitude to wool cloth—and, frankly, there was no standard of quality for wool
  428
  cloth during the whole of the time of the Labour Government—was one of the reasons for that decline. The word "worsted", which traditionally has been known to define a certain quality of wool from this country which contained at least 90 per cent. wool, was permitted under the party opposite to include in its make-up increasing quantities of cotton. That was a very bad thing for the worsted manufacturers of this country and throughout the world. A great deal of damage was done to many of our manufacturers during those times of shortage. When foreigners wanted to buy it they thought that it was what it had always traditionally been known to be.
  Prayers were moved by hon. Members who were in Opposition, including the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), and myself, about these falls in quality, but nothing very much was done. One hon. Member opposite, who has campaigned very forcefully about standards in cloth, really gave the answer in a series of articles. I think they were written by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry. South (Miss Burton). She has campaigned very strongly and with great credit, as has the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), although I disagreed with her most strongly in her remarks about Purchase Tax. Both hon. Ladies have campaigned quite nobly in the interest of consumer goods. But so have Members on all sides of the Committee; let us be honest about it. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie supported the chief culprit, the right hon. Member for Huyton, when he was President of the Board of Trade. I wish that she had objected as strongly and as often then as she has since.
  Mrs. Slater: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) was not in the House.
  Mr. Burden: I am referring to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. She was in the House then.
  Mrs. Mann: I am here in the flesh to reply, and I can say that we had the Utility standard and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who is not here today, has constantly asked for a minimum standard.
  Mr. Burden: Yes; I am coming to that in a moment. I was charging the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that she acquiesced with these loose descriptions when she was supporting the Labour Government, but now she is objecting most strongly. Of course, I had hoped that she would object as strongly when she was supporting the Government as she does now.
  The Merchandise Marks Act was passed by the Conservative Government and I had the privilege of proposing the Amendment which put meat into it.
  Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Member is too modest.
  Mr. Burden: It is not a question of modesty. The hon. Member laughs, but he will know that there is a good deal in his career about which he might have been a little more modest—ground-nuts, for instance. I have never been engaged in such a failure as that.
  Sir L. Plummer: I do not know on what the hon. Member bases his remarks concerning my past career. If he says that he has never had such a failure, he cannot be listening to himself speaking this afternoon.
  Mr. Burden: From the hon. Member's past record, he is the last person whom I should ask whether what I was doing was a success or failure.
  Section 1 (1) of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, states that Section 3 of the 1887 Act
  "shall be amended by inserting after paragraph (a)—
  "(aa) as to the standard of quality of any goods according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade, or
  (ab) as to the fitness or purpose, strength, performance or behaviour of any goods …'."
  It goes on to deal with the question of misdirection in advertisements, and so on. It is through that Act and that Section that a great many of the prosecutions have taken place since 1953.
  As for a comparison between what has happened since the present Government have been in office and what happened under the former Government, I can do no better than quote briefly from articles written by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, whose absence today we all regret. In "Housewives' Choice",
  430
  written in the first of three articles in the Daily Herald, the hon. Lady said:
  "Before"—
  that was, before the advent of the Merchandise Marks Act—
  "it was possible for a manufacturer to sell dresses as fadeless, raincoats as waterproof, fabrics as washable, when these claims were false."
  All that was legal during the five years in office of the party opposite, which took no measures whatever to stop it. It remained for a Tory Government to amend the earlier Merchandise Marks Act to stop all that. In the hon. Lady's own words, this is what the present Government have done.
  The hon. Lady went on to say:
  "By now the overboosting of goods and the printing of misleading descriptions should have been stopped. That was the idea of the law anyway. For instance, you can no longer call an article with a small percentage of nylon in it 'nylon and wool'",
  as could be done when the right hon. Member for Huyton was at the Board of Trade. To use the hon. Lady's words,
  "You must call it 'wool and nylon'."
  Equally, if there is a greater percentage of cotton than wool in the make-up of a material, it must always be described by stating first the commodity which has the greatest share in its make-up. In the hon. Lady's words,
  "You cannot call a 'showerproof' coat a 'watenproof'. Textiles are more accurately described. So is furniture in which leather is used only in pant."
  Great strides have been made since the Conservative Party came into power and still more has to be done. We are justified in pointing out that much more has been done by the present Government than was done by the party opposite. It is not right for hon. Members opposite to come here and say that we have done nothing at all. Their own case is completely exploded by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, especially in view of the record of the right hon. Member for Huyton.
  I believe that the play of competition is much more effective than any legislation that any Government may bring forward to improve the quality of merchandise. As I have said, I am engaged in the manufacture of clothing. I have no hesitation in saying that if hon. and right hon. Members, from both sides, looked at the shops today and did some

  431
  shopping, they would find that the quality—at least in the clothing industry, of which I speak with some authority—has certainly increased tremendously during recent years, that prices have dropped considerably and that buyers have been much more selective and are continuing to be much more selective in the merchandise they are buying.
  I am convinced that if trade organisations got together, they would be able to wipe out the occasional black sheep. The broad strata of manufacturers of a great many of our goods are determined to give the best possible value they can and the public will exert every possible influence to ensure that they do. If the buyers are to retain their position and their turnover, they are forced to insist upon good value and good quality in every way. When we talk of the occasional black sheep, we know that they exist not only in the world of commerce, but that even this honourable House of Commons has had an occasional black sheep as well. Those things cannot be guarded against.
  The Board of Trade can at least co-operate with the trade organisations in assisting prosecutions and itself prosecuting where there are considerable violations of the Merchandise Marks Act and of the proper behaviour in commerce. Not only does this apply to the sale of merchandise, but there comes into it also the question of the relations of certain firms with the buying public. I wish to say a word about this and I hope that trade associations will take it up. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows about what I am going to say.
  Recently, in my constituency, I was visited by an elderly widow, who informed me that she could not purchase less than ½lb. of butter from a certain multiple store, which had told her that it was illegal to sell less than that weight. I told my constituent that that was wrong and I telephoned a director of the firm in London. He blandly informed me that what my constituent had told me was correct. I communicated with my hon. Friend about it.
  The position, I understand, is that a shopper may demand whatever weight he wants provided that it is weighed in front of him or, if it is pre-packed, the weight of the contents is clearly marked upon the package. In view of this, I wrote to the firm in question and asked for an
  432
  assurance that if it was the policy of the firm to sell not less than ½lb. of butter, the firm would admit that this was its own policy and was not a Government order. I was given that assurance and undertaking. I consider it very reprehensible that any firm should behave in that way.
  We know that pre-packing is a good thing to ensure cleanliness, but I hope that if firms, for their own convenience, fix their own minimum quantities which exceed the minimum quantities that they are permitted by Statute to sell, they will make it clear that the choice is their own and has nothing to do with any orders from the Government. I make the point because I hope that this sort of behaviour will be stopped. There will, I think, be no further cause for complaint from the firm which I have mentioned and I hope that the butter trade will make it clear to its members that this is not the sort of thing that the counry likes to hear about.
  I am sorry if I have taken quite a long time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) should not be in such haste. He speaks a great deal, and he will have his opportunity. In any case, I understand that there are only two hon. Members on this side of the Committee who wish to speak. I felt that this was a matter of very great seriousness. It is something of which I have had a certain amount of experience, and if I have kept the Committee for rather a long time I hope that, in view of the importance of the debate, I shall be forgiven.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: To avoid the need for the kind of apology which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has just made, may I say that I intended to propose when we had a debate some time ago, out of which we set up a Committee on Procedure, that when back benchers got up to speak they should announce the time when they would sit down, and that if they went on for a longer period, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman should call them to order. I propose to sit down before 5.30. In order that I may get on with the debate without wasting time, I would say to the hon. Member for Gillingham that, by my definition, quotations out of context come under the heading of false labelling.

  433
  Much has been said about quality standards and I think that in regard to manufactured goods this is a problem with which we have to concern ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, it is not so much a matter of establishing quality, although that in itself will be difficult enough, but something has to be done, particularly in the manufacture of textiles from new fibres and the curious mixtures that now come along, to tell the shopper what has gone into the cloth or whatever the manufacture may be, and what its performance will be. I think that it is with the performance that we are primarily concerned.
  Mrs. Slater: How she must use it.
  Mr. Darling: Yes, whether it is washable, whether she has to have it dry cleaned, and so on. So we are faced with the problem of laying down specifications. That will be very difficult indeed, but I do not think that we should run away from this problem. In other industries the British Standards Institution specifications are very important and manufacturers of heavy machinery, engineering equipment and so on take full advantage of the B.S.I. standards and specifications. When they announce to customers in foreign countries that they manufacture to B.S.I. specifications, that is a guarantee of quality. I think that if, in spite of the difficulties which I admit right away, we can get this kind of B.S.I. standard for consumer goods we should be doing a great deal to help the consumers of this country.
  As the hon. Member for Gillingham said in an interjection earlier in the debate, in many of the trades in this field at the moment the best manufacturers are working to good specifications and good standards. I think that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will try to get into the debate and that I shall be in order if I pay tribute to him in this matter—he can correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that he will not correct me on this. I know that he is engaged in the manufacture of high quality goods which carry trade marks, which customers have come to understand are a guarantee of quality. There are other manufacturers doing the same thing. The Co-operative movement's marks are a guarantee of standards.
  I think that we have to concede that the best manufacturers do this on behalf
  434
  of their own trading position, their own reputation and also on behalf of the consumers to protect them from the more unscrupulous competitors whom they have to face. It is no use these days asking the housewife when she goes shopping to judge by appearance the quality of the things which she buys. The hon. Member for Louth knows very well the tricks that go on in his own trade; manufacturers who tease up fibres to give an impression of high quality stuff when, in point of fact, they are weakening something already inferior in quality, and when the housewife washes the dress, the fabric goes into holes right away.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham said that competition will deal with this problem, and that, if there is free competition among manufacturers, traders and shopkeepers, the housewife will be able to choose the high-quality stuff, and the traders will produce that high-quality stuff in competitive business. I have never believed that competition always has had that result. There are always bad people in every competitive society, and I think that good manufacturers, and the public, have to be protected against them. That is one reason why we must try to lay down specifications if we can.
  If there is general agreement that this should be done and that we should try to get specifications for consumer goods, obviously the B.S.I. must have more money and more staff for the job. I believe that in this matter the trade associations, as well as the Government, have an important part to play. I think that, so far as it can be done, it should be the trade associations themselves which should try to lay down the specifications and standards. The B.S.I. is representative of the trade associations that need B.S.I. specifications, and the trade associations are there. I think that some Government money must go into this—some already does but it is admittedly inadequate—and the matter should be looked into.
  We want the best manufacturers in each trade to try to lay down specifications for consumer goods so that customers will know just what they are buying—that is the point—what the stuff is made of, what it will do, what its performance will be and how consumers have to deal with it. It follows that it

  435
  is not only necessary to lay down specifications but to give the public some information in one way or another about the products which it buys.
  The range of products available to the public will become wider and wider, by way of new cloth production, new synthetic fibres and so on. The range of products will get wider and we cannot expect the housewife to be learned and knowledgeable about all the goods which she is called upon to buy. The more information that we can give the housewife, the better.
  We have in many other respects laid down standards. We have had to do it in the food trades in the interests of hygiene and good health, and in such Measures as the Food and Drugs Acts, the Slaughterhouses Act and others, and in prosecuting people who deliberately mislead the public by putting false labelling upon their merchandise. So we have a body of legislation already in existence for the protection of the consumer. As far as I can see this problem in its wider aspects, I do not think that we need much more legislation. I think that we have plenty already if it is properly applied.
  The main problem which we are up against is that no Government Department is primarily interested in this debate. We know very well that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, takes some interest in it, but his interest is a narrow one. It is not concerned with food and drugs and it is not concerned with anything outside the sphere of activities of the Board of Trade. The Vote which we have before us mentions the consumer protection services in five Government Departments, but actually there is a sixth, which I do not suppose could be got in the Vote on this occasion, and that is the Home Office, which is responsible for some parts of the legislation on poisons and for the Shops Act. We have these Government Departments playing about with this problem. I do not think that we can get the standards which we ought to have within our present legislation properly applied, and protection of the consumer properly dealt with, so long as the job is split up between these Government Departments.
  Some time ago some of us proposed that there should be a Ministry to bring
  436
  together these consumer protection sections of the various Departments. We are not adamant about a Ministry in our proposals, but at least there should be a Minister, even if he is only a junior Minister of State inside the Board of Trade. The important thing is that these consumer protection jobs should come together.
  I should like to give an example of the way in which these things work at the moment. Whenever we debate the subject we usually talk about manufactured foodstuffs and manufactured consumer goods, but the problem is wider. There are, for example, the things that gardeners buy. A little while ago a case came to the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the sale of grass seed. The complaint was made by a competitor that there were weeds in the grass seed sold to a buyer as weed-free. When it was examined as a result of the complaint weeds were found to be in the seed. Those who were buying grass seed under the impression that if they threw it on the ground they would have a beautiful lawn without weeds found that they actually had the weeds as well.
  The consumer must be protected in such cases and so must the manufacturer of the good grass seed, but this is such a fiddling little thing for the Ministry of Agriculture. That Ministry is concerned with milk and egg production and all the other great farming activities. The sale of grass seed in little packets to a little man who has a handkerchief of ground which he wants to make into a lawn is something which one would not expect the Ministry of Agriculture to be terribly concerned about. We say, therefore, that matters such as this ought to come within the scope of a Minister or a Department primarily concerned with the protection of the consumer.
  Sir James Duncan: In fact, grass seed is protected by the Seeds Act, 1920. Whenever a farmer buys seed for farming purposes he not only receives a certificate of the nature of the seed mixture but also a guarantee of purity.
  Mr. Darling: That is perfectly true, and the point that I was about to make was that obviously the Minister of Agriculture could have prosecuted under existing legislation but, because this was not the kind of quantity involved or the

  437
  kind of operation in which a farmer engages, the Ministry was not so interested as it would have been in a case concerning a farmer. I believe that is a sound point, and that these consumer protection services should be brought together.
  I will repeat my promise that I will sit down before 5.30 because I wish to emphasise that it is desirable that hon. Members should announce in advance the limit they have set to their own speeches.
  When we are discussing these matters we should be clear in pointing out that we do not want to apply a lot of regulations to the consumer. We want to do this job as easily as possible and, at the manufacturing end, with the full co-operation of the manufacturers and trade associations concerned. If a person wants to buy Inferior goods he should have complete freedom to do so. What we insist upon is that the stuff should be labelled inferior and that the prices should be appropriate to the quality.
  There is no need of a great deal of legislation to ensure that, nor do we need to set up a bureaucracy for the purpose. We have existing legislation, and if we brought together into one Government Department these questions of consumer protection we could manage to do the job with a smaller staff than that which is now scattered about so widely. The policing should be the job of the trade associations. It should be made possible for consumers to bring forward their complaints more easily when they have been gypped and swindled by an unscrupulous manufacturer. They should be in a position to make a complaint and have the matter remedied.
  Means should be found whereby the consumer can make her complaint to a Ministry, which will handle the matter if there is a prima facie case that she has been swindled in some way. We should lay down that prosecution or action can take place only if the consumer has gone back to the trader and the trader has refused to do something about it. If that were widely known, I think that it would be found that, to avoid the prospect of prosecution, traders would be very willing to deal with the complaint sensibly and to the satisfaction of the consumer. But the sanction must be there, and people must know that it would be used. One of our criticisms of the Merchandise
  438
  Marks Act is that far too few prosecutions take place. Our proposal to bring all these things together would deal with that difficulty, too.
  I hope that at least the debate will draw attention to the problems of consumer protection and that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, and he tells us what he is trying to do to anticipate the Weights and Measures Bill which was promised so long ago and has not yet been introduced, he will not dress the new regulations up in the form of a housewives' charter or anything of that kind, because that would be far below anything that we would expect from a decent Government.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) for the nice things that he said about my companies and the goods which I produce. My experience of trade has taught me that one cannot produce good quality and bad quality goods in the same works. One has either to produce all good quality or all bad quality goods. I hope that it will not happen, but there is a great danger of an impression being created by the debate that, as a whole, British industry produces shoddy goods. That would be doing a great disservice to our country. I beg hon. Members to be careful not to overplay this card, because 20 per cent. of everything that we produce is sold abroad and we live on those exports. If we cry stinking fish about the things we produce, we shall be doing the gravest injury to our workers.
  Quite an appreciable amount of the consumer goods in that section of trade in which I have certain interests is sold to Americans and Canadian visitors who are coming into this country in increasing numbers. They come here and buy because quality goods made in England or made in Scotland are still the hallmark of the best, and only the best will do. We do our country an immense disservice if we suggest that we are deliberately selling shoddy goods which the visitor who conies to our shores is so glad to buy and so proud to take home with the comment, "I bought this in England".
  On Monday I was in Doncaster at the board meeting of a big engineering firm of which I am a director. We were discussing the problem of exports to

  439
  South Africa and the possibility of establishing a business there. I asked a representative of the firm who had come from South Africa to discuss the problem of the prospects. He said that the Italians were exporting valves to South Africa at a price 50 per cent. below ours. The valves were not nearly as good as ours, but they did the job.
  Let us not cry stinking fish about our people and their output. We produce fine goods in this country. I am proud of what we produce and of what our workers do, and we do them a great disservice if we say otherwise. Nearly forty years ago, when I was an external student at the London School of Economics, I was taught that one of the first things that a buyer should remember was caveat emptor.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who, I am sorry to say, is not present, said, among other things, that in a free society we could not save the buyer from his own stupidity and folly. Under Communism that can be done, but not in a free society. In a free society there is a limit to which one can prevent men and women being foolish with their money. The old adage that fools and their money are soon parted is as true today as ever.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also said—and I put this to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—that we ought to look into the increased costs of distribution. I believe that that is true. I think that the labour engaged in the distributive trades has grown dangerously over the last twenty years and that something could be done in that respect.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt him?
  Mr. Osborne: No, I am sorry, because I promised to be brief, and I have been in the Chamber all day.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also made the point that, since the end of rationing, profit margins especially in the food industry, had substantially increased. I earn my living in many ways, one as chairman of two wholesale grocery companies. Our recent report showed that our gross profit was 8·47 per cent., out of which we have to
  440
  pay wages and everything else. Our net profit, subject to tax, is 1 per cent. That is typical of the profit made by wholesale grocers throughout the country. There is not a lot of margin there, and I ask hon. Members to bear that fact in mind.
  The last thing which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said was that he thought we were spending too much on advertising and that the costs of advertising were being put on the article, which they must be, of course, thus putting up the cost of living. There is something to be said about that, but it is a matter which can be pushed too far.
  I remember listening with great glee, before the war, to a record by Gracie Fields which said, "Shop at the Co-op". Gracie Fields was advertising the "Coop." We can do a disservice by saying wipe out all advertising, though I think that it is a matter that might be investigated.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who provoked me into taking part in the debate, said two things which I want to rebut. First, he said that the "Co-op." was safeguarding the consumer by its efficiency, its fairness and by the magnificent way in which it was conducting its trading, which was better than the way in which private industry was operating.
  Mr. G. Darling: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Osborne: Do not say that. I have read the recent report, signed by the Leader of the Opposition, which condemns out of hand the incompetence, the inefficiency and the backwardness of the Co-operative management. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members should read the report, but if they have not the time to go through its 150 pages, and they want a summary of it, then I beg them to look at the summary given in the News Chronicle. It was devastating.
  Mr. Dodds: The hon. Member has not read the report.
  Mr. Osborne: I have read the whole report. The hon. Gentleman should not make statements which he cannot prove.
  The report was a devastating condemnation by the Leader of the Opposition of "Co-op." trading. Therefore, I think it is a little unfair for the hon. Gentleman to throw the co-operatives at us when

  441
  the leaders of his own party have said how grossly inefficient the Co-operative movement is. That does not detract from the social value of the Co-operative movement over the last hundred years.
  The other thing I want to rebut is this. The hon. Member for Rossendale, starting with what I considered to be rather an overdone and unjustified sneer at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, said that in 1952 my right hon. Friend promised that he would double the standard of life of the people—
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: 1954.
  Mr. Osborne: —and that all that he had actually done was to double prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members will be able to see that in HANSARD tomorrow.
  Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will tell him what my hon. Friend actually said.
  Mr. Osborne: Then I withdraw that, but the hon. Gentleman did say that little or nothing had been done to increase in those years the standard of living of the people.
  That is so demonstrably false that in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I want to give the Committee some facts. I have here material for a letter which I intended sending to the Daily Telegraph. The statistics contained in it were produced for me by the statistician in the Library, so that we can take them as being fairly good.
  What do we mean by increasing the standard of living? First, I suppose, we mean food. What have we done between 1951 and 1957 in the matter of food?
  Mr. Jay: We must get the facts right. It was in 1954 that the Home Secretary made the statement. Therefore, we want the figures from 1954, not 1951, to today.
  Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman must look up those figures for himself. I have my figures, which I propose to use.
  The Committee will see that the biggest rise in the graph took place in the years 1954–57. If, when the debate is over, the right hon. Gentleman likes to come to the Library with me, I will go through the figures with him. I cannot be fairer than that.
  442
  How much do we eat as a nation? I will take just the five main foodstuffs. In 1951, we consumed 624,000 tons of beef. Last year, we consumed 799,000 tons. The consumption of mutton went up from 130,000 tons to 199,000 tons, and pork from 93,000 tons to 379,000 tons. The consumption of eggs went up from 796 million dozen to 966 million dozen. The consumption of milk went up from 1,790 million gallons to 2,199 million gallons, and the consumption of sugar went up from 1,929,000 tons to 3,273,000 tons. I think that these figures for food alone would justify the claim of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  To the people who love their tobacco and who regard their standard of life partly in terms of that commodity, I would point out that its consumption, despite the scare of cancer, has gone up—not in terms of money—from 287 million lb. to 304 million lb.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Shocking.
  Mr. Osborne: The amount of whisky and spirits consumed has risen by 9.96 million proof gallons to 12.6 million proof gallons. Therefore, on that front my right hon. Friend was fully justified in saying that within a period of time he hoped to double the standard of life in the country.
  Mr. Fernyhough: No.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The hon. Member should not seek to take part in the debate without first rising to his feat.
  Mr. Osborne: Another thing by which we can judge our standard of life is the clothes we wear. In 1951, 119 million pairs of boots and shoes were sold, compared with 133 million pairs last year. Hon. Ladies will be interested to know that in 1951, 94 million pairs of nylon stockings were sold as compared with 207 million pairs last year. The number of men's shirts, and so on, increased from 46·2 million to 54·48 million. That shows that we are doing the nation a disservice when we pretend that we are not doing as well as is, in fact, the case.
  I do not want to weary the Committee with too many figures, but I want to give several more. Another indication of the increase in the standard of living is the increase in the number of people able

  443
  to take holidays abroad. In 1951, the figure was estimated at 1,100,000, whereas last year it was 1,900,000. Another standard of judgment is the number of workers who have holidays with pay. When he was Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) said that there were nearly 20 million workers who enjoyed holidays with pay. Today, the number is more than 24 million.
  I claim that the standard of living has increased materially in the last few years and my final figure also shows that. Despite the undoubted improvements in our standard of living, the amount of money left over after those increases have been paid for has been infinitely greater than it was in 1951. The figures are startling. The figures for small savings are that the amounts invested in building societies totalled £97 million in 1951, as against £165 million in 1957; National Savings were only £1 million in 1951, and were up to £70 million last year; the amount deposited with provident societies increased from £44 million to £100 million; bank deposits were down by £26 million in 1951 and up last year by £81 million; life assurance premiums increased from £112 million to £300 million. The total savings of small savers last year were £716 million against £228 million in 1951.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was, therefore, fully justified in saying that we would increase our standard of living in twenty-five years. Indeed, we have already materially begun the process and I hope that when hon. Members have studied the figures—and the House of Commons is always fair-minded in its acceptance of facts—that sneer will not be repeated.
  Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member has often referred to the need to increase production. Does he not agree that production in the period he has mentioned did not rise by anything like the increases which he mentioned? If the standard of living depends on increasing production, how are his figures borne out?
  Mr. Osborne: The increase in national production is exceedingly difficult to calculate, since it provides for arbitrary figures for the production of people like postmen, policemen and school teachers.
  444
  However, to take the steel industry, there has been an astonishing increase in production since 1951, and the increase in textiles, an industry with which I am associated, has been large. If the hon. Member cares to come with me to Doncaster, to the works which I mentioned earlier, I will show him the figures. The British people are doing a magnificent job and we do them a great disservice by pretending that they are not.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: We must give credit to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) at least for working reasonably hard on his homework. In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), if she were here today to answer some of the charges made against her and some of the things said in support of the Government, she would say that on innumerable occasions she has asked the President of the Board of Trade to bring prosecutions where goods have not been of the standards declared on the labels. My hon. Friend has repeatedly put questions about cases on which the President of the Board of Trade has refused to take action. The number of prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts is nowhere near the number of accusations which have been made and which should have resulted in prosecutions.
  The Vote which we are discussing has a very wide scope and includes five Ministries, which means that there are five Ministries dealing with consumer protection. We need to have consumer protection integrated under one Ministry rather than under five. That is why those of us concerned with the problem and those of us in the Co-operative movement who have been considering the matter for a long time have advocated that we should have at least one junior Minister, if we cannot get any more, responsible for consumer protection.
  The world of shopping in which we live today is very different from that of before the war. I remember the time when we ran study classes in the Co-operative movement for our employees, not to show them how to sell goods, but to explain to them in great detail of what the commodities were made. That was so that they could explain to the consumer what was in the commodity being

  445
  sold. With that knowledge, they could help consumers to buy a good product and to use the product the right way when once it had been purchased.
  Today, the problem is altogether different. We are now living in an age when scientific development has been such that it is no longer possible to make a shopper as knowledgeable about what is in a commodity as were our great-grandmothers. If any hon. Lady remembers going shopping with her mother, she will remember that when her mother bought a shirt, a sheet or a towel, one of the first things she did was to rub it to see whether she was getting linen, or some linen with a great deal of dressing. She knew that if she bought an article which had a great deal of dressing in it, then the first time that she put it in the wash it would go limp and wear away very quickly. That was one reason why poorer housewives, when buying tablecloths in the old days, bought a grey twill which they knew would be serviceable and which when boiled would become white.
  Most housewives going shopping today do not use that simple method of testing—hon. Members can go into the shops and watch. Not only is the modern housewife confronted with simple cotton or linen, but with synthetic materials about which she does not know and about some of which even the shopkeeper does not know. Unless she has some protection in the form of guidance, she may well wash the material in the old-fashioned way and ruin it in the first wash, because of the synthetic material. That was not a problem with the linen and cotton which our grandmothers used to buy. From that angle alone, because the whole nature of the materials which the shopper is sold may have changed considerably, consumer protection is more than ever necessary.
  There is the other factor, that there has also been a change in shopping methods. More and more, self-service is being extended, and, therefore, the shopper who goes into the self-service stores can be tempted very easily, by the fact that the goods are on show and easy to get at, to buy commodities which look attractive but which may not be serviceable. It is quite true that the best of our self-service stores try to maintain a standard in the commodities which they sell, but we have also a lot of second-rate
  446
  stores, and a great amount of development is now taking place in that way.
  In some respects at the present time, and particularly in foods, drugs and other commodities of that kind, the shopper's only protection is to buy a branded commodity, and that does not always mean that she is getting protection. She can buy some branded commodities by which she can be as easily deluded as she can be in buying some of the unmarked ones. Even on some of our branded goods we need a tremendous amount of supervision and protection for the consumer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said he related shopping almost to gambling. I do not want the shoppers ever to feel that they are gambling when they go shopping, but I think there is another factor, and that is the time factor. The amount of time which one now has in which to go shopping is considerably reduced as compared with the time when our grandmothers went shopping. Many women now have to go out to work, and the time which they have for shopping is very much reduced. When my mother went shopping, it was a day out; she could spend her time making shopkeepers bring down umpteen things for her to see when she had already made up her mind that she would buy the article she was first shown. That was part of their shopping in those days. [An HON. MEMBER: "Technique."] It was not only technique; she was having a day out.
  When we go shopping today we have a very limited time, especially in the case of the woman who goes to work. Her problem is that she wants to be sure that in the limited time which she has for her shopping she will do it profitably in regard to the commodities she buys. Therefore, I do not want to see any opportunity for housewives to gamble in the way in which they do their shopping. It is much more important that women who have only working-class incomes to spend should not have any opportunities for gambling in the shopping they do, but should be quite sure that they are able to get good value in the commodities on which they spend their money.
  If a housewife has to buy a new sweeper, washer, refrigerator or carpet, quite a lot of discussion goes into the sale of such an article. She goes round

  447
  and looks at one shop after another, sees the goods tested out, and, consequently, when she buys a washer, cleaner or cooker, usually she takes very much more time than would be taken if she were buying a shirt for her husband or a frock for herself. She takes a lot of time buying a carpet, but very often is persuaded to buy a carpet because of the colours in it.
  The carpet may be attractive, but she may have very little knowledge whether that carpet is suitable only for a bedroom or will wear well if it goes in the dining room, and, if she has children running about the house, this is very important. There are questions about the tufting and weaving of carpets and their general durability which are most important, and she should have some guidance. At least, we might expect her to be told whether a carpet is or is not suitable for hard wear.
  I turn now to one other factor. Advertising has been mentioned. Advertising is a very profitable industry at the present time. Advertising specialists do not advertise merely to sell somebody else's commodities. The firms responsible for the advertisements are advertising in order to make money for themselves out of the designs which they create and the way in which the goods are advertised. Unfortunately, we have far too many people who buy commodities because they are well advertised, and proof of that can be obtained from any retailer. When I.T.V. advertises somebody's coffee, margarine or aspirins under another name, the sale of these commodities goes up immediately. The shopkeeper may be left with a large supply of these goods after a little while, perhaps because people have tried them out and do not want to buy them any longer.
  There is also the consideration that the housewife likes to see a presentable packet containing the commodity she buys. One has recently seen how the manufacturers of detergents and corn flakes have been relying on this in order to sell their commodities. During the Whitsuntide Recess I went round two firms, and I was absolutely staggered when I visited one factory. This is a firm which advertises its good very much, and which has a very large factory on which £5 million has been spent on extensions. That money
  448
  was made available through advertising, by which the firm has been able to persuade people that its commodity really does "wash whiter," and why.
  In one of these factories, the man in charge, knowing the interest I have taken in the subject of detergents and the amount of the commodity contained in the packet, had obtained some of the detergents sold in Germany There, again, the housewife has either been better trained or is not so easily persuaded as are some of our housewives, but the fact is that the packet was not attractive. It was indeed unattractive, but it had no foaming agent in the detergent, and it did the job. It washed quite as effectively as those products of ours which create a tremendous foam, causing trouble not only for sewerage works and rivers, but also, possibly, storing up trouble in future for the housewife herself, if she does not always see that the detergent is sufficiently rinsed off dishes and other articles after washing
  It could be a very serious problem in our catering establishments, our dairies and in other places where various utensils are washed, if they are not sufficiently rinsed after the use of a detergent. If one wants to test that, one only need go to a local medical officer and ask him to check on it; I am quite sure that every hon. Member of this Committee would be absolutely appalled at some of the results. The German commodity was very much cheaper than ours.
  There is also the question of the blue in detergents—blue Daz and other commodities. The advertisers try to persuade the housewife that she need not use old-fashioned blue when she does her washing because the detergent will blue the clothes without it. But that does not happen. The blue ingredient in the detergents has no effect, and it merely kids the housewife that it saves her another little job of pushing the whites through the blues. Because of successful advertising, the British housewife is gulled in that manner.
  Something is being done about it in the schools. Last week I visited a school where the girls were allowed to carry out tests by simple methods in washing, stretching and machining. They were learning about buying materials to be used for washing their clothes, and this will save them a lot of trouble.

  449
  I have been glad to receive a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the Government are considering a Bill to deal with weights and measures. At present housewives are being tempted to buy strawberries in punnets. Many housewives think they are buying half a pound or a pound of strawberries in a punnet. At lunchtime I looked at some in a shop, and if I had been persuaded to buy a punnet I am sure I could have had a wide choice in number and weight of strawberries.
  When buying potatoes after wet weather such as we have just had, the housewife buys far too much dirt because she has no protection. There is also the matter of packets of soap powders. The housewife should be protected by knowing how much she obtains when she buys a packet of soap powder or other commodities.
  We live in an age when we are short of time and when we are confronted by new scientific development in respect of what goes into the commodities that we buy. Far too much money goes into advertising in this country, having regard to the balance of our economy, and some of it is not very reliable advertising. In view of all this, the Government must do something about bringing together existing Statutes for the protection of consumers and introducing new Measures in relation to weights and measures and labelling. These things should be done without delay.
  The Ministry of Education should be doing much more in educating school girls so that when they become housewives they will not be so easily persuaded as present housewives are. I am not by any means libelling our housewives, but the next generation will be much more knowledgeable. The Government ought to make bigger grants to the organisations which are protecting consumers, such as the Retail Trading Standards Institution, and should prosecute manufacturers who do not fulfil the claims which they make.
  I should like to see not only the Government but the Labour Party give much more consideration to some of the proposals which the Co-operative Movement has put forward so that even if we do not have a "Ministry of Consumer Welfare" we have at least one Minister in the Board of Trade
  450
  responsible for taking the necessary action to protect consumers so that their money is spent wisely and they get the very best possible value for it.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has followed the general trend on the other side of the Committee and has dealt with the issue in a very sensible way, realising that it is just as important to promote more intelligent shopping as it is to secure rigid statutory protection for the purchaser. I am glad that she visited one of the big soap manufacturers. I did so a short time ago. I hope that she saw the work done by the detergent manufacturers in relation to the effects of detergents from the health point of view.
  Mrs. Mann: We have all had such invitations. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the manufacturers will put the weight on every packet?
  Mrs. Slater: Perhaps I might say that my visit was not as a result of an invitation, although the President of the Board of Trade asked me to go. On my own initiative, I asked two firms to arrange a visit for me. One was a Co-operative movement firm and the other a private one.
  Mr. Shepherd: These visits come about in a variety of ways. It is valuable that hon. Members should visit manufacturers and learn some of their problems. It is easy to assume that all the difficulties are on the part of the consumers, but some manufacturers go to extraordinary lengths and adopt remarkable methods to make certain that their weights are absolutely correct. It is good that we try to learn the other side of the picture.
  Because I had an official engagement outside the House of Commons, I was not here to listen to the opening speech today, but I gather that an extraordinary declaration was made about the efficiency of the Co-operative movement. I should say that the inefficiency of the Co-operative movement is one of the blessings to private enterprise.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Then, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the great increase in the Co-operative societies' trade in the last twenty years?
  Mr. Shepherd: Because people are attracted by the "divi". I come from Crewe. When the "divi" was 3s. 4d. in the £ it was a tremendous attraction. It did not matter whether the cakes were stale, stodgy and uneatable; one ate them because at the end of six months one got the "divi". If the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) really believes that the Co-operative society, as a business organisation, is efficient, he will believe anything.
  If I were to give any advice to the co-operative society—it would be entirely unasked for—I should say that if it is to be efficient it must begin thinking in terms of paying its executives £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000 a year. All the members of the little local associations would then begin complaining, saying that it was a democratic organisation and that the executives ought to earn what they themselves do. As long as they persist in taking that view and the movement accepts it, so long will the Co-operative society be one of the most ghastly and inefficient organisations in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Joseph Reeves: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "executive"?
  Mr. Shepherd: I mean those responsible for running the Co-operative movement, for example, on the wholesale side of the business, and executives in the larger-scaled Co-operative organisations. I do not mean "executives" in the sense of a members' executive; mean those actually running the business. But I do not want to spend much time talking about the Co-operative movement.
  Mr. Dodds: The hon. Member has not a clue.
  Mr. Shepherd: That might often be said of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds).
  The Temporary Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will remember to rise to their feet when they wish to intervene in the debate.
  Mr. Dodds: I apologise, Mr. MacPherson, but I have been rising so many times today without being called that I have got very weak now.
  Mr. Shepherd: Comment has been made about the merits of the private
  452
  trader. I agree at once that the private trader does not, in all circumstances, do the best that is possible. But I am a profound believer in the competitive system. I believe that the competitive system, on the whole, together with the intelligent shopper—we cannot do without the intelligent shopper if we are to have really effective results—can give the best possible commodities in the country. I believe in the competitive system and the small shopkeeper. I believe in the individual trader, and I want to see him prosper. I do not want to see what some hon. Members opposite want to see, a proliferation of nationalised concerns, because I am satisfied that that is socially bad, and I do not wish economic tidiness to be pursued at the loss of social advantage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), anxious as he was to get his speech through at such speed, resisted my attempt to interrupt him. I wished to do so for a purpose which was by no means unhelpful, but, there again, it was not appreciated. I wanted to point out that, in this country, despite what has been said about distribution costs, we have what are probably the lowest distribution costs in the whole world.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood indicated dissent.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. After all, some people do a great deal to determine these things. If he is interested, perhaps he will write to the International Association of Departmental Stores, which frequently publishes figures showing the costs of distribution in the various countries where its members are to be found. He will find that, with the exception of Norway, England has the lowest distribution cost in the whole world. When we talk about high distribution costs, we may be talking about individual industries.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Co-operative movement which he was disparaging a few minutes ago, is playing a very big part in ensuring that efficiency?
  Mr. Shepherd: Many people are. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a well-known departmental store which is playing ten times the part of Co-operative societies in bringing about lower costs of distribution and better

  453
  quality of article. I will not advertise that company, although I have no doubt that its identity will not be lost on most hon. Members. I assert that, on the whole, our distribution costs are lower than those to be found in the rest of the world.
  I want now to have a grouse about weights and measures. It has annoyed me ever since I became a Member of the House that this wretched organisation, the Post Office, should not have its scales examined by the weights and measures authorities. I cannot understand why this should be allowed. Why should the Post Office be able to say, "We arrange for competent inspection of our scales, and we make certain that they are right"? Of course, nothing of the kind is done. I know of some very inquiring and diligent housewives who, some years ago, when sending parcels by airmail to people abroad, used to run round from one post office to another until they found a scale registering the lowest charge. That may be an amusing experience, adding some variety to what is usually a very mundane task, but it is quite wrong that the Post Office should be allowed to check its own scales. It should be subject to the normal procedure to which other traders are subject and be covered by the weights and measures regulations.
  What can we do about ensuring better quality goods, less shoddy goods and, if one likes, better distribution at lower cost? We cannot do it just by what we say in the House. It is a co-operative effort, not in the sense that the hon. Member for Wednesbury means. We must have several kinds of awareness. We certainly must have public awareness. We must have much more intelligent shopping than we have today. Many shoppers are extremely unintelligent and undiscriminating. We must say that, because it is no good thinking that we can bolster up the interests of the moronic fringe of buyers by statutes and regulations. We cannot do anything of the kind. There must be a more intelligent and discerning public.
  Next, we must have more awareness in the trade. Many people who sell goods are not sufficiently interested in the quality of the goods. I take an interest in design, and I am told by those who try to promote it that one of the difficulties in putting better design over is the resistance of those in distribution who
  454
  want to sell the old-fashioned thing, the thing they are certain of. They have not sufficient enterprise to push the new product, which may look a little different and may be a little more difficult to sell in some areas. Therefore, I say that, in addition to public awareness, there must be trade awareness, also.
  We must have much more scientific examination of the product. When some hon. Members opposite condemn certain manufacturers in this respect, they do so, perhaps, unjustly. Many manufacturers do not know how their articles actually work. Although it may seem a rather strange thing to say, it is not always easy to test performance. Indeed, we are only at the beginning now of performance testing. I went to see, as did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago, a chair performance test at the Furniture Development Council. The Council has been going on with this work for about two years now, and it seems to me that very little progress has been made in trying to find out where the strains are when a person sits down in a chair.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Does the hon. Gentleman mean on the chair or on the human being?
  Mr. Shepherd: Both.
  I know that many hon. Members will say that one could find out what the strain is on a chair with very little effort. I assure them that that is not so. It is exceedingly difficult to determine and assess these performance standards. I ask the Committee to bear with some manufacturers and trade associations which are trying to establish these standards. It is painstaking work, to which very many men are devoting themselves with great skill, and, if the results are not as readily forthcoming as some hon. Members would like, that is because the job is much more difficult than they have assumed.
  Many organisations are trying to help in this respect. There are the trade associations, the Council of Industrial Design, and the British Standards Institution. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), said that the institution should have a bigger staff. It is not entirely a problem of staff. I do not know whether hon. Members really appreciate the extent

  455
  of the work of the British Standards Institution. One can gain some idea of it when one learns that (the institution has over 2,300 committees, staffed by voluntary members.
  Mrs. Mann: And will the hon. Gentleman agree, I hope, that, although the institution has time and again issued monthly reports, the President of the Board of Trade has taken no action on any of its recommendations?
  Mr. Shepherd: I really do not want to go into that, because I feel that there is very much more in this matter of establishing standards than most hon. Members are prepared to admit.
  As one interested in the dry cleaning trade, I have been following very closely the efforts of the trade and makers of garments to establish a standard for labelling purposes to enable dry cleaners and launderers to do the right thing with each product. Hon. Members may say that that should be simple. If they were to learn about the discussions which have gone on and the difficulties we have encountered in trying to establish a proper marking system, they would appreciate that it is not a simple matter. It is an exceedingly difficult matter.
  Mrs. Mann: A standard has just been issued which is applicable to the raincoats that women have been wearing in the rainy weather that we have had—raincoats that tear at every seam and buttonhole. Although a standard has been issued, it has not been put into operation.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to go into individual cases. Buttons present a particularly difficult problem, and we could have a very long discussion upon them, let alone upon raincoats. I would ask the hon. Lady to accept from me that it is very difficult to produce these standards. When we are not absolutely sure of them it is difficult to enforce them statutorily. What we must do is to get the utmost co-operation from all sections of the community, and that includes a very substantial improvement in the discrimination with which people purchase articles.
  Hon. Members opposite have indulged in many attacks upon advertising. I suppose that some advertising is open to
  456
  objection, and some of it is not very intelligent. Some of it, indeed, may add unnecessarily to the cost of the commodity. If Income Tax and Profits Tax did not amount to 15s. or 16s. in the £ the amount of advertising done might be reduced. But we must not write off advertising as anti-social. If the cost of advertising reaches unreasonable proportions—if we have to spend 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of our total costs in advertising—it is obviously uneconomic.
  Advertising plays a tremendous part in the life of the community, and I do not know how we could get a vital and progressive society without it. If we did not advertise we should have a dull society—a dull, socialist society—and although some people would like to see that, I certainly would not.
  Advertising can play a part in improving standards, although I do not necessarily pretend that the advertised product is either the cheapest or the best. Here, I would enter the plea that if traders complain—as they rightly do—about the extent to which profit margins have been whittled down, they themselves might try to become better salesmen than they are at present.
  It is a very great temptation to a trader to become merely a hander-out of pre-sold goods, and many of them have accepted this proposition. In doing so they have had to accept a greatly reduced standard of profit, and I think that it would be to the advantage of the community, and especially of purchasers, if shopkeepers thought less in terms of being handers-out of pre-sold packages and more in terms of being sellers of the goods in question. Let them test the goods and establish their value; let them recommend products which are less extensively advertised. In that way they would get a bigger profit for themselves, and perhaps they would provide better value for their customers.
  I am satisfied, if hon. Members opposite are not, at the progress that we have made in the last ten years in improving the standard of the product in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth said, we have a great reputation for quality, and I believe that, on the whole, we have maintained that reputation. We now have the problem of translating a reputation built upon non-mass-production methods into one built

  457
  upon mass-production methods in a number of industries. It can be done, and I believe that we are doing it to a great extent.
  I am pleased with what we have done in the last ten years in British consumer industries, but we have more to do. The reports of the Consumer Advisory Service have shown how poor are some of the products, but despite the fact that testing for performance has not been adequate up to now I am very pleased with what has taken place, and particularly with the way in which people are now conscious of design. It is gratifying to me to think that people can look upon a saucepan as a thing of beauty. In my younger days a saucepan was a hideous thing, but now people have spent time in designing a beautifully shaped and well-balanced saucepan.
  It is wonderful to think that in the middle of the twentieth century, after all the mess of the past hundred years, this country is once more thinking in terms of beauty in mass-production goods. That is a most elevating thought, and if the process continues it will have a very marked effect upon our lives, because when we have beautiful things around us we can live much better lives. We have lived far too much with the ugly, and I am very pleased—whatever may be the reservations of hon. Members opposite—to think that we are making very pronounced improvements.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: In the very few moments left to me it is almost impossible to develop my argument. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to rise very shortly, and although neither clock is visible to me, because of reflections, I shall do my best to oblige him.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made many points with which I cordially agree—and I do not entirely dissent from what he said about advertising. But I think that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee are very gravely disturbed by some of the anti-social aspects of the advertising industry, and we very much hope that either within the lifetime of this Government or, at the worst, early in the lifetime of the next, we shall have a Royal Commission on advertising which will go very thoroughly into the whole industry.
  458
  With modern conditions and modern marketing methods it is obvious that advertising is an essential ingredient. One cannot get a new product on to the market without modern advertising techniques. But there are directions in which advertising is being gravely misused—directions which are not only anti-social but positively dangerous to the community.
  One small example is the recent considerable increase in advertising, aimed directly at young people, encouraging them to drink more alcoholic liquor. The young have been singled out for this campaign by a number of brewers. Another example is the utterly anti-social advertising which defiles the countryside and serves no economic purpose—in fact, it does a great disservice, because it causes us to increase our expenditure of foreign exchange and seeks to increase the vehicles which clog up our roads. I am referring to the advertising of the various brands of petrol. There is no difference between the various grades of different brands, as any engineer will say. These advertisements serve no useful purpose, they cost a great deal of money, and they make the countryside look hideous.
  Far more important, however, is the advertising of tobacco products. I interjected during the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), when he was giving statistics of consumption, because I was horrified to hear from him that even during the past year the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco has enormously increased. I understand that on television and in the Press alone advertising these products cost very nearly £2 million during the last half year. The manufacturers of tobacco know very well the grave risks involved. They are not concerned with the cancer death rate. They know very well that cigarettes with filter tips are every bit as dangerous as those without such tips, and yet they are spending millions of pounds trying to shove them down the public's throat.
  Before I sit down I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the words of a distinguished doctor—Dr. Robert McCurdy. Speaking at the Commonwealth Chest Conference, which is investigating the causes of cancer, and after pointing out that in the last year for which statistics are available 1,000 more people died from cancer than in the year

  459
  before; after referring to the immense increase in lung cancer in England and Wales between 1950 and 1957, and after going through the medical evidence, which proves conclusively that smoking is a contributory cause to this increase, Dr. McCurdy said:
  "The Minister does not intend that so many cigarette smokers should die of lung cancer. Therefore, he is not guilty of murder, but, by God, he is guilty of manslaughter."
  I feel that the advertiser and, indeed, this House are guilty of manslaughter if we do not do something very soon to prevent the sale of what, by all medical evidence, is recognised today as a dangerous and, very often, a lethal drug.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) for sticking so closely to the agreed time-table, particularly as his remarks were so interesting.
  Apart from one or two short Adjournment debates, Parliament has not for a long time had such a good opportunity to debate the subject chosen by the Opposition today. I welcome in my turn the opportunity to give the Committee the Government's policy on shopping. But before I do so, and as so much has been said about advertising, I should like to congratulate the Opposition on having secured such very successful advance publicity for their own publication by announcing this afternoon that it would shortly appear. Of course, that serves to explain one surprising feature of the debate, namely, the total boycott of the rival society's publication "Efficiency and the Consumer" which, to my surprise, was not mentioned by any Opposition speaker today.
  As the date of publication is 20th July, I hope I may be allowed to make a contribution to the Labour Party's pamphlet by offering a quotation which might be put on the opening pages. As it comes from one of Shakespeare's plays, I feel that the source would certainly be above suspicion. The quotation I offer is:
  "Sigh no more ladies, sigh no more
  Men were deceivers ever."
  One of the pleasant features of a debate of this kind is that, as we are all
  460
  shoppers ourselves, we can all argue from personal experience, although, naturally, we tend to remember the odd unsatisfactory purchase or transaction, and correspondingly, to take for granted the hundreds, if not thousands, of satisfying purchases which we make every year. Several hon. Members referred to cases where the shopper gets a bad deal or a "racket" appears to exist. I shall try to refer to some of these cases in more detail later in my speech, but right at the beginning I should like to pose this question: Is the British shopper satisfied?
  We, as Members of Parliament, have several ways of knowing what is going on in our constituencies, and I am sure that I am right when I say that remarkably little of our time, as Members of Parliament, is taken up in dealing with letters from angry or dissatisfied shoppers. I have not had one for years. Like a number of Members of Parliament I run a "surgery" in my constituency and a fairly popular one, too. I am glad to see one of my constituents sitting on the Front Bench opposite—he "nobbles" me in the House of Commons and does not have to attend my surgery.
  I should like to say that in the course of the last few years I have not had a single complaint about shopping from any constituent attending my "surgery", Thus, while it is certainly right for us in the House of Commons to review the law and make suggestions, and to expose what we believe to be "rackets", nevertheless, I am sure that I am right when I say that today the public are satisfied with shopping conditions as they exist. The hundreds of millions of transaction which take place in the shops, markets and streets of Britain every day are completed to the mutual satisfaction of both buyer and seller.
  The reason is that we have fully restored to the shopping public the two most valuable safeguards it can have, namely, freedom of choice and competition between traders. Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers all want to stay in business. They want to keep their customers and to attract new ones. Simply and truly, it is wholly against their longterm interests to give the public a bad deal. In fact, the competition of a free market makes them keen to improve on what is already being offered to the public. Free competition automatically

  461
  provides the British shopper with the other safeguard, namely, freedom to choose between the products of rivals. If he does not like one article he can buy someone else's.
  Perhaps I might just mention a personal experience which I had the other day. I went to a garage to have my car cleaned. The car washer suggested a time which did not suit me, and so I suggested another time which I knew would be unavoidably inconvenient for the garage. [Laughter.] But wait for the rest of the story. Back came the reply from the car washer, "That's all right, Sir, you're the boss." I said, "No, I am not the boss, I am the customer." Back came the reply again, "Well, that is the same thing." I think there is quite a useful lesson to be learned from that, because today in Britain the customer is the boss.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Which garage was that?
  Mr. Erroll: I am not going to be guilty of advertising it in this Committee, but I shall be glad to inform the hon. Gentleman afterwards. As a matter of fact, the garage is in London.
  Thousands and thousands of shops and manufacturers are willing to serve the customers of Britain today and to meet their wishes. I think we may be very proud of the retail system in this country, because our shopkeepers, large or small, have a long tradition of integrity and desire to please. I do not wish hon. Members just to take my word for that. I urge them to ask the foreign tourists who are flocking into Britain in their thousands at this very time. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), they are delighted to come to Britain and to buy quality goods. Some have told me personally how much they appreciate the standard of service and the courtesy which they find in British shops, both large and small.
  Nevertheless, we fully recognise the need to provide statutory safeguards for the consumer. The Board of Trade is traditionally the Department which is generally responsible for measures to protect the shopper from deception by traders. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) suggested that
  462
  while the Board of Trade took an interest in this matter, its powers were limited. In fact its powers are broad, and I think that they are usefully exercised, but it makes for good service if other Departments take an interest in this matter and if all the work is not concentrated in one Department.
  Whenever a person goes into a shop to buy something there are three things for him to remember to keep an eye upon. They are weight or quantity, quality and price. I shall try to deal with those three things in their separate categories. We believe that there should be no deception about weight or quantity. Out of this simple concept has grown a great deal of complicated national and local legislation and the subject is becoming ever more complicated as more new products, new sales methods and new forms of packaging appear on the market.
  I regret as much as anyone the unavoidable delay in the implementation of the Hodgson Report, but the intervening interval has not been wasted. The Hodgson Report appeared while rationing and control were still unavoidably the order of the day. Now we have many new problems to cope with, such as the sale of coal from robot vehicles and how to mark correctly the weight of a prepacked quick-frozen mixed grill which, I might add, is quite an important and difficult thing to achieve.
  We have to consider, if we are to decide to sell nails by weight or by count, whether the nails included as part of a "do-it-yourself kit" must be so sold, or whether they should be specially exempted. Those are the sort of modern problems thrown up day after day by the changes and improvements in our sales and marketing metihods; and when the legislation comes along, we shall have taken full advantage of the interval during which we shall have been able to study these changes and legislate properly for such developments.
  Mr. Jay: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he now tell us what the date of this legislation will be?
  Mr. Erroll: Not at this stage of the current Session. Obviously I cannot give that information.
  In devising this legislation we have to keep a balance between elaborate

  463
  schemes of protection for the consumer and the costs which will be involved and which the customer would pay in the end. These costs would arise if we were to impose too many checks and controls. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to his purchases of talc powder. While that has not been specifically considered, I think I can say that it would be covered by the legislation which would require all prepacked goods of that sort to be sold by weight. In all probability the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in purchasing talc power at some date in the future.
  Mr. Greenwood: Which date?
  Mr. Erroll: I have already explained that it is not yet decided.
  The other thing which we are doing at present is to make quite useful progress with Regulations relating to food. I actually announced last November that we would be making Regulations under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1956, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, to effect quite a number of improvements in the law relating to the retail sale of food, based on certain of the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee.
  I was asked to say when. The problems are quite involved. We put out our proposals to about 80 different organisations affected and asked for observations by 31st March. Many meetings are being held with the organisations on points of difficulty, serious points, not obstructionist. Our original proposals may be modified in certain cases as a result.
  I can give the Committee another example. We may have to accept that it is impracticable to mark soda water syphons, but, on the other hand, I think we shall be successful with spirits sold by the glass. They may be included in items to be sold only in specified quantities. We hope to bring the Regulations in as soon as possible, in all probability early next Session, but not this Session.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale amused the Committee considerably with his quotations from the packets of detergents. When one hears them read out on the Floor of the Committee they sound rather ludicrous, but I would remind the
  464
  hon. Gentleman that after General Elections some housewives amuse themselves by reading out selections from the Election addresses of rival candidates, and there are sometimes exaggerated statements. [Interruption.] I was going on to suggest that if exaggerated claims were to be made illegal the Labour Party would have to be wound up tomorrow.
  I do not think that the elaborate and fantastic features on the packets of breakfast cereal do very much harm. They add very much to the gaiety of the breakfast table at a very slight increase in cost, if any at all. And I very much hope that they will continue. They make the packets very much nicer than packets one can obtain in Communist countries, where there is no freedom of choice and precious little competition.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) made very interesting points arising out of her visit to a detergent factory. I am glad she followed up the invitation and saw for herself some of the manufacturing problems involved. She will now understand the problems we have in the Board of Trade in protecting the consumer while giving the manufacturer a fair run.
  Mrs. Slater: I am not yet converted to the view that they could not sell detergents by weight.
  Mr. Erroll: In the new legislation which we are considering we could require all detergents, and not only clothes-washing detergents but washing and scouring powders with them, to be sold by weight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That could be a step forward, but we must not think that it would solve the whole problem. Many factors enter into the making of detergents and one of them is the active ingredients. A person might be able to make up the weight with non-active ingredients while the active ingredients were lacking.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: May I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that he is starting off a very difficult process? If he is going to insist upon a standard weight in packed goods every shop will have to be air conditioned to accommodate them.
  Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remark, which actually illustrated one of my great difficulties in

  465
  the Board of Trade, where we have to be fair all round. Loss of moisture is one of our great difficulties, and another is at what stage to put the chopper down and say, "No more loss of moisture".
  The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to strawberries in punnets, a very topical point. In our new Regulations we propose to deal with the sale of strawberries by weight and to make that a requirement. The problem is very difficult because of the amount of moisture which can be lost between the picking point, the packing point and the shop. If we put the punnets into cellophane wrappers the strawberries deteriorate, and we are worse off than we were. I shall be grateful to the hon. Lady for any suggestion she may have to help us get over this difficult matter. We are doing our best with it.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Regulations. Would he say whether the Government have Regulations in mind or legislation?
  Mr. Erroll: Definitely Regulations and not legislation. We hope to do this by Regulation, because it is the retail sale of foodsiuffs and we can do that next Session, if we can get round some of the difficulties in time.
  Some hon. Members referred to gift offers. While personally deploring them, I realise that the public like them. One distributor of packet teas held out for a long time against introducing a so-called "dividend" tea. He was compelled in the end to introduce a scheme, which he did by putting the price up by the same amount as the dividend handed back to the customer. It sounds ridiculous to hon. Members here, but I am informed that the sales of that brand of tea went up tremendously. Why should not the manufacturer provide tea in the way which customers wish? Who are we to say that his customers should not adopt this method of saving petty cash if they wish?
  The second thing to bear in mind is quality. We believe that the customer should decide for himself, except in regard to the purity of food where special requirements are enforced by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We believe that a quality stan-
  466
  dard should be voluntary and not compulsory.
  Let those hon. Members who favour compulsory standards ask themselves what sort of standard they would impose. A very high one? Then many consumers either could not afford or would not wish to buy high quality goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) made this point particularly well in his interesting speech. Furthermore, many manufacturers could not produce goods up to the legal standard so there might well be a shortage of goods and possible unemployment in many factories.
  All right. Should we have a low standard as the legal standard, a "charter of shoddy"? That is not what most of us want. This would not serve the purpose of legal protection because many manufacturers would refuse to manufacture to a low standard, and so the standard would be boycotted and would fall into disrepute. We back a policy of voluntary standards as the most practical way of dealing with this matter.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) for referring to the problem of satisfactory performance standards. I remember a chair which had to be subjected to some very intricate tests which were not satisfactory owing to the habit of some people of sitting on one leg of a chair and tilting it over. The manufacturers devised a very clever method of performance test carried out under a satisfactory arrangement, so that people who now buy that chair get a high-performance, tested chair and will know that they are getting a hard-wearing and well-tested article.
  Those standards are worked out and devised by the British Standards Institution in consultation and by discussion with British industry. The Government support B.S.I. by a general grant, this year of £150,000 and a special grant of £10,000 specifically for work for the domestic consumer. Here I should express my full agreement with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough who hoped trade associations and other bodies would support the work of the B.S.I. more generously. It is well supported at present by popular subscription, but any additional money made available would be most well spent and I hope everyone will remember what the hon. Member said.

  467
  Some hon. Members rather gave the impression that we had really nothing to show on the consumer goods side of the problem. That is not true because an impressive list of standards for consumer goods is in being. The majority of those relate to sizes, weight, terms, definitions and so on and some, only a few I am afraid, to quality and performance. We have many standards of consumer goods and those are valuable and much appreciated.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale referred to Kite marks. It is important to realise that Kite marks do not indicate only a minimum standard; the goods must comply with objective tests which ensure a reasonable standard of performance. The case of the Marlborough Street pillows prosecution was mentioned. It is hardly necessary to remind the Committee that no law—in this case the Merchandise Marks Act—is immune from contravention. The fact that the law is there enables prosecution to take place and the matter to be put in order.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is it not a fact that that prosecution was made, neither by the Board of Trade nor the B.S.I., but by a voluntary organisation, the Retail Trading Standards Association?
  Mr. Erroll: I am glad the hon. Member referred to that because I wanted to point out that, although we can and do prosecute, other bodies can do so and other bodies are active in this way. In the year ending 30th June, 1958, the Board of Trade brought 24 prosecutions and all the 23 completed cases were successful. We do prosecute and I am glad that other organisations do so, although there are no central statistics of the number of prosecutions by those other bodies.
  The question of labelling was referred to. We are all in favour of an extension of informative labelling. Progress is being made, particularly in regard to a laundry code and a textile glossary which have been produced in recent years, but effective action—it must be effective action if it is to be any good—depends on the co-operation of a number of industries, and it cannot be achieved quickly.
  468
  I now come to the third factor, price. We believe the best way of keeping prices down is by competition between manufacturers and retailers. Except for goods which are individually price maintained, there is no special sanctity about a price tag on an article. It is merely "an offer to treat" and indicates that the seller will sell at that price. The buyer is free to make a counter offer, which the seller can reject or accept as he pleases. When we consider retail shoppers we realise that we are not a nation of hagglers. If shoppers do not like the price demanded at one shop they go to another shop where prices are lower. The shop where prices are out of line will soon have to come down to the general level. It is a combination of common sense and taken-for-granted efficiency.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Gentleman should try it.
  Mr. Erroll: I have tried it and it works very well. I can recommend it to the hon. Member. We reinforced these sound practices by passing the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1956. That Act was designed to encourage the growth of competition in trade, and some success has already been achieved. In various fields restrictive arrangements have been abandoned and in others—the grocery trade is a good example—the rigidity of price arrangements has been noticeably reduced. Where the parties to a restrictive agreement feel that it benefits the consumer, they can under the Act argue it before the Restrictive Practices Court.
  It was not claimed by the Government when the Act was passed that it would bring about spectacular reductions in prices. Indeed, it was recognised that in times of inflation price rings may operate to stabilise rather than to inflate prices. This may be at the cost of rigidity in trade and lack of opportunity for new entrants and the marketing of new products. If the Act achieves its object, consumers will benefit by more flexibility of the supply of goods, but it is up to shoppers to take advantage of this by demanding the goods they want and by looking critically at those which are offered to them both as regards price and quality. No law could achieve this for them.

  469
  The Government stand by competition and freedom of choice as the best safeguards for the consumer, and the best way of bringing prices down. We back up this policy with a body of Weights and Measures legislation which puts beyond argument the quantity of an article being purchased. By the Merchandise Marks Acts we protect against deceptive description of goods while leaving the shopper free to decide what quality he wants, quality standards themselves being best settled on a voluntary basis; while on prices themselves we have set up the Restrictive Practices Court, the very existence of which is already achieving beneficial results; and in the field of hire
  purchase we have through legislation given the shopper access to all the facts before he need make up his mind.
  We believe the shopping public thoroughly approves of the Government's successful combination of personal freedom and carefully planned protection, which I now invite the Committee to endorse.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the unconvincing reply that we have had, I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote I (Board of Trade), be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 242.

  Division No. 196.]

  AYES

  [6.57 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Forman, J. C.

  Logan, D. G.

  Albu, A. H.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  McCann, J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gibson, C. W.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Balfour, A.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McGovern, J.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  McInnes, J.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Benson, Sir George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Grimond, J.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Boardman, H.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hannan, W.

  Mort, D. L.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Moss, R. L.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hastings, S.

  Moyle, A.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Healey, Denis

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

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

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Oram, A. E.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Orbach, M.

  Carmichael, J.

  Holman, P.

  Oswald, T.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Holmes, Horace

  Owen, W. J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Holt, A. F.

  Padley, W. E.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Clunie, J.

  Howell, Denis (All saints)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, J.

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Paton, John

  Cove, W. G.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pearson, A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pentland, N.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Popplewell, E.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Probert, A. R.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Diamond, John

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Dye, S.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Reeves, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Reid, William

  Edelman, M.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Rhodes, H.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Ross, William

  Fitch, Alan

  Lewis, Arthur

  Royle, C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Thornton, E.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Timmons, J.

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Tomney, F.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Viant, S. P.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Steele, T.

  Wade, D. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Storehouse, John

  Weitzman, D.

  Woof, R. E.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Swingler, S. T.

  West, D. G.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Erroll, F. J.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lagden, G. W.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Fort, R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Amery, Julan (Preston, N.)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Ashton, H.

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Barber, Anthony

  Glover, D.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Barter, John

  Godber, J. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Gower, H. R.

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  McKibbin, Alan

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Green, A.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Black, C. W.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Body, R. F.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Braine, B. R.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hay, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mathew, R.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Carr, Robert

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hope, Lord John

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Osborne, C.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Page, R. G.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Partridge, E.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

  Peel, W. J.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Deedes, W. F.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pott, H. P.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Keegan, D.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Profumo, J. D.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kimball, M.

  Redmayne, M.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  472

  473

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Storey, S.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Robertson, Sir David

  Teeling, W.

  Wall, Patrick

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Temple, John M.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Webster, David

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Shepherd, William

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Speir, R. M.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down
  474
  by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I have given careful consideration to the various Motions on the Order Paper and I find, also as a result of conversations, that the point is the matter of the Ardwick Cemetery. I find no disposition to raise wider issues on the Bill, so the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has agreed not to move his Motion, "That it be considered upon this day three months." I understand that he is to second a Motion for the recommittal of the Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), and he can then tell us why he has taken that course.
  The Motion of the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), "That the Report from the Committee on the Bill be now considered," is not necessary, since the House can do what he asks without any formal Motion. I propose to proceed directly to the Motion for recommittal, which I shall put to the House in the form of an Amendment to the Question, "That the Bill be now considered." That would enable as wide a discussion as I have had a notice of being desired by hon. Members.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I think that it will facilitate the business. However, I want to safeguard our Parliamentary rights before we proceed. Am I correct in understanding that your Ruling is that provided we confine ourselves mainly to the Ardwick Cemetery controversy, and all that arises out of it, we shall be in order?
  Mr. Speaker: Quite in order.
  7.10 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered" and to add instead thereof:
  "recommitted to the former Committee in respect of the following Amendment to Clause 44 standing in the name of Sir John Barlow viz.:—
  476
  Clause 44, page 29, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  (3) The price payable to the Company by the Corporation in respect of the undertaking of the Company shall be £2,100 or the value of the net assets of the Company on 2nd December, 1957, whichever is the greater;
  (4) The value of the net assets of the Company on 2nd December, 1957, shall be ascertained by an independent valuer appointed by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the cost of the valuation shall be defrayed by the Corporation;
  (5) If on the winding-up of the Company the amount of the surplus assets payable in respect of any share acquired on or after the 2nd December, 1957, by or on behalf of the Corporation, to the Corporation or to any other person on their behalf, exceeds £1, the amount of any such excess shall be paid to the person who was the holder of that share on 2nd December, 1957."
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I have been informed that the members of the Select Committee who considered the Bill are not likely to take part in this debate, in view of the fact that the Bill may be recommitted to their Committee to consider again.
  The Manchester Corporation Bill has been considered by the Select Committee and a Report dated 15th May has been submitted to this House. There are many valuable Clauses in the Bill which are urgently required by the Corporation for the management of that great city. There are, however, some Clauses on which the Select Committee reported critically. The Select Committee especially drew attention to Clauses 46 and 50, under which the Manchester Corporation sought to obtain the approval of Parliament to the transfer to the Corporation and to the winding up of Ardwick Cemetery Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948.
  The facts appear to be that the Ardwick Cemetery Company was formed in 1839 with a capital of £2,100 in £1 shares. For a time the cemetery was fashionable and prosperous and many well-known people were buried there, including John Dalton, the scientist, Edward Holme, and Sir Thomas Potter, who was the first Lord Mayor of Manchester. This ground is not consecrated and has not been used for burials for some years, although occasionally interments took place in existing graves or vaults, to as late as 1950. The cemetery is, moreover, in a very dilapidated condition and overgrown with weeds.

  477
  There is no doubt that this graveyard should be dealt with. Any such action is long overdue. I would emphasise that I do not disagree with the fact that action should be taken. The whole point at issue, and the reason for this Motion is that the method of securing control of the company was open to grave criticism.
  The Select Committee reporting on the Bill on 15th May, at page 38 of its Report, pointed out—I quote—that the
  "Manchester Corporation sought to obtain the approval of Parliament to the transfer to the Corporation and the winding-up of the Ardwick Cemetery Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948. The Corporation proposed to pay £1 each or par to existing shareholders for their £1 share without going through the procedure enjoined in the Companies Act."
  In the next paragraph it appears that the President of the Board of Trade, in his report, stated that on a break-up basis the shares were worth more than £1 each. He pointed out that the Clauses., if passed unamended, would deprive shareholders of the company of the protection given by the Companies Act and might operate to their disadvantage. It further appears from the Report that the Town Clerk sent a letter to the shareholders, dated 2nd December, 1957, and as a result purchased 2,017 shares out of the total of 2,100 of the company.
  This letter, signed by Mr. Dingle, who is the Town Clerk, pointed out that the cemetery was neglected and overgrown with weeds and that the company might well be embarrassed if a public scandal arose, and that the company, with its limited resources, could not afford to clear up the cemetery. He pointed out that the Manchester City Council could usefully use the land for school playing fields or an open space and suggested that if this opportunity were allowed to pass it would be unlikely that such a favourable offer would be forthcoming in the future. This letter provides for the purchase of the shares contingent upon the fact that the Corporation could secure the necessary powers from Parliament.
  The Town Clerk actually said, and I quote:
  "I am, therefore, writing to ask you to let me know if you would be prepared to accept an offer of £1 per share for the shares which you hold in the Company if the Corporation obtain the necessary powers from Parliament."
  478
  It would seem that this is rather anticipating events, and certainly it does not provide for the possibility of the rejection or substantial alteration by Parliament of the Bill which was originally presented. It does not seem to be very businesslike to make a formal offer for shares in anticipation of future legislation.
  In looking over the memorandum issued by the Manchester City Council concerning this matter, paragraph 17, the Council says quite clearly—and I quote—that it considers
  "that public interest would be best served by the acquisition of the Cemetery under Parliamentary powers."
  An Hon. Member: It is all quote.
  Sir J. Barlow: I wish to make it very accurate and clear, and it is for that reason that I have been so careful to show where I am actually quoting and where not.
  This cemetery existed under the Companies Act and, as the Board of Trade pointed out, should have been liquidated under the Companies Act, the Bill being changed in Committee to secure this end, and yet the Council, of its own accord, without any intimation to anyone, now says that it considers the liquidation under parliamentary powers is the best method. It seems a rather tall order when the Manchester Corporation wishes to dictate the method of liquidation without mentioning it to anyone, and it was due only to the vigilance of the President of the Board of Trade that this matter was noted and reported on so critically to the Select Committee.
  The whole matter, as the House knows, was brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions who, after making inquiries, reported to the Attorney-General. In a Written reply to a Question in this House on 1st July the Attorney-General said there was
  "no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts"
  against Section 12 of the Prevention of Frauds (Investments) Act, 1939.
  My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that Section 13 of the Act prohibits the distribution of a circular inviting persons to sell securities without going through the procedure enjoined in the Companies Act, which provides that

  479
  any offer of this kind, as contemplated by Mr. Dingle, should have been sent through the principal of any recognised stock exchange or recognised association of dealers in securities or various other people, including what they call a holder of a member's licence. There appeared to be an infringement of that Section, the Attorney-General said. That is the important factor: there was an infringement of Section 13. According to the evidence given to the Select Committee, Mr. Dingle admitted that he took advice on this point, but apparently he did not act on it.
  The Attorney-General stated that offences against that Section
  "may be prosecuted only by or with the consent of the Board of Trade or the Director of Public Prosecutions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 78.]
  The Attorney-General, in this case, decided not to prosecute. This clearly shows that the Town Clerk committed a criminal offence—
  Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that, in his reply, the Attorney-General offered the opinion that an offence "may be prosecuted." Those were the exact words.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that, in this matter, hon. Members will forget the height of the temperature outside, and conduct the debate calmly and without unnecessary heat.
  Sir J. Barlow: However, in the circumstances, prosecution is not called for. Vast sums are certainly not involved in this case. It is a matter of complying with the law. The object of my Motion is to make sure that the shareholders are treated absolutely fairly and in accordance with the law.
  Subsection (3) of the Motion provides that the shareholders on 2nd December—that is, before they received Mr. Dingle's letter—shall receive either £1, which has already been paid in respect of 2,017 shares, or the value of the net assets on the liquidation of the company, whichever is the greater It is difficult to assess what the break-up value may be. The assets of the company consist of about £3,800, in value, of gilt-edged securities, and leases which, until recently, amounted to £227 a year but which have
  480
  recently gone up to £310 a year—and, of course, an overgrown, derelict cemetery. To assess the value of a disused, overgrown derelict cemetery would test the ability of any valuer. I think that we are all agreed on that.
  Mr. Dingle suggests that if this land were cleared, and could built on, it would be worth £7,000 an acre. It is, however, required as an open space and, possibly, a recreation ground, and it must have considerable value for that purpose. It is open to some doubt whether the company, had it continued, could have been forced to spend its assets on clearing up the cemetery. Indeed, counsel for the Manchester Corporation, as will be seen at page 17 of the Minutes of Evidence said that it would not.
  Subsection (4) of my Motion provides for the appointment of an independent valuer to be appointed by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—
  Mr. Ellis Smith Mr. Ellis Smith rose—
  Sir J. Barlow: He will be asked to value the assets and assess the cost of the liabilities—
  Mr. Jack Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the House have guidance as to the method in which this speech is being delivered? Is it part of the custom of the House for every single word to be read from a prepared brief? And could we be told when the hon. Member is quoting, and when it is his own opinion that he is stating? Is it in order to continue to read from what is definitely a prepared brief?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member did appear to me to be reading, but I thought that he was quoting something from someone else. Read speeches are out of order.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) will forgive me for a moment so that I may tell him that in this House it is usual for Members to maintain a high standard; and that when statements have appeared in HANSARD it is usual to accept those statements. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at columns 77 and 78 of HANSARD for 1st July, he will see that in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for

  481
  Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) the Attorney-General made a full statement which completely vindicates the Town Clerk of Manchester. Before the hon. Member proceeds, will he be good enough to say whether he accepts that?
  Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has made a statement that is quite inaccurate, I wonder whether, to clear up—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) nor the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is raising a point of order. These are all questions of debate, and can be discussed later.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: To keep myself straight, Mr. Speaker, may I emphasise that I did not raise a point of order?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Exeter prefaced his remark by saying that it was further to a point of order. There is no point of order before the House. What we are waiting for is to hear the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich.
  Mr. Jack Jones: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have an answer to my question whether it is in order for this practice to be indulged in by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich?
  Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing that transcends the bounds of order yet.
  Sir J. Barlow: I suggest that, in a matter of this kind, it is of great importance to get quotations, figures and facts absolutely accurate. I have frequently seen it done before in the House for that reason—for hon. Members to quote notes quite copiously for accuracy's sake in an important debate of this kind.
  It will be remembered that before I was interrupted I was suggesting that a valuer should be appointed to value these shares. Subsequently, a liquidator would be appointed, and the whole company would then be wound up properly in accordance with company law.
  The Clauses dealing with the Ardwick Cemetery may be considered a small part
  482
  of the Bill, but some of us attach great importance to the view that Manchester should not be allowed to ignore the law and do what a private individual is not allowed to do. Many of us have known prosecutions for exactly similar things. It is true that, in this case, the people involved do not get great personal gain out of it. At the same time, it is up to a great Corporation of this kind to set an example, and to comply with the law. Here I think that the Corporation has been just too slick.
  It is true that the Council, as reported in the Press, called for, and passed, a vote of confidence in the Town Clerk, but that, Mr. Speaker, is beside the point. By implication, those members were trying to cover themselves. I must say that if the Town Clerk is not responsible—I imagine that he is, but if he is not—the only other person whom I think could be held to be responsible would be the Lord Mayor in office during the year—
  Mr. L. M. Lever: The wrong year.
  Sir J. Barlow: This slipshod manner of handling the business is further illustrated by the placing of a memorandum in the Corporation's defence in the Vote Office last week in an irregular way—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really do object to using the device of a point of order to interrupt an hon. Member's speech, and I rarely do so, but I should like to put this to you. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) has said that his object in using rather extensive notes in addressing the House is to stick closely to facts and figures. It will be clear to you, I am sure, as it is to most hon. Members, that this speech contains a number of calculated smears. I do not think that the hon. Member should be allowed to read contributions of that kind.
  Mr. Speaker: When I observed him last, the hon. Member was not reading. However, as to the incident about the publication, I gave a great deal of attention to it, and came to the conclusion that although there had been a technical error on the part of the agent in not affixing his name to it, there was

  483
  no real blame attaching to anybody. I think that the House accepted my view on that occasion, and I therefore do not think that that is an argument relevant to the matter in hand.
  Sir J. Barlow: I certainly did not wish in any way to question your authority, Sir. What I meant to do was to draw attention to the fact that Manchester Corporation is not as careful as it should be. I have here a quotation—I will not read it—giving your concluding words on Monday, Mr. Speaker, when you drew attention to the fact that there had been an irregularity, I think, to Clause 18, but that in the circumstances it had done no harm at all. We appreciate and accept that, and I thank you for your Ruling, Sir. I was not questioning it. I was merely wishing to point out that Manchester Corporation, in several cases, is not nearly as careful about doing things as it should be.
  I should like further to illustrate Manchester Corporation's method of doing things by giving another example—it will be quite a short one—of something which occurred in my own constituency. I feel sure that some hon. Members opposite who represent Manchester constituencies will remember that the Waterworks Committee bought about 561 acres of land near Middleton about 1921. It was found subsequently that this land was not required for a waterworks; it was used for building, and what is now known as the Langley Estate was developed.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now straying from the point at issue. He is asking the House to recommit this Bill to the same Committee in respect of certain Amendments of which he has given notice. I do not see how a transaction which has nothing to do with the cemetery can strengthen his argument or affect it in any way. The hon. Member must confine himself to his own Amendment. After all, he drafted it; I did not
  Sir J. Barlow: I am sorry if I have gone too wide, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to point out that they bought this land for £46 an acre and tried to sell it back to Middleton Corporation for £550 an acre.
  Leaving that on one side, I will proceed and call attention to the excellent leading article in The Times of 5th July, when I
  484
  think it put the whole case of the Ardwick Cemetery in a very fair way. It described the episode as a storm in a teacup, but I would add that Manchester is a rather big teacup. It summarises the situation by saying:
  "It seems clear enough that, in anything to do with share-transactions, a local authority is in exactly the same position as a private person. If it wants to make an offer for shares, whether to promote land development or for any other purpose, it must comply with the Prevention of Fraud Act. The most natural way would be to channel the offer through an exempted dealer … or a licensed dealer."
  The leader concludes by saying that it might be a very good thing to consider the Amendment which I am now moving.
  In conclusion, I would emphasise that I have no criticism at all of the acquisition of the cemetery as such.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I should not think so after last Friday, when the hon. Gentleman saw it.
  Sir J. Barlow: I object to the way in which the Corporation tried in an illegal manner to achieve this, and I base the whole of my argument on that fact.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Despite the maniacal laughter and the pointless interruptions throughout his speech, the Amendment was most eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). Hon. Members opposite can bellow at me till the cows come home. What I intend to say will be heard and it will go down in HANSARD, and if hon. Members do not like it they can lump it.
  I hope the House will allow me to start my speech on a personal note. As a Cheshire Member for the past ten years, I have been fighting to stop Manchester acquiring thousands of our finest agriculture acres—not entirely without success. But after my activity in connection with this Bill, I fear that it is thought in certain quarters that I am an enemy of Manchester. Nothing could be further from the truth and I hope hon. Members opposite, however much they may disagree with what I say, will accept my word for that.
  I have lived close to Manchester all my life, and my imagination and love for it

  485
  were stirred as long ago as I can remember by my father who would remind me as we approached its chimneys from the green fields oaf Cheshire that, "Here is where the wealth of England lies." Since then I have looked with pride upon Manchester's mighty industrial achievements and its great tradition for staunchness and integrity, and it is only because I am jealous of Manchester's proud reputation that I shall speak as I shall this evening believing, as a friend and a protagonist of that great city, that in this instance Manchester has not been worthy of herself.
  I am delighted that the Attorney-General has stated, in connection with the letter to the Ardwick Cemetery holders, that there are no grounds for prosecuting for an offence under Section 12 of the Act. Nevertheless, it was contrary to Section 13 of the Act to write direct to the shareholders; and, however much hon. Members opposite may dislike it and say that it is a slur, my best legal advice—and it is pretty high legal advice—says that it was a criminal offence.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: Say that outside.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I will see you outside.
  Mr. Lever: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. May I have your Ruling whether an hon. Member of this House is entitled to make allegations of a criminal offence against another Member who has no opportunity of protecting himself? Would the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) make such a statement outside this House?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I would check any hon. Member who made a statement about another hon. Member of this House which was not in order, but the hon. and gallant Member is quite in order in what he is saying now. The only thing which was really quite out of order was the remark that he made when he said, "I will see you outside." I have no intention of seeing the hon. and gallant Member outside.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am the last person to seek the protection of the Privilege of this House. If I am wrong, and if any hon. Gentleman can produce legal evidence of the highest
  486
  quality to show that I am wrong, I shall at once withdraw. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the public interest does not require him to prosecute in this case.
  As regards the Manchester periodical or magazine which has been made available to all Members through the Vote Office, at great cost to the Manchester ratepayers—I shudder to think how much it cost—
  Mr. Alfred Robens: Whose expense account was that?
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: —the first paragraph of the introduction states, inter alia:
  "The City Council submit this statement to satisfy the House and all who have read the Report that the City Council and the Town Clerk have acted with complete propriety."
  This was issued to all hon. Members immediately after the Attorney-General's reply, to a written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), that an offence had been committed under Section 13 of the Act, a certain kind of offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "A criminal offence."] I will not remark on that. I wish merely to say that, as far as I am concerned, I do not think that this magazine—
  Mr. Eric Johnson: My hon. and gallant Friend says that my right hon. and learned Friend has said that an offence had been committed under the Act. As I read what my right hon. and learned Friend said, it was that—
  "it would, therefore, appear that there was an infringement of this Section".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 78.]
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: For myself, I consider that that is as good as saying that an offence has been committed. I do not understand why my hon. Friend should make an intervention of that nature.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better take his hon. Friend outside, too.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am no lawyer and I have little experience of such matters. I want to contribute to this debate by submitting what may well be the point of view of the ordinary citizen. If anything I say is wrong, no

  487
  doubt I shall be corrected not only while I am speaking but afterwards also. What are the facts? They can be simply and plainly stated. The Manchester Corporation decided to take over the Ardwick Cemetery. Quite properly, it first approached the director and made an offer. The director, quite naturally, and, again, perfectly properly, felt that he could get a better bargain than the Corporation proposed, and refused the offer.
  This happens, I understand, quite often to experts in take-over bids like Mr. Charles Clore, but what does not happen then is that Mr. Clore says, "You have refused my offer of 6d. a share, or whatever it may be. Very well; I will go to Parliament and promote a Bill which will make you accept it". But this is what the Corporation did.
  The Corporation put provisions in its Bill for the take-over of the company at an arbitrary figure, without consulting either the shareholders or anybody except officials of its own City Treasurer's Office and an unnamed stockbroker who said that he thought the shares were probably unmarketable. But when a company incorporated under the Companies Act is to be wound up, as the Bill says it must be, no question of marketing the shares should arise. The Companies Act recognises that any value placed on shares in these circumstances might well mean that the shareholders would be unfairly treated. That is the purpose of the Act. That is why Parliament passed the law and that is why the Act provides for quite a different form of winding up, namely, that, after liabilities have been met, the net assets are divided among the shareholders. To start talking about the market value of shares in a company to be compulsorily taken over has an ominous ring about it. It repeats, on a small scale, the worst features of nationalisation without reference to fair value, arbitration, and so forth.
  We are told in the Manchester magazine that the figure offered for the shares was a generous one and that everybody was happy about it. Of course, no shareholder wrote to the Corporation after the Committee's report. The shareholders saw that Parliament was determined to see that they had a fair deal,
  488
  so what earthly point was there in writing to Manchester? Anyway, that is not the point. If one wants to take over a company, it should be done in the proper, recognised way, and any other method is open to grave abuse.
  I shall not argue whether or not the price offered by the Manchester Corporation was generous or ungenerous, fair or unfair. I ask hon. Members to imagine themselves as shareholders, considering for the moment that the offer they have had for their shares has been most ungenerous. What action can they take? What can they do about it? Imagine one's boiling indignation at the injustice of the offer because one is now being forced to sell at a low figure. How can one obtain justice? As I understand it, the answer is that one could petition against the Bill. This is an expensive and difficult proceeding far beyond the resources of shareholders. They might lose the case and finish with less than ever or even with a liability. If they won, their expenses might be so great that they would finish with less than the original offer.
  How can anyone afford to fight a huge corporation with all its powers and limitless purse supplied by the Manchester ratepayers? The answer is, of course, that one takes anything one is offered and is thankful for it This is the reason for Section 13 of the Act.
  I want now to examine the letter written by the Manchester Corporation to the Ardwick Cemetery shareholders. The first paragraph starts:
  "If you have not visited this cemetery recently you may not be aware how neglected it has become. The entrance gates are broken, and the growth of weeds and shrubbery has made it almost impossible to reach some of the graves".
  Robens: Is it true or not?
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: That is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman should know, moreover, that it is not customary in this House for a Front Bench Member to interrupt a back bencher.
  If I were a small shareholder, I should feel, on reading that paragraph, that I was responsible for this bad order. Further, I would also realise that I could not afford to put it right. What will come next? I am beginning to feel a

  489
  little anxious. This is the next paragraph:
  "It is difficult to see how the cemetery company with its limited resources can hope to make any substantial improvement in these conditions and there seems a real danger of the cemetery becoming a public scandal as has happened with one or two commercial cemeteries in other towns."
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: We are all agreed on that. What is the shareholders' reaction? [An HON. MEMBER: "Sell the stock in trade."] My reaction would be, "The Manchester Corporation are being quite nice about it. They point out that they cannot afford to spend the money. But here we go again—that nasty bit about scandals elsewhere. Perhaps they were made examples of elsewhere and had to spend a lot of money and lost all their shares. How can I get rid of this liability and sell my shares?"
  Paragraph 3 reads:
  "The company could not dispose of the cemetery for commercial purposes without obtaining an Act of Parliament and at very high cost, as this would involve not only the removal of the tombstones but also the exhumation of all the human remains."
  As a shareholder, I am getting more worried than ever. My reaction is, "Oh, dear, I cannot get rid of my shares without an Act of Parliament—and all that bit about tombstones and human remains! This is absolutely awful."
  Now we get the paragraph where the soft soap comes into the matter:
  "The City Council could usefully make use of the land for school playing fields or as an open space (which should avoid having to remove the human remains) and they will be prepared to do this notwithstanding the considerable cost involved in clearing away the weeds and removing the tombstones, if they are able to acquire the cemetery undertaking as a whole, which means acquiring all the shares."
  My reaction to that is that I heave a sigh of relief. At last I have a willing buyer and I am a willing seller. My next reaction is, "What will I get?"
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. and gallant Member could not get half-a-crown for his own house.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will the hon. Gentleman stop that quacking? Therefore, I heave a sigh of relief. I have a willing buyer and I am a willing
  490
  seller. I want to get as much for it as I can.
  Paragraph 5 submits the offer, and I will not go into the offer in detail except to say that it carefully omits to say what are the profitable assets in the shape of investments and rent. That is a nasty one. Hon. Members opposite will have to spend quite some time in answering that one.
  Paragraph 6 ends the letter. This is what it says:
  "You will understand that if this opportunity is allowed to pass it is doubtful whether such a favourable offer would be forthcoming in the future, quite apart from the fact that the company may in the meantime be forced by public opinion to use more of their income and investments on caring for the cemetery than they have done in the past."
  It goes on:
  "It would be most helpful if you would let me have your decision as soon as possible."
  My reaction to that final paragraph is this: "If I do not accept the offer, they will withdraw it. In addition, I shall probably be forced to put the cemetery in good order. I may be ruined". But the Board of Trade representative reported to the Committee that it was not at all certain that this threat could have been enforced. If the company wound up, it would be open for the liquidator to apply to the courts for leave to disclaim this liability, as was done in Nottingham. As a shareholder, I consider that I am for the high jump. An eminent lawyer told me when he read that letter that he would have got rid of the shares as quickly as he possibly could on receipt of it.
  But suppose the shareholder, as is said in the North, "turns a bit awkward", and he decides, "I do not think I will sell these shares after all". He knows that he is faced with another and even greater danger. Manchester may decide to acquire the property by compulsory purchase order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] As my speech blossoms like some flower opening in the sun, the hon. Member will hear the reason. If he fights for justice once the compulsory purchase order machinery gets into motion he realises that the expense of an inquiry might be even greater. Solicitors and lawyers have to be paid; expenses will be incurred in the attendance of witnesses, and so on; and even if he wins,

  491
  the expenses as a result of that inquiry may be so great that again he will end up with a loss.
  But suppose he wins the inquiry. He is not over the last jump yet, because Manchester might decide on some other excuse to hold another inquiry. This story bears very much on the minds of people who live in the North. A second inquiry actually took place at Lymm in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper). Here Manchester wishes to acquire an area to build a new town. The second inquiry has just been completed, and the result of it has proved the most terrible expense to the county council and to the National Farmers' Union.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: This is quite out of order.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: We know that the hon. Member is extremely sensitive on this point. I submit that it is in order.
  Mr. Lever Mr. Lever rose—
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will the hon. Member sit down?
  Mr. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Mr. Speaker has already ruled earlier that anything outside the terms of the Ardwick Cemetery are absolutely unrelated to the matters of debate and must not be introduced. The hon. Member is going outside the realms of the Ardwick Cemetery, for what reason I do not know, but he seems clearly out of order. I think that the learned Clerks at the Table—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order. Having regard to the point made by Mr. Speaker when he was in your place, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to submit that my hon. and gallant Friend is justified in his reference.
  Mr. Lever Mr. Lever rose—
  Mr. Williams: I am on a point of order, and I do not think I should be interrupted.
  Mr. Lever: May we have a reply to my point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I will hear the hon. Member for Exeter.
  Mr. Williams: I am speaking further to the point of order by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever). I venture to suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my hon. and gallant Friend is fully justified in referring to these other activities in Manchester.
  Mr. Lever: Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
  Mr. Williams: I am on a point of order. My hon. and gallant Friend, in his very able manner, said that if the shareholders were not to accept this offer, they might suffer in the same way as other people suffered from the City of Manchester.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not now seem to be making a point of order. I understand that Mr. Speaker called this Amendment, which deals largely with the cemetery, which, I understand, is the main point of the discussion. That does not mean that the discussion is entirely limited to the cemetery, because the Question is, "That the Bill be now considered."
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order. I am giving this illustration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to show how it bears on the mind of one of the shareholders who received that letter. It is extremely relevant.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) referred in his speech to the purchase of land by the Manchester Corporation from Rochdale [HON. MEMBERS: "Middleton."] I am sorry, Middleton. Mr. Speaker said that matters of that kind were outside the scope of the discussion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker ruled that out—I was not present at the time, as the hon. Member knows—because it was not in the Bill. We cannot discuss what is not in the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Hon. Members are extremely sensitive on this point because they are not going to like it. The second inquiry into the acquisition of land in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn has just been completed. The share-

  493
  holder may live in Runcorn or in Lymm or Mobberley, or in the Knutsford constituency, if he is lucky. The point is that the shareholder knows what happened at this second inquiry. It has proved a tremendous expense to the county council, to the National Farmers' Union and to the owners of land. They have been put to double the expense in order to fight for their rights. The shareholder may be a member of the National Farmers' Union. The head of the National Farmers' Union came to tell me, on this very case in the area of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn, that these rich corporations have only to go on long enough and they will win all their cases by default because the other party cannot afford to go on.
  I very much regret the publication of the Manchester magazine, because I consider that it has made Manchester's case even worse. Manchester flatly refuted the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and then sought to divert attention by publishing a lot of irrelevant matter, such as photographs of the cemetery, and arguing whether or not a fair price was paid for the cemetery. That was done after the Board of Trade had made its correction. It was done after the Select Committee, consisting of all parties in the House of Commons, considered that Manchester had been guilty of offence. So strong was the evidence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had to put in the fraud squad.
  Instead of this arrogant attitude, how different it would have been if only Manchester had said, "We are sorry we acted as we did. We thought we were acting in the best interests of everybody, including the shareholders. As a Corporation, however, we realise that in such matters our procedure must be scrupulously correct and our communications must observe the highest standard of clarity and integrity. We apologise and we are only too anxious to put matters right in any way we can. We are truly sorry." That is the language of humility. [Laughter.] However much hon. Members may laugh, that is the language that the Manchester Corporation of an earlier generation might have used and it is still not too late for it to be used now. The bigger somebody is and the more powerful he is, the more everyone admires him
  494
  if he honestly and sincerely says that he is sorry.
  The last thing I want to do is to block the Bill. It would put both the Manchester ratepayers and the Cheshire County Council to even greater expense, to say nothing of inconveniencing some of my constituents. All I ask is that the wrong which has been done should be put right and in that spirit I have already withdrawn my Motion that the Bill be considered upon this day three months. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree, and that they will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: It must be at least deeply reassuring to the House that when we have heard the last Division bell and have gone to our "Long" home, our purged remains will be protected by the vigilance of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) and that he will scrupulously insist that before anything be done with those remains the Companies Act, the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act and all other statutory laws and enactments that may be relevant should be strictly complied with. It is also something of a comfort to know that the House of Commons of the day will be addressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lt.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) in a speech the purport of which, I gather, is likely to be the subject of humility.
  However, the point which has been raised is a point of substance and I want each of the two hon. Members who have spoken to believe me when I say two things. First, contrary to the views held by some on these benches, I readily accept that they spoke with real sincerity and from a sense of anxiety lest any injustice be done to anyone or any impropriety on the part of the Manchester Corporation be condoned simply because it is the Manchester Corporation with its wealth, standing and great reputation. I ask the two hon. Members to believe that though I have the honour of being one of the Members for one of the Manchester constituencies, for my part, whatever I say is said to the House with utter sincerity and is not special pleading made

  495
  on behalf of my native city or on behalf of my constituents.
  The first point which must be cleared up is the question of the circular by the Manchester Corporation offering to buy the shares in this funeral company. It makes, I would almost say, a refreshing change for a take-over bidder to extend his activities to the lesser-known field of the cemetery company. It is an interesting precedent and it is perfectly right that we should scrutinise all the incidents of it with great care.
  There is an Act in being called the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, which deals with the issue of circulars offering to buy shares in companies, public or private. Certain exempted classes of persons—stockbrokers, share dealers and the like—can send out circulars to shareholders making an offer for their shares. The reason for that was that before the war, many fly-by-night traders and individuals and crooks used to send out circulars for shares, get share certificates, promise money and not pay The Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act was passed requiring that only certain people should send out these circulars. That is the Section the infringement of which has been mentioned by the Attorney-General.
  Of course, had the Manchester Corporation desired, it could have sent out the identical circular to any of these shareholders unaltered in its wording and nobody could have made mention of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. It really must be made plain. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to do so, and I do not complain when he talks about a criminal offence any more than one of his hon. Friends can complain when I suggest that if he left his car in the wrong place he would be committing a criminal offence; but I wish to urge upon him that the substance of complaint, even if it be true, against the Town Clerk in sending out his circular is far more technical, far less grave and of far less legal concern than a parking offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member, I know, wants to be fair. This affects other reputations outside this House and if he reads the Attorney-General's Answer with care he will see. I will read it to the House, because there should be no argument about it, as it is a point of
  496
  some gravity and no one should be misled about it.
  "Section 13 of the Act prohibits subject to the exceptions specified in subsections (2) and (3) of the Section, the distribution of a circular inviting persons to sell securities. Neither subsection (2) nor subsection (3) seems to me to apply to this case.…"
  That means that the Corporation were not exempted persons because they were not stockbrokers or licensed dealers and they had not deposited £500 with the Board of Trade to show that they were people of substance
  "and it would therefore appear that there was an infringement of this Section."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 78.]
  That is the only infringement that was alleged. The other Section dealing with the prevention of fraud and the protection of shareholders is an important one. No one is allowed to send out to shareholders, even authorised persons, any circular which is unfair or misleading whether by positive statement or even by omission.
  When the vigilant Attorney-General very properly went into this question with the Director of Public Prosecutions, he investigated with great thoroughness, as he was bound to do and with all the apparatus, machinery and resources of the law, all that had been done and he came to this conclusion. He said it in unmistakeable language. A full inquiry has been made by the police in order to ascertain whether there is evidence of an offence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.
  The result of this inquiry showed that there was no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts.
  The Attorney-General has expressly said, having conducted a full police investigation, that this circular sent out was absolutely without blemish either in its affirmative statements or in any question of distortion and even was free from any complaint that there was a suppression of any material facts.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Report from the Committee on the Manchester Corporation Bill. In the penultimate paragraph, he will see that the Town Clerk admitted in evidence that in

  497
  seeking to buy shares on behalf of the Corporation he had not disclosed that the break-up value of the shares was in excess of the £1 per share offered.
  Mr. Lever: I do not want to have to read to the House long tracts in detail. I know that the hon. Member wants to be fair on this matter, particularly as it affects the reputation of a great city and its leading citizens. The Attorney-General had a police investigation which was not available to the Committee. He got together considerable evidence, took professional advice, and came to the absolutely decided conclusion that no complaint could be made about the substance of the circular either in its affirmative character or that there was a suppression of material facts.
  Mr. John Hobson: This is an important matter. I think it is the main point of the argument. It is consistent with the view that there was a perfectly innocent suppression or concealment of an important fact, because all that the Attorney-General says is that there was no dishonest concealment and under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act dishonesty is an essential element. Nevertheless, it does leave open the conclusion that the Town Clerk, perfectly innocently, and believing that the shares were valueless, did omit to state to the shareholders facts that might have been material for their consideration.
  Mr. Lever: The Attorney-General said that there was nothing in that circular which could be construed as a dishonest concealment and any attempt to construe the circular—and any hon. Member on either side of the House is perfectly within his rights to attempt to do so—in a way which implies some form of impropriety or dishonesty in its wording is in flat contradiction with the careful conclusion of the Attorney-General based upon the full information which was not available to the Committee, to the Board of Trade, or to any hon. Member of this House.
  I do not think that there is any responsible Member of this House who would, or will, attempt to construe this circular in any way which is in conflict with the Attorney-General's decision.
  While I do not and cannot object to hon. Members saying that this might have
  498
  been in the circular or that might have been in the circular, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford, who is a sportsman and whom I know would not want any low hitting, will not want anything he has said to be taken as being in contravention of the Attorney-General's findings. Whatever criticism he has about the circular, he has not suggested any impropriety in its wording which implies any intention on the part of the Corporation or the Town Clerk to be unfair or dishonest to the shareholders.
  Do not let us make too heavy weather about the fact that the Corporation did not send out the circular through stockbrokers. I do not think that it becomes any more impressive or that the shareholders would be in any way more protected. The only reason for the circular being sent to stockbrokers is that the stockbroker, if he makes any offer, will be there to pay for the offer if it is accepted. It is not suggested that the Corporation could not find the £2,000-odd required if they made an offer.
  Sir J. Barlow: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Select Committee which says that it is clear to the Committee that the Corporation obtained the shares by giving a one-sided view which failed to disclose the true position of the company on break-up? That is most important.
  Mr. Lever: On that point it is a little difficult to reconcile such a view with the view based upon the full knowledge which became available to the Attorney-General. If in fact the Corporation sent out a circular, acting with full professional advice, the Attorney-General would make no special allowance for it. If they really sent out a one-sided circular it is a little difficult to see how the Attorney-General came to the conclusion that there was no dishonesty involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was not as if it were some financial innocent like the hon. Member for Knutsford or the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich. It was a very experienced Corporation which sent out the circular armed with every kind of accountancy, and legal advice. I am sure that the Attorney-General would have made allowance for that if the Corporation had sent out anything that was hopelessly one-sided. Quite certainly the Attorney-General would have been forced to the conclusion that, if there had been

  499
  a misleading of the shareholders, that was dishonest in the sense that it was calculated to make them sell their shares too cheaply.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: That is what it did.
  Mr. Lever: I am trying to be as sincere and as fair as I can. If the Corporation, with all professional advice, had sent out a circular which was one-sided and calculated to make the shareholders part with their shares more cheaply than they would have done if they had received a circular setting out the full facts, then the Corporation would have been guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.
  Mr. Hirst: The word "dishonesty" is very important in the context. Nobody suggests that the Town Clerk did it intentionally, or that the Corporation intended it, but in all probability had this been done by stockbrokers the full break-up value would have been given.
  Mr. Lever: I give way because I believe that no one would intervene on such a grave matter except to express very sincere anxiety about the facts of this situation.
  It is not really arguable that the Corporation of Manchester, with its Town Clerk, surveyors and financial advisers could have sent out a one-sided circular, calculated to get the shares cheaply, and not have been dishonest if they suppressed material facts. I hope I have it clear that it is dishonesty within the meaning of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act if the Town Clerk sent out a circular which was one-sided and which would have been known to him to be one-sided.
  But the Committee was not in possession of all the facts, as was the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General was armed with the whole apparatus of the Fraud Squad. He was able to ask every shareholder. It must be borne in mind that no charitable allowance would have been made to a Corporation which, according to the Attorney-General, was already in technical infringement, if the Corporation had suppressed material facts which ought to have been drawn to the attention of the shareholders. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will be extremely unfair if he holds that view contrary to the only responsible opinion.
  Mr. Hirst: I am accepting what the Report says.
  Mr. Lever: In so far as the Report conflicts with the Attorney-General's findings, and, let it be remembered, with the findings of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the whole apparatus of police investigation in these matters, one must, of course, reject the Report. One is bound to do so if one is honest and sincere.
  As to the realities of the situation, on the question of shares it has been suggested that the Corporation has been unfair in seeking to avoid the ordinary effect of the Companies Act in the winding up of the company and in the distribution of its assets. While I am prepared to the end to believe in the sincerity of the intention of hon. Members to do justice both to the Manchester Corporation and to its leading public servant, there is a point at which credulity may be strained by the action of hon. Members themselves.
  The Corporation is charged with the offence or unfairness of seeking to avoid the effect of the Companies Act, which says that, when one winds up a company, the assets, after all its liabilities have been paid off, go to the shareholders. There is nothing wrong in that. It is done every day and it is perfectly reasonable that it should be done.
  The situation often arises in normal financial transactions that a company finds that it must go into liquidation because business has ceased, and it then finds that some other person would like to buy the company. Instead of the shareholders being compelled, against their wishes, to have liquidation and a winding-up and all the expenses of that, to the benefit of the legal and accountancy professions and not to theirs, a bid is accepted from an outside person who wants to buy the assets. The directors, in advising acceptance of such a bid, point out that the shareholders are getting rather more than they would otherwise receive because the expense of liquidation has been saved.
  The Corporation had no point in putting this company into liquidation. Except on the basis that the Bill would be passed, it was impossible to calculate what the assets of the company would be. The best advice that the Corporation

  501
  could obtain and could give, as set out in the circular, was that the shareholders would do much worse in a liquidation, after they had been to the expense of liquidation and the colossal expense of attempting to disclaim the liabilities of the company by an appeal to the courts. The company was in a singular difficulty, because it might have gone to the expense in the courts and, in the end, might have been turned down by the courts, after all the assets had been dispersed in a fruitless attempt to get a favourable decision from the courts.
  The Corporation bore that in mind. The Manchester City Council and all the parties represented thereon, and all the professional advisers of the Corporation, are not really hell-bent to cheat the shareholders of the cemetery out of a trifling sum. This is not a large-scale take-over. The difference between £1 and £2 a share, except as a difference of principle, is a matter of £1,000 or £2,000. Manchester Corporation is not anxious to cheat the shareholders. It proclaimed, when it passed its resolution, that it wanted to be not merely fair but generous to the shareholders in its offer.
  There is no reason to doubt the Corporation's sincerity. This is not a political matter. People of all parties on the Manchester City Council, having investigated with considerable anxiety all these transactions, are abundantly satisfied that the Manchester Corporation and its public officials, and particularly the Town Clerk, have behaved with perfect fairness and decency.
  I ask hon. Members who profess admiration for the city of my birth to bear in mind the fact that every single member of the City Council and its officials anted in this belief. We all like to ride our hobby horses. I like to ride mine and I suspect that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford are riding theirs, but I know that behind their remarks lies a very real sincerity and deep anxiety for people who might be unfairly treated.
  But I know that they would want to put the matter in the proper proportion and, in those circumstances, they cannot maintain that all the officials of the Corporation would act in such a way. It might happen in the case of one eccentric official, who wanted to cut the cost by
  502
  £500 and achieve a petty victory at the expense of a shareholder, but it is not conceivable that he would be backed through thick and thin by every Member of Parliament representing the City of Manchester, by every city councillor, and every one of his colleagues in the professional representation of the City of Manchester. I would ask the House to bear that fact in mind.
  Have the shareholders been fairly treated? I will put the other side of the point. Manchester Corporation honestly thought that the shareholders were being generously treated. Practically every shareholder has accepted the offer. Some of them had legal advice before accepting; some had the advice of stockbrokers, and some had the advice of accountants, and except for a few almost untraceable shares all the shareholders have accepted the offer. Over 90 per cent. of the shares have been accepted.
  Hon. Members object, sometimes with a certain amount of reason, to the way in which we discuss company business and affairs in this House. Hon. Members rise from the back benches, never having seen the inside of the industry concerned, and hold forth freely and recklessly, much to the indignation of the men in the industry who sit seething in the public gallery while the affairs of their industry are being discussed. Two directors of this company are chartered accountants; both have accepted the offer. They do not need professional advice, because they are accountants. Not only did they advise the other shareholders to accept; they have accepted themselves—a token of sincerity which is not always in evidence in the case of some of the take-over bids in which the Manchester Corporation is not a buyer. Some of the shares have been bought upon the advice of surveyors and valuers, because property assets are concerned. Every kind of advice—from bankers, stockbrokers, solicitors and accountants—has been brought into the matter.
  It is quite true that in some cases there are voiceless small shareholders, who cannot go to the trouble or expense of making themselves heard in complaint, but in this case the Attorney-General and the Fraud Squad set out to find complaints. There has not been a complaint by a single shareholder—not one. The shareholders have not complained, and the directors have not complained. It it a little hard

  503
  for hon. Members opposite to soapbox on their behalf. The shareholders are calm, well-satisfied and well-informed. It is not the quiet of the grave that has descended upon the remunerated shareholders, but rather the satisfaction of those who have done a transaction with a local authority which has proved generally more favourable to them than would have been the case than if they had dealt with a finance house.
  I have no hesitation in assuring the House about this matter. It would be idle for me to go into the details of the balance sheet, but I can tell the House that, having scrutinised it very carefully, I have not the least doubt that the offer made was fair to the point of generosity. It was as generous as the Manchester Corporation could justly make it, having regard to its duty to the citizens of Manchester.
  It is easy to be generous with public money, and it would have been easy for the Town Clerk to have saved himself much embarrassment by slipping into the Treasurer's office and saying, "We will offer another £2,000; it is not our money." But they could not in conscience pay £2 a share. In offering £1 they were stretching themselves to the very limit of permissible generosity, having regard to the fact that they were not paying from their own pockets but from public funds.
  Lieut. -Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the hon. Member aware that we are not arguing whether or not the price was a fair one? That is quite immaterial to us. We are saying that the letter should never have been sent, and was contrary to Section 13 of the Act.
  Mr. Lever: On the findings of the Attorney-General, without any complaint or reference to the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, the Corporation could have sent the identical letter through a second-rate stockdealer who had paid a few hundred pounds to the Board of Trade to get a licence to do it. The wording could have been exactly the same, word for word, and no sort of offence would have been committed.
  I would make an earnest personal appeal to hon. Members opposite. The Bill is a valuable one, and is so regarded by all hon. Members, and by Manchester. There is the further point that any mistake is the mistake of the Town
  504
  Clerk, who sent out this circular without the consent or formality which is required of the law. That mistake has been paid for over and over again by that official, in terms of the anxiety involved and the grotesque exaggeration of the situation which has occurred.
  The Town Clerk of Manchester is an official who enjoys the confidence and, indeed, the affection of every hon. Member of this House who has had occasion to meet him and knows of his work for the City. We have known of trouble because local authority town clerks and senior public officials have had difficulties and personal arguments with different members of their councils. But the Town Clerk of Manchester is virtually unique in enjoying the authoritative confidence of every member of the City Council and I know that no one in this House, in the limited time and circumstances available for Private Members' Bill procedure, would want to do anything to undermine the situation and cause more hardship and grief to an official who has done nothing but deserve praise and good will from the public authority he serves, and from the House of Commons which, of course, is responsible for the actions of people throughout the country.
  I beg hon. Members who have spoken to be fair about this and to have a sense of proportion about it. They have done their duty. They have raised the requirements for the protection of shareholders, and I beg them now to consider the effect on the Bill, and the consequences of the misinterpretation of any further opposition in the minds of the public in the form of a slur on the Town Clerk of Manchester who, in his wartime and peacetime service has done nothing to deserve any such slur.
  8.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I feel that it may help hon. Members if I intervene at this early stage. I do so reluctantly, because I know that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak, but I think that it may help them if I indicate how the Board of Trade came into this matter, and, in so doing, I may be able to assist hon. Members in arriving at a decision.
  That Board of Trade intervened originally in this matter because it has certain

  505
  duties under the Companies Act. Shareholders acquire shares in a company and creditors have dealings with it on the basis of the rights and liabilities contained in the Companies Act. The Board of Trade must safeguard the principle that in the winding up of a company, shareholders and creditors should not be deprived of the protection afforded by the Companies Act. While in this particular case creditors seemed to be looked after, that did not appear prima facie to be the case as regards the shareholders.
  I should perhaps explain at the outset, since the matter has been referred to, that the Ardwick Cemetery Company was not a statutory company, that is to say, one established by a special Act of Parliament. A statutory company is governed by the provisions of the relevant Act. Thus, if I may give the House an example, the Winchester Cemetery Company was a statutory company established under a private Act of 1840, which contained in effect a complete code for the running of the company's affairs. It was dissolved and the Act repealed by the Winchester Corporation Act, 1952. As the Manchester Corporation says, the Board of Trade did not comment in this case. It did not do so because it had no standing in the matter. The Ardwick Cemetery Company, however, was an ordinary limited company and subject therefore, to the provisions of the Companies Act.
  It may help hon. Members if I mention that the provisions of the Manchester Corporation Bill came to the notice of the Board of Trade in accordance with the arrangements under which Private Bills are, under a Standing Order, deposited with Government Departments. This Bill proposed that the undertaking of the company, including its assets and liabilities, should be transferred to the Corporation; that the shareholders should have a right to receive £1 in respect of each share, and that the company should be wound up under a procedure laid down. There was no question of any agreement as to price or of any freedom of choice by the shareholders. It was a case of compulsory transfer, at a price which had not been agreed, and the extinguishing of the shares.
  Mr. H. Lever indicated assent.
  Mr. Erroll: I am glad to observe the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) nodding his head, because I appre-
  506
  ciate his knowledge of these matters. The shareholders would get £1 per share if they asked for it.
  The Board of Trade officials put these considerations to the Parliamentary Agent, suggesting that the Bill should be amended so that the price paid by the Corporation was a price agreed with the company or with all the shareholders and the company be wound up under the Companies Act, but this procedure was not found to be acceptable. The Board of Trade officials made it known that the Board of Trade would be putting in a report to the Select Committee. Therefore, this Board of Trade intervention did not come as a surprise.
  In the Board of Trade report to the Select Committee the general point was made that a company incorporated under the Companies Act should be wound up in accordance with that Act. The report went on to show, by way of example, in what respects disregard of the proper procedure could prejudice the interests of the shareholders. It seemed clear that not every shareholder could be consulted. Not all their addresses were known. As another example, under the procedure envisaged, the company's file, which the Board of Trade has to keep available for public inspection, would contain nothing to show that the company had been wound up. Prima facie, it also seemed to the Board of Trade that, purely on the basis of the latest available balance sheet, the company had assets equivalent to more than £ 1 per share.
  All these examples were an indication of what might be involved if the provisions of the Companies Act were disregarded. The Board of Trade officials who gave evidence before the Select Committee made it quite clear that their concern was with the procedure, and that they could not pronounce, nor was it their duty to do so, on the question of what was a fair price.
  There was evidently much discussion before the Select Committee about the way in which the company had neglected its duties. Whatever one may think about the sad state into which the cemetery had been allowed to decline, that is not a matter for the Board of Trade. I want to make that absolutely clear. Our duty is to ensure that shareholders, whether or not the company has been well run, that is to say, provided that no offences

  507
  have been committed, receive on a winding up their due rights, whatever they may in the event amount to.
  Here I must emphasise that the Board of Trade report was directed to the provisions of the Bill in the form in which it was brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. In actual fact the Manchester Corporation had, as it says in its own statement, gone ahead of the Bill. It had already become the holder of most of the shares as the result of the letter sent out by the Town Clerk on 2nd December, 1957, a letter which was unknown to the Board of Trade when it sent its report to the Select Committee. I emphasise this, because the Board of Trade comment on the break-up value on the evidence of the 1956 balance sheet was not made in relation to this letter, which, as I say, was unknown to the Board of Trade.
  The statement by the Town Clerk that he had already approached shareholders naturally raised the question—and this was a new issue—whether there had been compliance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, which prescribes the channels through which invitations to deal may be sent to shareholders. When, in his replies to the Select Committee, the Town Clerk agreed that he had not mentioned the break-up value in his letter, the possibility arose further of a breach of Section 12 of the Act, which relates to invitations which are false or misleading or conceal material facts.
  The Board of Trade has responsibilities under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act as well as under the Companies Act and it seemed to us proper, inasmuch as the Board of Trade was already inevitably involved, that the question whether proceedings should be taken should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The House will be aware of the conclusions reached by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the Town Clerk's letter seemed not to offend against Section 12 of the Act. It might help the House if I read the relevant two sentences, which are:
  "The results of this inquiry show that there is no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material fact. Consequently there are no grounds of prosecution for an offence against Section 12 of the Act."
  508
  Nevertheless, as the statement went on to point out, there was an infringement of Section 13 of the Act, which relates to the channels through which invitations to sell securities may be circulated. If I may say so, I cannot think that the Manchester Corporation would still wish to maintain, as it still does in its statement, that the Town Clerk has acted throughout with complete propriety, since he would seem to be guilty of an infringement of Section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: There is an explanation of that.
  Mr. Erroll: The Manchester City Treasurer, in his report, comments with understanding on the attitude of the Board of Trade, but thinks that a settlement by agreement was unobjectionable and less expensive than recourse to the normal Companies Act procedure. On the first point we are at one with him. Had the Bill in fact proposed the transfer of the undertaking at a price agreed with the company, we would not have raised any objection.
  The outcome of the Board of Trade report and of discussions which took place thereafter with the Town Clerk of Manchester has been satisfactory in that the Bill has now been amended. I think the actual revised wording needs to be improved, but the intention is that the undertaking shall be transferred at a price to be agreed and the company wound up in accordance with the Companies Act. With that the Board of Trade is content. Had, from the start, the proposal been for transfer at an agreed price, no difficulty would have arisen.
  There is one other matter on which there is misunderstanding to which I should perhaps refer. I hope hon. Members will be patient with me. The Manchester Corporation thinks that there is an attitude of the Board of Trade which would encourage other cemetery companies to think that by neglecting the cemeteries and husbanding their resources they have merely to go into liquidation and the liquidator, by applying to the court, will be given leave to disclaim the derelict cemetery and to distribute the husbanded resources among the shareholders.
  There is, of course, no such attitude on the part of the Board of Trade.

  509
  Neither we nor anybody else can say what view would in fact be taken by a court on a disclaimer of onerous property in any particular circumstances. None the less, the possibility of such a disclaimer being allowed always exists and it seems to me that it was a proper comment of the Board of Trade representative to mention the possibility in connection with the corporation's statement that the liability of the Ardwick Cemetery Company to put the cemetery in order far outweighed its assets. I cannot believe that such a statement of fact could create the misapprehension suggested by the Manchester Corporation.
  This brings me to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). As I have said, the Board of Trade is content with the Bill as amended, and it is not part of our responsibilities to go further in the interests of the shareholders, most of whom have in fact accepted the £1 offered. I do wonder, however, whether, in view of the conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the letter from the Town Clerk was not misleading, there is any virtue in pressing this Amendment. It seems to me that my hon. Friend may in these circumstances prefer to withdraw his Amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government hopes to intervene very briefly later, but as he knew I would be on my feet before him, he has asked me to make one point which properly belongs to him. He tells me that there are a number of Clauses in the Bill which deal with matters of urgent public need and that it would be most injurious to the public interest if the Bill were lost as a result of carrying this Amendment. That is for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to say. I hope that I have helped hon. Members in all parts of the House by explaining the work done behind the scenes by the Board of Trade, the attitude we took, and why we took it.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: I will not attempt to argue the details of the Companies Acts, or the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, because I am certainly not an expert on that subject. However,
  510
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) made a devastating and almost anticipatory reply to the hon. Gentleman on certain points. However, I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Board of Trade would not wish anyone to read into the evidence that was put before the Select Committee by the Board of Trade representative an indication that the Board of Trade would consent to cemetery companies placed in a position similar to that of Ardwick Cemetery Limited disclaiming their liabilities. A reasonable man reading that evidence might very well come to that conclusion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham was extremely generous in his treatment of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport). My hon. Friend said that he thought that they had acted from the highest motives. However, both hon. Members used the occasion, protected by the Privilege of the House of Commons, to repeat the most serious charges and sneers against the Town Clerk of Manchester and against Manchester Corporation, charges which could not be borne out now that we have had the report from the Attorney-General. It was interesting, too, to see how occasionally the true reasons for the objections emerged. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich referred to part of his constituency which had been taken over for Manchester's housing needs, and the hon. and gallant Member talked of Manchester's struggle with Cheshire over overspill.
  I remind the House of the circumstances which prevailed in the cemetery for which this company is responsible and in whose interests so many hon. Members have been exercised. The cemetery began in the 1830s, originally comprising about 7½ acres. In the course of time, until further burials were prohibited, in 1950, it contained no fewer than 74,000 bodies. As long ago as 1893, by Order in Council, the opening of further graves was prohibited, although burials were permitted to be continued in the existing graves. It was not until 1950 that Manchester Corporation obtained Parliamentary sanction to prevent further burials.
  Selling graves in what was then a fashionable cemetery was a very lucrative

  511
  business in those Victorian times. When one considers the number of burials which took place in seven acres—and all the graves were sold—one gets some idea of the sum involved. It was a fashionable cemetery and some of Manchester's most distinguished citizens have been buried there—John Dalton; the first Lord Mayor of Manchester, Sir Thomas Potter; and Ernest Jones, a name distinguished in the Chartist movement and remembered especially on this side of the House.
  But since 1950 the cemetery has become extremely dilapidated. Its dilapidation proceeded apace from the moment it became unprofitable to the owners. The present position is that weeds 12 or 14 ft. high are in the cemetery, graves are dispoiled, vaults are open, rubbish is tipped in odd corners, and the surrounding walls and gates, which should have been maintained by any company with a serious sense of responsibility, have been neglected to the point where anyone can obtain access to the cemetery.
  When I went to look at the conditions and came across the grave of John Dalton, I noted with some interest that it was distinguished by being relatively well kept. I wondered why this grave had escaped the general neglect that characterised the rest. On returning from Manchester to London the following week, I met a friend, a physicist, who had, at one time, been a lecturer in physics at Manchester University and, of course, knew very well that John Dalton was buried there.
  When I mentioned this to him, he said, "Yes, I know that that particular grave is well maintained, and I will tell you why. When I was at the university, my professor, who thought something of the memory of Dalton, was so outraged by the neglected cemetery that he himself, not less than once a fortnight, cycled, with a bucket on his handlebars, from his home several miles away in a suburb of Manchester, in order to keep in reasonable condition the grave of that distinguished Manchester citizen, a figure revered in science."
  All around lie the ancestors of my constituents; victims of the cholera epidemics—all put in, and nowadays completely neglected—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell them about Ernest Jones, next to him.
  Mr. Griffiths: As I have already said, Ernest Jones was a distinguished Chartist leader. His gravestone was neglected, but was restored some years ago by the organised action of the trade union movement in Manchester.
  I see that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is present, and as he had down an Amendment about the use of the cemetery, perhaps he will be interested to hear that part of the original 7½ acres owned by the cemetery company has, with the absence of profits from the selling of graves, been leased to commercial enterprise, which is, I am informed, in contravention of the law. I do not know whether this comes within the purview of the Board of Trade—I gather from one of my hon. Friends who is an expert in these matters that it does not—but I hope that there is some Government Department that is as vigilant about breaches of the law in this respect as some seem to have been in pursuing the Town Clerk of Manchester.
  These pieces of the cemetery have been let to commercial enterprises which are being operated over the graves of thousands of Manchester citizens. I will tell two stories to illustrate the point. The first, related to me, coincidentally, yesterday in this House by a visiting constituent, is this. He happened to work for one of the private enterprises leasing part of the land from the cemetery company. In the course of his employment he was driving a stake into the ground. According to him, 18 in. below the surface he struck a solid object, which he took to be a railway sleeper. On getting away the 18 in. of soil, he found that he had, at that depth, struck the graves.
  Secondly, he told me that the people working for this enterprise on the burial ground leased by the cemetery company—I believe, improperly and illegally—are advised by their employers to be extremely careful about what they put into the ground, and not to disturb anything, because, otherwise, just under the surface, some of that enormous number of 74,000 Manchester people will be uncovered. So much for the stature of some of the people, at least, who have been responsible for this cemetery company.

  513
  The object of the Manchester Corporation was clearly a worth-while one. It was to turn this monstrous dilapidated cemetery into a modern amenity. If I might just sum up its present condition almost in a phrase, I would say that, if any hon. Member saw it as a backcloth or set for a Hollywood film of the adventures of Dracula, he would think that it had been exaggerated, so appalling is its dilapidation. What the Manchester Corporation proposes to do is to turn it into something that would be, as I say, a useful amenity for the citizens of Manchester.
  I will not—the House will, no doubt, think mercifully—go over the arguments once again about the letters sent by the Town Clerk to the shareholders. But as the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich quoted earlier an extract from a leader in The Times, may I remind the House of what the Manchester Guardian said about this matter following the publication of the Attorney-General's findings? As has been said several times this evening, the Attorney-General recorded that he had no ground for concluding that the Town Clerk's letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts. As the Manchester Guardian commented, that clearly is in conflict with the findings of the Committee's Report, which said that the Corporation obtained the shares by presenting a one-sided view which failed to disclose the true position of the company on break-up.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said, the Attorney-General had recourse to channels of inquiry which clearly our colleagues who sat on the Select Committee could not possibly have, and it is no reflection at all upon the findings of the Committee to say that the Attorney-General's comments may well be taken by the House as being a more truly accurate assessment of the position than that Which our colleagues found with the facts which were put before them in the Select Committee. I hope that the House will accept the Attorney-General's view rather than that of our colleagues on the Select Committee for the reasons which I have advanced.
  The Manchester Guardian properly recorded that the Town Clerk's probity, in consequence of this report on this matter, had been entirely vindicated. I should
  514
  think that most Members would agree with that. I thought that some of the observations which were made today by the mover and seconder of the Amendment were a little ungenerous in view of what has happened in this matter.
  Perhaps I might also say that these shareholders who responded to the Town Clerk's invitation to sell the shares—and I think that all but seventy-five very promptly responded to the offer—were not people who were ignorant of their rights. The fact of the matter is that the acceptance of the invitation to sell was received by the Manchester Corporation through solicitors, accountants, bankers and people who, I assume, have the technical knowledge to advise and defend their clients' interests.
  It is the fact that despite all the publicity that this matter has had in the national Press, despite the quite unfair misrepresentation of the position of the Town Clerk and the Manchester Corporation, even to this moment, so far as I know, there is not a single shareholder who has sought to take up a position other than the one that he originally took up. It seems to me that they are satisfied that their professional advisers advised them quite adequately.
  As to the argument about the true value, it has been argued that the value on break-up would be greater than the £1 offered by the Manchester Corporation. I must be careful in trespassing into this field because I am not an expert, but it is a fact, and it is recorded, that as recently as 1952 the shares were valued for probate at 5s. We are close to a debate on Privilege, and, although I disagreed with the majority decision yesterday, I never invoke Privilege too easily in this House. I am satisfied that following the offer that the Manchester Corporation made—it was known that they were going to make this offer for shares—there were some obtained for as little as 2s. 6d. I am satisfied as to the source of my information, and I hoped that it might be possible to substantiate this in detail, if it were necessary, at a later date.
  All the evidence and understanding on the matter I can obtain leads me to believe that, unless the company were able to disclaim its liabilities, its assets would be rapidly swallowed up in putting right the state of affairs which now exists.

  515
  Without any of the jargon, I understand disclaimer simply to mean that the company walks out and leaves the Manchester Corporation with the mess of the cemetery which it is today. The ratepayers, our constituents, would have to take it up and put right the things that the company has neglected for so many years. As I say, unless the company were able to disclaim, its assets would be rapidly swallowed up in putting the cemetery into decent order.
  If the Manchester Corporation is to be criticised at all, it should, I think, be criticised on the ground that it has failed for a very long time to pursue the owners of the cemetery for not putting the place in order. If anything, the Corporation has erred on the side of generosity in the offer it has made. If my constituents were able to understand the case thoroughly, they might have a criticism of the Town Clerk and the Manchester Corporation on the ground that they have been over-generous to the cemetery company.
  Throughout this matter, although there has been a charge that the Town Clerk and the Corporation may have committed a technical breach, they have acted clearly in the highest tradition of local government, clearly with a view to putting an end to a misuse to a piece of private property in the City and turning it into an amenity which can be of benefit to the citizens of Manchester and a valuable asset to the City.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Johnson: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has said that the Board of Trade is satisfied with the position as it is now, because I cannot, for myself, see any merit whatever in the proposal to recommit the Bill or to amend it in the way suggested in the Amendment calling for its recommittal. I should have thought that the ordinary layman, at any rate, would suppose that the suggestion that the shares on break up were worth more than £1 had been disposed of by the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Neither can I understand how, if the proposed Amendment were carried, it would be possible to value the net assets
  516
  of the cemetery. A valuer cannot possibly know in advance if the court will or will not give leave to disclaim.
  In my submission, moreover, the Amendment is unfair. It proposes that the Corporation shall pay £1 any way, but that if, by any chance, the shares were found to be worth more, it shall pay the extra amount also. If there is a proposal to go to valuation, the fair way is to say, "All right, we will go to valuation and we will pay whatever is decided upon." I venture to suggest that if that were done, and the shareholders had any option in the matter, they would unhesitatingly take the £1 and let things stay as they are. I hope to show, very briefly, that the shareholders have had not only a very fair deal, but a very generous one.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Winchester and Newbury cemeteries, saying that the position there was different and that it was not for the Board of Trade to intervene in any way. Just the same, I should like to remind the House that in both of those cases the assets, when the cemeteries were wound up or were taken over by those respective corporations, were greater than the assets of the Ardwick Cemetery Company, and in both instances the shareholders got absolutely nothing for their shares.
  I think that the Ardwick shareholders have been treated very well. I do not, of course, for one moment question the right, indeed the duty, of a Select Committee to report to the House in such words as it thinks fit. But I am bound to say that it seemed to me in this case that the Select Committee perhaps paid overmuch attention to and accepted rather too readily at face value the written report of the Board of Trade, but ignored the way in which that report had been amended or altered by the Board of Trade representative in evidence.
  It has been said that the Board of Trade did not know that that letter had been written. I found that rather hard to follow. The letter was written on 2nd December last year. The reason for which all right hon. and hon. Members representing Manchester tabled the Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, found was not necessary, was that we felt that the comments made in the Report of the Committee on the action

  517
  of the Town Clerk and of the Corporation were, to put it mildly, somewhat unreasonable, and that they appeared to us to reflect unfavourably on the honour and dignity of the Corporation and of the Town Clerk.
  There are two points to which I feel I must once again draw the attention of the House. First, the Report of the Select Committee stated that the Town Clerk admitted in evidence that in seeking to buy the shares on behalf of the Corporation he had not disclosed that the breakup value of the shares was in excess of the £1 offered. To my mind, that suggests that the Town Clerk, in fact, believed that the shares were worth more and deliberately concealed that belief. I do not know whether that was what the Committee intended to convey. I hope it was not, but that was the impression made on me.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I should like to read from page 14 of the minutes of evidence before the Committee. It states:
  "Chairman"—
  that is, myself—
  "Did you, Mr. Dingle, in your letter tell the shareholders that they were entitled on a break-up of the company to a division of the shares and that on the basis the shares would be worth more than £1 each? A. No, I did not."
  Mr. H. Lever: That was not the fact. Why should he?
  Mr. Johnson: It is not my place to criticise the Committee or argue with the Chairman, but I should like to refer to a passage in the Town Clerk's evidence seven lines from the bottom of page 14. He said there that in his opinion the break-up value of the shares was negligible. If he held that view, I do not see how he could have been expected to disclose something which he did not in all honesty think was the case. There was a possible misunderstanding on that point, and I do not wish to pursue it any further. The Select Committee's Report went on to say:
  "It was clear to the Committee that the Corporation obtained the shares by presenting a one-sided view which failed to disclose the true position of the Company on a break-up."
  That again, in the opinion of, I think, all hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies, was a somewhat unreason-
  518
  able comment, and I am sure that the House is glad that that has been answered completely in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which I do not think I need quote again as they have been quoted a number of times already.
  I believe that anyone who had gone into, the figures and the facts of this case very throughly would inevitably have come to the conclusion that the offer made by the Corporation was not only fair, but extremely generous. As has already been pointed out by several hon. Members, that at least was the view of the shareholders, acting with professional advice, in nearly all cases; and despite all this publicity, none of them has complained that they have been unfairly treated.
  As to the valuation of the shares, there would seem to be three possible ways in which this could be done. The first would be on the dividend record and the prospects of the company; secondly, on the possible sale of the land for commercial use, and thirdly, on break-up. I need not go into the first two of those methods, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has already made the point for me, taking it from a rather different point of view, that the shares were not worth very much. It is, perhaps, a point of interest that the last time the shares were valued for probate, a value of 5s. was accepted by the Board of Inland Revenue.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I do not like to interrupt my hon. Friend—I think it is a bad habit to interrupt people in the middle of their speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not interrupted any hon. Member on the other side. We are not arguing as to whether the price of the shares was fair. To my mind, that is entirely irrelevant. What we are saying is that the letter should never have been sent. That is the sole point on which we object.
  Mr. Johnson: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view. I know what he is arguing about and I also know what I am arguing about. My purpose is to show that the shares, in my view at least, were generously valued and, therefore, there is no possible object in recommitting the Bill to have any different form of valuation applied than is at present provided for.

  519
  If one comes to the question of break-up value, I think it would be admitted on all sides to be something which is extremely difficult to estimate. The Board of Trade, in the report to the Committee, stated quite correctly that in a winding-up under the Companies Act, 1948, the shareholders are entitled to any surplus after payment of creditors and of the cost of winding up. The Report goes on to say that judging from the company's last available balance sheet, the tangible assets exceeded the issued capital. From that, the report went on to draw the conclusion that on a break-up basis the shares were worth more than £1. That sounds all right on the face of it. But Section 316 of the Companies Act, however, also states:
  "In every winding up … all debts payable on a contingency, and all claims against the company, present or future, certain or contingent … shall be admissible to proof against the company …"
  Presumably, those liabilities would include the statutory notice which the Corporation would be bound to serve on learning that the company was proposing to go into liquidation and go out of existence and abandon the derelict area so as at least to preserve the available funds for the overdue work of maintenance. In fact, there is little doubt that the liabilities considerably exceed the assets.
  The Board of Trade representative said in his evidence that he thought it possible that a liquidator might have obtained leave from the court to disclaim and to distribute the assets irrespective of the problem that the abandonment of the cemetery would transfer to public responsibility. I am no lawyer, but, surely, it is most unlikely that the court would allow the liquidator to disclaim if it knew that the Corporation was prepared to take over the cemetery on condition that the Corporation had the assets transferred to itself. I believe that the case of Nottingham was entirely different, because that Corporation refused to take over the Nottingham cemetery on several occasions.
  We have had an explanation from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade of the point made by the Corporation in its statement that the attitude of the Board of Trade would be an encouragement to other cemeteries
  520
  to neglect their duties, to husband their resources and then to go into liquidation. The House has heard my hon. Friend's explanation of that. I quite accept that that is not the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but, for all that, I think that a good many companies might think that that was an opportunity they might take.
  In this case, the 1957 balance sheet shows that the assets are £3,469, after allowing for depreciation of the investment, and that if the cost of liquidation therefore came to more than £1,369, the 2,100 shares on that basis alone would be worth less than £1 apiece. That is fairly clear. It is impossible, of course, to estimate the cost of these actions, but we know that in the case of the Nottingham Cemetery Company the taxed costs have been £1,750, so we can conclude therefrom that on that basis alone, and leaving anything else out of consideration, the value of the shares is worth less than £1.
  Mr. Norman Pannell: Is it not fair also to take into account the leased land which is bringing in a rental of £310 a year? Is it not likely that that situation will persist, and that the Corporation will continue to collect that sum?
  Mr. Johnson: It is a rather dubious point, because it is illegally leased in the first place. The company had no right to lease it. I cannot help coming to the conclusion that if the Board of Trade had given a little more thought to the preparation of that Report it would not have made in it the categorical statement that on a break-up basis the shares are worth more than £1 apiece.
  Its representative subsequently modified that in his evidence. The Board of Trade representative made, to my mind, a rather extraordinary statement on pages 17 and 18 of the evidence when he said:
  "Mr. Dingle was quite right when he said that when we wrote the report we have submitted we had not the figures—in fact, I had not heard them until this morning—"
  I do not understand that. He went on to say:
  "The brokers, one can well understand, would advise that these shares were of no value.… In the case of a liquidation the position is somewhat different. You are not only then looking at the value from the income

  521
  point of view you are looking at the value from the break-up point of view which might or might not be more".
  The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) made an interjection during the proceedings of the Committee. He said:
  "It may be less".
  to which the Board of Trade's representative replied:
  "It may well be less, Sir, and with that may I say I do not think the Board of Trade is concerned.… It may be less, it may be more. I have only commented that on the last balance sheet available to us it would appear to be more."
  That seems a very different statement from the categorical one made in the written report that on a break-up basis the shares are worth more, a statement made, apparently, without the figures having been seen. I say again—I do not want to criticise the Committee in any way as I have told my hon. Friend—that I cannot help thinking that it did show a certain lack of caution in wording its report in the way it did.
  The fact that the Board of Trade say that the liquidator might have obtained leave to disclaim and that the shares might or might not have been worth more, and might or might not have been worth less seems to me inadequate ground on which to condemn a distinguished public servant in words which might well ruin his career.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to page 17, in which counsel for Manchester Corporation told the Committee:
  "I see what you mean, no. £3,100 would not have to be spent."
  That was in reply to the question:
  "There is no claim for £3,100 such as Mr. Dingle has suggested."
  That was counsel for Manchester Corporation himself.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Member turn to document 5 of the proceedings of the Committee and quote the passage where the Chairman cut off the Town Clerk?
  Mr. Johnson: I leave the hon. Member to make his own comment later on. As to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), I have, of course, read that statement, but it seems to me that it did not take into account the possibility that the Corporation might obtain a statutory order
  522
  against the cemetery company and compel it to put the cemetery in order, when it would have cost a great deal more than £3,000.
  It has not been a pleasant thing for the Town Clerk of Manchester to be accused of being a swindler. It has not been pleasant for him to have his actions investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nor has it been pleasant for him to be submitted to the spate of malicious gossip let loose by the Motion put on the Order Paper by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford, no doubt for excellent motives, as perhaps a self-appointed guardian of public morals.
  Mr. Hirst: Widely supported.
  Mr. Johnson: It is not for me to speculate on my hon. and gallant Friend's motives. Perhaps the most charitable way to refer to them is in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who once, in answer to a Supplementary Question, said that an hon. Gentleman took a keen interest "in many things that are beyond his comprehension." I hope that we have been able to satisfy the House that the company has had a fair deal, and, as the Board of Trade is satisfied with the position, I hope that my hon. Friends will see fit to withdraw the Motion.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: I feel that the debate has been of considerable value from many points of view. First, it has been an object lesson to those who manage commercial cemeteries on how they should be conducted and the attitude of the Board of Trade towards such companies. Attention has also been focussed on the provisions of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939. The value of the debate has also been the complete vindication, from the point of view of honour, of the learned and distinguished Town Clerk of the City of Manchester which I am proud to represent in the House as the Member for Ardwick and as last year's Lord Mayor of the City.
  No Lord Mayor of Manchester has ever been simultaneously a Member of the House. Therefore, I can really interpret the feelings and views of the people of that very great and famous city. It is a a city renowned throughout the world

  523
  and one on which not only the past and present but the future prosperity of this great country largely depends. We have in our city a population of nearly 750,000. They include industrious working-class people, middle class and better off people, all co-operating for the prosperity of the city. We are very proud to own the second airport in the country and also very proud to be the controlling owners of the third seaport.
  Having narrated the circumstances, we must remember the type of authority which Manchester is. Its 152 representatives are drawn from all political parties—and all those 152 members have unanimously and emphatically expressed their complete confidence in the honour and the activities of our distinguished Town Clerk, who himself is not only a distinguished lawyer but a distinguished son of a distinguished legal jurist—one who has been associated with the law of this country and whose name will continue to be so associated in the terms of a standard legal textbook.
  One should draw the line between probity and propriety and should not attempt to flog this issue, and the town clerk with it. What is the scope of the problem? It is only that instead of the circular having been sent out by a stockbroker, as prescribed by the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, it was sent out by the Town Clerk. It was quite easy for the Town Clerk—
  Major W. Hicks Beach: Is not the hon. Member aware that there have been prosecutions against private individuals under Section 13 of the 1939 Act? That was what I was trying to ask the Minister about, when hon. Members opposite said "Sit down". There have been prosecutions of a similar nature. That is what worries me.
  Mr. H. Lever: Before my hon. Friend replies, may I say that any such prosecution has been undertaken only when there has been some ground for suspecting dishonesty?
  Mr. L. M. Lever: What is more, the learned Attorney-General specifically stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) that even though a technical offence had been committed he did not think that it was in the
  524
  public interest that any further steps should be taken.
  I do not think that anyone concerned has been namby-pamby towards the Town Clerk or the Manchester Corporation. I am very glad that this matter has been investigated and sifted. That is the greatness of our British system of justice. It illustrates the wonderful part that this House plays in finding out what is wrong, if anything is wrong, and there is no doubt that the Attorney General has vindicated the Town Clerk. Even though there has been a technical offence, he has said that he does not think it worth while bothering about. It would not be in the public interest.
  Major Hicks Beach: I did not suggest for a moment that the Attorney General had been namby-pamby. What I am seeking to do is to get it quite clear that a technical offence under Section 13 of the 1939 Act should not be the basis of a prosecution against a private individual if it is not against a town clerk. That was the question that I was seeking to ask the Minister. I have reason to think that there have been prosecutions under this Section.
  Mr. H. Lever: No.
  Major Hicks Beach: If the hon. Member says, "No", I accept it.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: I should like to explain to the House how a Bill of this kind originates. Every year the various committees of the Corporation are asked whether they have any problems or difficulties which they consider ought to be introduced as part of a Corporation Bill. Any such problems are collated and go before a General and Parliamentary Committee consisting of 48 members from all political parties. Before any instructions are given about a Bill the Committee is unanimous in its proposals. This Bill has gone forward against that background.
  Unfortunately, Ardwick lacks open spaces and similar amenities. The people there have to live in a closely congested area. What was a fashionable burial ground in 1837 and in subsequent years is no longer fashionable. It has deteriorated. Because the houses in this area are so closely congested, the people there, particularly the children, are denied open spaces for recreation.

  525
  The Town Clerk and the Corporation has acted with the utmost good faith. In fixing this proposed price, the City Council took into account, first, advice from a stockbroker that the shares were probably unmarketable. The recent dividend record of the company, taken in conjunction with the net profits earned and loss sustained by the company in recent years, had been up to 2½ per cent. of the dividend of last year. But when asked to do any repairs, the company could not pay any dividend at all. That is the sort of company it was.
  The investments held by the company were worth approximately £3,800. I suppose that if someone had two banking accounts, and in one there was £3,800 and the other was about £4,000 in the "red", that would represent the financial position of this company were it compelled to carry out its obligations and maintain its property in the form of this cemetery in proper order. The income of the company was stated to be £227 5s. a year from leases and this income was precarious. That is no income at all. It was an income derived by the cemetery company in breach of law, about which action might have been taken. Had the company complied with the law there would have been no such income of any kind.
  The liability of the company was to maintain the cemetery and its boundary walls. I know this cemetery very well. I paid a visit to it and it was like going through a wood. The graves are overgrown and filthy and its condition is one of complete degradation. It is not kept as a cemetery should be in this civilised age. The Corporation, quite rightly, pursued a policy of trying to tidy up everything in the City. The cemetery at Rusholme Road, in my division, has been dealt with in that way with complete success.
  Of the shares acquired, 876 were acquired through four firms of solicitors. Then 78 shares were acquired from a shareholder who is a solicitor—all this ought to go on the record—330 shares were acquired through two firms of surveyors and valuers and 10 shares were acquired through the stock office of one of the five leading banks. In other words, 1,294 shares were acquired through all these sources. How, by any stretch of the imagination, anything of a
  526
  shady or dishonest character can be suggested against the Town Clerk or the Manchester Corporation passes my comprehension.
  I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) has appealed in very passionate terms, will see reason and common sense about this matter. Ardwick Cemetery is only one part of the Bill. There are 82 Clauses in the Bill, concerned with such things as the establishment of a new roadway through the City which will eliminate congestion and will enable the River Medlock to be culverted so as to allow the extension of the Manchester College of Science and Technology, which is one of the two finest colleges of the sort in the country, and is recognised as of university status. It was opened by the Duke of Edinburgh last year, during my term of office as Lord Mayor, of which I was very proud. This extension is absolutely vital in the national interest.
  All these and many other Clauses are concerned with the conduct of local government. The health and happiness of its people are embodied in the Bill. I still hope that hon. Members, like the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford—I know that he has a great regard for Manchester, but apparently seems to be paying us too much attention in recent years—will understand the very serious situation that would arise if the Bill were not to pass. I welcome the remarks of the Minister of State, Board of Trade.
  Mr. Erroll: No. Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sorry if I called you the superintendent instead of the sergeant. I welcome those remarks from your authoritative sources, because I know that they embodied the policy of the Board of Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary can understand the dispassionate way in which this matter must be faced.
  I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will be saying a few words before the conclusion of the debate. I hope that he will speak in

  527
  terms similar to those in which you spoke on behalf of the Board of Trade. The whole matter has been thoroughly ventilated. At this stage I refer to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford as well as to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich, both of whom are experienced businessmen and understand the whole implication of the situation. I address the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford. I know that you—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."]—he will assist Manchester and that you—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."]—he—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair. He has already addressed several compliments to me which I have not earned. I hope that he will remember to observe the forms of the House.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will assist Manchester, too. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will assist the City of Manchester, for which he has professed a great affection and will allow the Bill to go forward. All of us will be very glad when the Bill is passed, so that the improvements which have been formulated at considerable expense and trouble may be approved. Manchester can then continue to serve not only the citizens of Manchester, but those of Knutsford and of Middleton and Prestwich, too, because most of the latter come into Manchester to earn their livings. I hope that you will—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."]—the hon. and gallant Member will allow Manchester to go forward with its developments and that we shall be able to look forward to the passing of the Bill.
  9.45 p.m.
  Sir Robert Cary: We all know the pride which the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) takes in the great City of Manchester and the vast energy with which he defends it on all occasions. May I, from this side of the House, congratulate him on the great energy and resource with which he discharged his duties during his period of office as Lord Mayor of Manchester. He made a wonderful contribution to the civic life of the City. He brought credit to the House of Commons in the discharge of those duties and I am certain that in future he will pursue his tasks with energy on behalf
  528
  of the City with as much concern as he now shows for the particular reputations we are considering in this discussion.
  I agree with the leader in The Times, that this is "a storm in a teacup". It has been taken far enough and the sooner this important civic Bill is on the Statute Book the better. This controversy is a storm in a teacup and I very much regret some of the expressions used by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) in moving this Amendment. I cannot see how a technical fault, which this matter is, can be described in the strong words of "a criminal offence". To use that connotation in that sense without substantial qualification is quite unfair to the Town Clerk particularly and to Manchester Corporation in general.
  Nor can one accept in these circumstances that there was any desire on the part of Manchester Corporation to ignore the law or to be slick. It seemed totally unnecessary for the mover of the Amendment—sincere though his motives were—to remind the House that Manchester Corporation sought to get into the Vote Office, without our knowledge, certain papers which ought not to be there.
  This is not the way, the temper, nor the mood in which we ought to discuss this matter. After the appeal made by the hon. Member for Ardwick to the mover and seconder of the Amendment, I hope they will seek to withdraw.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Not a hope.
  Sir R. Cary: My hon. Friends cannot have better pleading or better invitation to withdraw than that by an hon. Member on the Government side to meet them half-way in order to get this important civic Bill on to the Statute Book. If one rather happy thing emerges from this debate, it is that both the Town Clerk and the Corporation of Manchester stand completely in the clear in regard to any suggestion of any unworthy action in the prosecution of this Bill. The fate of the Bill is now almost dependent upon this House giving it a passage tonight. I hope that it will receive its final Reading and be placed on the Statute Book before this Session of Parliament ends.
  I wish to say a final word to those, not present, who are surviving relatives of those buried in this cemetery.
  Mr. John Mackie: I am one.
  Sir R. Cary: There may be one or two surviving relatives who have written to the Corporation to say that they give their blessing to the use of this cemetery as a playground for the children of Manchester. I cannot think of a better use to which the cemetery could be put. I cannot think of a better sentiment than that expressed by the famous poet Adam Lindsay Gordon in "The Sick Stock-rider":
  "Let me slumber in the hollow where the wattle blossoms wave,
  With never stone or rail to fence my bed;
  Should the sturdy station children pull the hush flowers on my grave,
  I may chance to hear them romping overhead."
  Some hon. Members have sought to see in the external assets slightly outside the borders of the cemetery something which might be used in a material sense to benefit the Corporation of Manchester. The whole area involved in the transaction will be used. I hope, in future for the benefit of the children of Manchester as a playground. Certainly if the Bill is passed the cemetery will no longer be left in the squalid condition in which Manchester Corporation will take it over.
  9.50 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked me to make a very brief intervention in the debate. Hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have already discussed in very considerable detail the action taken by the Manchester Corporation in purchasing the shares of Ardwick Cemetery Limited, and for the moment I merely wish to put a general consideration to the House.
  My right hon. Friend has a general interest in the proper maintenance of burial grounds and cemeteries. The proposed conversion of what is by general consent a derelict cemetery into an open space—or, what is in the mind of the promoters, into a playing field for the use of pupils at a nearby school—is a development which, in principle at any rate, my right hon. Friend feels to be worthy of every encouragement.
  530
  This project aside, my right hon. Friend has an interest in a number of other matters with which the Bill deals. The two principal ones were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and are to be found in Clause 23 where the Corporation seeks power to construct a relief road which, I can tell the House, has the support of my right hon Friend the Minister of Transport, and in Clause 27, the Corporation seeks power to culvert the River Medlock so that the Manchester College of Science and Technology can proceed with its development. There are other Clauses dealing with such things as fire precautions and other matters of local government important to the City of Manchester.
  In the view of my right hon. Friend, it would be wrong to delay a Bill covering such a variety of useful purposes, or even to risk the demise of the Bill, unless there were very good reasons for so doing. Like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I have heard practically every speech and argument which has been deployed tonight. Whatever view I may take of the various arguments bearing upon the narrow issue of the Ardwick case, I have certainly not heard any convincing argument for putting the Bill as a whole in peril.
  As the House knows, the Bill was considered in very great detail by a Select Committee and a number of Amendments were made to it. The Committee amended it in Clause 48 (2) to provide that the cemetery company should be wound up in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Companies Act. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade indicated, that met the main objection in the Report of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  I agree that there remains the question—and it is a substantial question, of course—of whether, matters of procedure apart, Manchester Corporation acted improperly in failing to mention the break-up value and so infringed Section 12 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939.
  I will, if I may, reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and by hon. Members on both sides; that this is precisely the issue that was referred to the Director of Public

  531
  Prosecutions, and the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in this House on 1st July was quite unequivocal. I repeat it for the benefit of those hon. Members who may have come into the Chamber only in the last half hour.
  He said:
  "The results of this inquiry"—
  that is to say, the inquiry by the police—
  "show that there is no ground for concluding that the letter contained any false, misleading or deceptive statement or that there was any dishonest concealment of material facts. Consequently there are no grounds for a prosecution for an offence against Section 12 of the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 77.]
  For these reasons, it is certainly the view of my right hon. Friend, which he has asked me to express here tonight, that it would be wrong for the House to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow).
  There is, however, one further reason, upon which I have already touched, though rather lightly. The recommittal of this Bill would necessarily take a certain amount of time. As hon. Members on both sides know, we are now approaching the end of the present Parliamentary Session. It would be quite out of place for me, or for any other right hon. or hon. Member to venture an opinion as to whether, in the event of recommittal, this Bill could be carried over. That is not within my province, but I may perhaps, be permitted fairly to say that carry-over Motions are exceptional.
  If, therefore, this Amendment were to be pressed to a Division—and I sincerely trust that it will not be—and if it were to be carried, the House must face the probability that this Bill—as a whole, and not merely in regard to the Ardwick provision—would probably be killed stone dead. My right hon. Friend takes the view, and he has given this a good deal of consideration, that that would be a pity. We recognise, of course, that several hon. Members have felt strongly in the matter of Ardwick, but I would urge upon them, at this stage, to bear in mind not only the fate of the Bill as a whole if they pursue their present course, but the fact that the good faith of the Manchester Corporation, and of
  532
  the Manchester Town Clerk, is no longer in question in this House.
  I cannot speak more plainly than that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe that I could speak with greater fairness. This is a matter that has exercised my right hon. Friend's mind, and what I have said tonight, and what advice I have tried to give to my hon. Friends, I give in a spirit of friendship and cordiality, and I hope that they will accept it.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. W. R. Williams.
  Mr. Ellis Smith rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question, That "now considered" stand part of the Question, put accordingly and agreed to.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Bill, in page 29, line 26, to leave out from "space" to the end of line 28, and to add instead thereof:
  "and will ensure that it is not used for the playing of games or any other undesirable purpose having regard to the fact that it has been a burial place".
  I do not take the same view which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that this cemetery should be turned into a children's playground. I believe that a number of hon. Members would object very strongly if their parents were buried in this cemetery and they learned that it was to be covered over with asphalt or grass and turned into a public playground. I must confess that my knowledge of Manchester is not extensive—
  Mr. Ede: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The only Member of the House whom I cannot hear is the Member whom you called. I can hear nearly every other Member.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ask hon. Members to be quieter.
  Mr. Williams: I confess that my knowledge of Manchester is not extensive, but

  533
  I am quite certain from my knowledge of the West Country that such a proposal as this would not be accepted there. I believe that when a cemetery gets into the state in which this cemetery is, it should be grassed over and turned into a garden of rest or such a place with seats where people may rest. It would be quite wrong to turn it into a place where children would play and where there would be a lot of noise.
  I do not think that many hon. Members realise how recently there have been burials in this cemetery. According to one hon. Member opposite, the last burial took place in 1950. That was quite recent. I do not think that the people related to those who are buried in the cemetery would for one moment accept this Clause in the Bill. I sincerely trust, therefore, that without any trouble at all and without a Division, the House will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Grant Ferris: I beg to second the Amendment.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Bevins: I need not detain the House for more than a moment or two. What I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has been arguing is that it should not be possible, at least in this particular case, for the land to be used for the playing of games or for any undesirable purpose. I should remind my hon. Friend that the Open Spaces Act, 1906, which, on this point, repeats an earlier Act of 1887, expressly provides a procedure under which local authorities may acquire disused burial grounds and may, in certain circumstances, use them for the playing of games.
  It is the fact that Parliament gave the Manchester Corporation itself power, in its Act of 1954, to use the site of the Rusholme Road cemetery as a playground, the same power as is now sought in this Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to say that Parliament has never laid it down that, automatically, games must be forbidden on the sites of disused burial grounds. I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept the Amendment.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: After that statement from the Minister, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley
  534
  Williams) to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment. I speak with some feeling on this matter. I sunk all my individuality and personal declarations in the general desire that Manchester should have the Bill. Last Saturday morning, I went along to Rusholme Road where a similar kind of thing has already been done. From Rusholme Road I went to Ardwick. A sight of Ardwick Cemetery should be enough to settle anyone's attitude.
  I am surprised that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) should say what he did after he saw the place last Friday. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Exeter had seen what Manchester has done already in Rusholme Road, he would not pursue his Amendment.
  Rusholme Road is in one of the poorest parts of Manchester, amidst some of the worst slums in the country, where some of the finest people—some of us belong to them—still live in their thousands. Their children are now playing in this lovely old churchyard, which has been transformed by Manchester Corporation into a place of beauty. Last Saturday morning, I saw the poor children playing there on that sacred ground, not one of them running or playing except on the land which had been laid out with beautiful turf, and it did my heart good to to see them.
  We have here an expression of the desire of Manchester and the industrial North. For far too long we have lived in unlovely, crowded areas like that around Rusholme Road. I ask the hon. Member for Exeter, whose motives we understand, whose sincerity we appreciate, to withdraw his Amendment so that Manchester can have the Bill and carry on its good work, setting an example to the industrial North by cleaning and beautifying places of this kind.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: As possibly the only Member in the House of Commons today who has a family interest in the Ardwick Cemetery—one of my great grandfathers who sat for the Grimsby Division of Lincolnshire was distantly related to a man with the same name, Fildes, who sat at various periods in the 'twenties and 'thirties—I think that I ought to say that I would not wish to

  535
  block the Manchester Corporation's desire in this matter, provided—and I think it is amply provided in Clauses 44, 45 and 46—that the tombstones are at the disposal of the Manchester Corporation to deal with as it sees fit. I hope that that means to give the descendants of those buried there the right if they so desire to have them at our disposal. I think, also, that the Manchester Corporation should provide that a complete record is preserved of those who are buried there.
  I stress that because in the cemetery of Montmartre, in Paris, no complete record is preserved. I had occasion to go there four or five years ago to visit the tombstone of the grandfather of a constituent of mine, and all trace of it had gone. The cemetery clerk, with great trouble, found the grave and, accompanied by him, I found that it had been completely obliterated.
  I hope that the Manchester Corporation will be meticulously careful to ensure that Clauses 44, 45 and 46 of the Bill are carefully implemented. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), who is a former Lord Mayor of Manchester, would not forgive me if, as a great grandson of his predecessor exactly 100 years ago, I did anything obstructive against the Bill.
  I understand that this is unconsecrated ground. I regret to say that a former ancestor of mine belonged to the sect of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), although I detest it as Scotland wholly detested Oliver Cromwell.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I think that the stipulations for which the hon. Member has asked are reasonable. In my experience they are always carried out by corporations who get these powers. I do not know that tombstones should be removed from the cemetery, particularly in this case. As the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has said, this is what is called an unconsecrated graveyard. That is to say, a bishop has not dedicated it. But it has been consecrated by the burial there of those holding the great Nonconformist tradition of the City of Manchester. Mention has been made tonight of John Dalton, the Quaker scientist.
  Mr. Mackie: In Scotland, graveyards are not consecrated. The right hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Mr. Ede: This is not in Scotland. These people lived in Manchester.
  I regret very much the spirit of levity which on one or two occasions has crept in when dealing with what I regard as the most sacred part of this subject. I would not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that Exeter and Nantwich were beginning to take an interest in it as well. I can understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams).
  Take the case of Dalton. He was the son of a poor weaver who was born in 1766. By 1793, in an age when Nonconformists had great difficulty in getting any form of higher education, he had become Professor of Mathematics and Moral Philosophy in New College, Manchester, by the age of 27. He was the discoverer of atomic weight and all physical science and a great deal of chemical science since has been built on his work. In 1822, he became a Fellow of the Royal Society, having declined the honour in 1810. I cannot think of anything more inspiring for the young of Manchester that in a beautiful spot there shall be preserved the tomb of Dalton, which is at present preserved in the manner described by my hon. Friend earlier in this debate.
  On the day when this son of a poor weaver was buried in Ardwick cemetery, in 1844, all the civic authorities of Manchester were there and the coffin was followed to the grave by 100 carriages of the wealthy, learned and devout population of Manchester.
  I hope that the tombstones will be preserved and that, as far as possible, the records will be preserved, but in view of the fact that the corpses of many victims of cholera epidemics are buried there it may be very difficult to got a complete record. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) will realise that every step is taken to preserve the appropriate atmosphere for what has been a burial ground.
  But the living have their claims in the crowded parts of Manchester on such open spaces as can be provided, and as this can be made a record of the great

  537
  part that the Nonconformity of Manchester played in the building up of the life of the country and the tremendous wealth of the City of Manchester, I hope that this House will not put any hindrances in the way of the Corporation being able to exercise responsibly any powers that it gets under the Bill.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: My object in seconding the Amendment was purely to make sure that proper respect was paid to the dead who have been laid in the cemetery. I have been very impressed with what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) have said. If my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary), as a representative of the Manchester Members, could give the assurance that every respect will be paid to that, I feel that I ought to withdraw my seconding of the Amendment even if my hon. Friend feels that he must press it.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered in Committee.
  Sir Henry Studholme rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BRONCHITIS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
  10.20 p.m.
  The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: After three hours' discussion on the question of a cemetery, it may not be completely inappropriate that we should now have a short Adjournment debate on the subject of bronchitis.
  Recently, we have been celebrating the tenth anniversary of the inauguration of the National Health Service. It has un-
  538
  doubtedly proved to be one of the great social achievements of the twentieth century. The last decade has seen the practical disappearance of some infectious diseases and great progress made in an attempt to bring to an end the ravages of tuberculosis. At the same time, it is disquieting to find that whereas the graph for deaths from tuberculosis shows a decline from 34,000 in 1930 to 24,000 deaths in 1940 and 4,000 deaths only in 1956–57, the graph for deaths from lung cancer works in the other direction: 1,489 in 1930, 5,000 in 1940 and 20,000 in 1957.
  The relationship between lung cancer and cigarette smoking is definitely established. It grieves me—and I speak quite sincerely—to think that I have a number of good friends inside and outside this House who are likely to die from the horrible death of lung cancer who, if they only gave up the habit of heavy cigarette smoking could otherwise expect to live many years longer. I do beg of them to consider the urgency of the appeal I am making to them to give it up. It is not made from any attitude of virtue or busybody interference on my part, for I myself was a heavy smoker from my youth up to a few years ago. I appeal to them on the ground of established medical proof and because of my affection for them and my abhorrence of unnecessary suffering.
  Smoking is also one of the factors responsible for the incidence of bronchitis in this country, although there are other factors which play a more prominent part in the development of this black spot in our national health chart. I was confronted for the first time with the facts of this scourge only last week, and they have really shaken me. The Minister of Health informed me on Monday that the number of deaths from bronchitis in England and Wales was for 1930, 19,125; 1950, 28,257, and 1955, 28,793. The figures for 1957 of 26,930 are provisional. The figures are fairly constant. There is certainly no marked improvement, and let us remember that this type of death usually follows years of anguished suffering. When the Minister gave these figures, I said in a supplementary question that in the matter of the incidence of bronchitis and deaths from that disease this was probably the worst country in the world.

  539
  That statement of mine seemingly made no impact whatsoever. Not a single newspaper referred to it. One would have thought that for anyone to say publicly and responsibly that this was the worst country in the world, even in any regard, would have shaken even the most phlegmatic and philosophic; but not a bit of it. I shall try to shock people again out of this ingrained fatalistic outlook in this matter.
  I repeat that Britain has the worst record in the world for bronchitis. The death rate is four times as high as that in the Ruhr or industrial Belgium, and about twenty times as high as that in the Scandinavian countries. Moreover, in nearly all other countries the death-rate from bronchitis has fallen markedly since the end of the war, but in Britain the decline is slight and the real position is substantially the same as it was in 1940. Despite the introduction of new and powerful drugs, the results of treatment are often unsatisfactory. Therefore, preventive measures are now essential.
  There is another aspect of this matter. The Minister was asked on Monday how many working days were lost in the past five years as a result of bronchitis. The figures were: in 1951, 26·61 million; in 1953–54, 25·62 million; in 1954–55, 25·38 million and in 1955–56, 26·87 million. The figures show no improvement in 1955–56 compared with 1951. It really is a shocking state of affairs. We depend for our survival as a great nation on the maxium industrial production, and we just cannot afford to go on like this. Some people wax indignant about the number of working days lost through strikes, but they are almost negligible when compared with the loss as a result of bronchitis. In 1951, the number of working days lost through strikes or industrial stoppages was 1,694,000, and from bronchitis 26,610,000. In 1956, industrial stoppages were responsible for the loss of 2,083,000 working days, while bronchitis was responsible for the loss of 25,380,000.
  Bronchitis, of course, is highly aggravated in the heavy industrial areas. The death rate among males between the ages of 45 and 65 in 1953 shows a remarkable disparity between industrial and seaside and country towns. The rates per 100,000 were: Salford 329; Oldham 294; Dudley
  540
  286; Manchester 248; Wigan 246; Eastbourne only 48; Great Yarmouth 68; Southport 82; and Canterbury 86. In Salford, the death rate is three times that in the rural Lancashire. On the other hand, in Coventry where most of the industry is modern, the death rate is at the comparatively low figure of 87.
  The disease is commonest among industrial workers, especially those in dusty occupations. In the mines, there is a marked difference in those employed at the coal face and those working elsewhere. Taking a standardised mortality ratio for men between 20 and 64 years of age, in 1950 the figures for mineworkers other than at the coal face were 98 and for hewers and getters 180. On the same ratio, the figure for farmers was 29.
  Despite the fact that bronchitis is aggravated by non-industrial factors, such as smoking, the causative rôle played by industry appears to be substantial. The three main reasons for the high prevalence of bronchitis in industrial towns are, first, atmospheric pollution; secondly, dust at work; and, thirdly, overcrowding, leading to infection. Preventive measures are surely called for here. Atmospheric pollution is worse in Britain than elsewhere, and though we await the beneficial results of the Clean Air Act, 1956, the responsibility under that Act is not rightly placed. Local authorities vary so much in the discharge of their responsibilities. There must be a more stringent limitation of the damaging sulphur oxides which our power stations, gas stations and railways are daily discharging into the air. We are treating God's clear, pure air like a sewer.
  Failure to deal adequately with dust at work is particularly common amongst the smaller industrial concerns who, as a rule, have no industrial medical officers. Why cannot we have medical inspectorates under the Minister of Health to supervise these industrial establishments? The Ministry of Labour inspectors of factories cannot possibly perform the function properly as things are today. What we need is an occupational health service, and the time is ripe to put forward a functional scheme.
  My chief complaint is that the liaison between the Ministries of Health, Housing and Local Government and Labour is not what it should be. The Ministry of

  541
  Health, in particular, should not be isolated in its thinking from social problems. It should have as much to do with the Clean Air Act as has the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and as much to do with the medical inspection of factories as has the Ministry of Labour. Industry need not be as dirty and dangerous as it now is, and much of our respiratory illness is unnecessary.
  Finally, I would refer very briefly to the very unsatisfactory way in which we deal with the people who contract bronchitis. In bronchitis there is often no radiological change, even in the presence of severely impaired functions, and thus there is no compensation, for bronchitis is not a scheduled disease. The law at present does not admit the connection between exposure to dust at work and the bronchitis which results although this condition, with its accompanying loss of elasticity of the lung substance—emphysema—is much more disabling than straightforward pneumoconiosis. In Australia and South Africa miners' claims are more soundly tested, because the authorities there have recognised the limitations of radiological examination on its own, and increasing attention is being paid to other tests which reveal the extent of functional impairment of the lungs. In this country much bitterness can be traced to the anomalies that arise from decisions taken by panels relying on X-ray evidence alone.
  One day we shall have to recast our ideas about what is fair and just compensation for workers who suffer from these respiratory diseases. In the meantime, the Ministry must spare no effort on the preventive side. It will be a very rewarding task.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I want to emphasise our very real concern with the points made by my hon. Friend—a concern which I think would be shared by members generally. The seriousness of the situation has been recognised for a long time, and I want to ask the Minister whether, in considering the matter, he cannot call more effectively for the full support of general practitioners throughout the country in a real drive in research into the detailed work. It is the general practitioners who see these cases in the earlier stages, when it is still possible to
  542
  do something about them. Once the cases reach the chronic stage the task becomes almost impossible. Therefore, in addition to the preventive side of the matter, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about the possibility of getting the co-operation of general practitioners in research work.
  10.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): The hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) has raised a very important question this evening, far transcending the ordinary constituency kind of interest which so often dominates Adjournment debates.
  When we speak of the problem of bronchitis, we usually mean chronic bronchitis; that is to say, we are not thinking of a single or pure disease, but a condition resulting in the main from episodes of acute respiratory illness in the past of various types which result in a loss of the normal respiratory defence mechanism so that in future infection tends to descend to the chest. The respiratory tract also becomes unduly sensitive to infection or irritation. Unfortunately, once this has happened treatment becomes very difficult since it can only consist of alleviating the patient's condition and so far as possible preventing or forestalling very acute episodes.
  This problem has to be tackled under three heads, research, which is all important, prevention so far as we can, and, of course, treatment. Since the condition of chronic bronchitis is irreversible, obviously we want to stop it from happening at all if we can. For this purpose we have to establish what is not yet fully known, the cause of the disease. A large body of research is being devoted to this under Government auspices, besides other work being done independently by universities and elsewhere. In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) who referred particularly to the co-operation of the general practitioner, and before coming to Government research, I might mention here a study being undertaken by the College of General Practitioners, with the support of the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust. This is a long-term survey, and we cannot expect quick and dramatic findings, but it is of particular interest because it is based on the

  543
  family doctor, who is in an especially good position to realise the extent and effect of bronchitis in daily life.
  The main Government agency is the Medical Research Council, which has a number of groups at work on different aspects of the problem. Its researches are directed partly to the assessment of health hazards which result from atmospheric pollution. For instance, it is concerned with the presence and effect of sulphur dioxide in the air, and the epidemiological aspect of the matter; conducting field surveys to discover the specific relationships between the incidence of the disease and various external factors.
  It is impossible to comment in detail on the lessons which the figures the hon. Gentleman quoted appear to suggest, for instance, in industrial versus rural incidence in the figures for men and women, and the difference between countries. It is to elucidate such problems that research is being undertaken by the various groups into many aspects and factors. There is no reason to doubt that industrial incidence is higher than rural. In itself, this is suggestive of possible causes, and investigations are in hand to see which are in fact involved.
  There is no doubt that if a key can be found to the problem of acute bronchitis it will be found in the field of prevention, and although so much about the causes of the disease has yet to be discovered, it is certain that one of the factors most concerned in prevention is the condition of the air we breathe. The most important development in this connection is the introduction of the Clean Air Act, 1956. The implementation of that Act is a matter of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I think it is common knowledge that the Act which became partly operative in July, 1956, became fully effective on 1st of last month. There are thus now very many safeguards against air pollution, and it is known that local authorities are using their powers under the legislation to achieve its aims.
  Of course, I absolutely accept that we are not going to get a swift and dramatic result from that, but at any rate it seems to me that the necessary step has been taken there which should ensure in time, along with other measures, a diminution
  544
  of what is, perhaps, one of the basic causes of the seriousness of this problem.
  Equally important in the prevention of this disease, and, of course, illness generally, is the advice and assistance which the general public gets from its family doctor and through the various preventive services of the local health authority. I suppose that I ought to say just a word here on the question of the connection between smoking and bronchitis, because the hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks with some reference to it.
  I should say that the circular which my right hon. and learned Friend sent in July, 1957, encouraging local authorities to publicise what is known of the connection between smoking and cancer of the lung will also have its bearing on bronchitis. We are about to request from the local authorities the results of the campaigns which they have been running in this connection, and I would expect that, as a result of that, we ought to get some helpful information which will have a bearing on this matter.
  Now a third point—the treatment aspect of all this. Once a state of chronic bronchitis has developed, the aim of treatment must be to prevent, if possible, and at any rate to lessen, the effects of acute attacks. As a result of treatment, particularly with antibiotics and physiotherapy, the life expectancy of the chronic bronchitic has been extended. That means, of course, that his capacity for work has increased. Antibiotics have, of course, greatly improved the treatment of patients during the acute phases of the disease.
  In addition, clinical treatment of patients could have the aim of sheltering them during a period of acute attack from those factors most likely to aggravate it. Two new developments in this connection have acquired some importance in recent years. The first is that owing to the very welcome decline in the incidence of tuberculosis the number of sanatorium beds required for that purpose has, of course, become markedly less. Some of these beds, especially those in rural surroundings away from the smoke and grime of cities, can be utilised for this purpose—not all, but some of them—and patients suffering from chronic bronchitis can be and are being treated there away from the harmful atmosphere that we associate with cities.

  545
  The second more recent development on the treatment side is that in a number of places there have been set aside on an experimental basis particular wards which have been fully air conditioned. As yet this has only been done or proposed in a few places. It is a little soon to say how effective it will be, but I want to draw attention to the fact because I am anxious to give the hon. Gentleman as wide a picture as I can of what we are doing in the matter.
  The Rev. Ll. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, could he possibly say a word about a possible change of attitude with regard to the compensatory, not the medical, treatment of workers who suffer from bronchitis?
  Mr. Thompson: I feel that I should probably be trespassing on the bounds of order if I discussed arrangements which, I am sure, would involve legislation, but I have, of course, paid attention to what the hon. Member has said.
  I was describing some of the clinical aspects of the treatment of chronic bronchitis, and the last two points to which I referred, namely, the use of ex-tuberculosis accommodation and the provision of air-conditioned wards, were discussed by the Standing Advisory Medical Committee in 1956. At that time, the Committee formulated no specific advice, but did commend the progress made by the regional hospital boards. Discussions held at the time with senior hospital officers for the regions showed that the boards were, in general, very conscious of the big problems involved in providing for adequate treatment for sufferers from this disease and had done
  546
  what they could to provide special facilities.
  The hon. Gentleman made some reference to mass miniature radiography. I think he had in mind that there might be some hope of early diagnosis of the condition by this means and that this might make it possible to prevent the disease from developing. There is certainly a theoretical possibility here, but in the present state of our knowledge I do not feel that we should lean too heavily on it. In fact, much more research is needed before we know enough of the factors which may later affect the persons concerned, or of ways of preventing the early symptoms from turning into the chronic disease, and we need much more information before the possibility of early X-ray diagnosis can be turned to the advantage of the potential victims of the disease.
  In conclusion, I would say that the crux of this problem is not susceptible of solution by administrative action. More knowledge is needed, and while the Government can, and do provide funds for research, we cannot dictate the pace at which research goes on, or the rate at which progress is made. Meanwhile, we do all we can, within the inevitable limits of our modern environment, with its atmospheric conditions, and the prompt and more effective treatment now possible for the serious lower respiratory infections which have, in the past, been the antecedents of chronic bronchitis should. I think, also lead to the reduction in the incidence of this distressing disease.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  National Apprenticeship Council
  National Apprenticeship Council
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  Admiralty Depôt, Crombie
  Admiralty Depôt, Crombie
  Industrial Workers, Scotland
  Industrial Workers, Scotland
  School-leavers, Dundee
  School-leavers, Dundee
  Artists and Process Craftsmen (Greeting Cards)
  Artists and Process Craftsmen (Greeting Cards)
  Opera and Drama
  Opera and Drama
ROYAL NAVY
  Staffing (Report)
  Staffing (Report)
  Aircraft Yard, Donibristle
  Aircraft Yard, Donibristle
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Country Areas
  Country Areas
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
POST OFFICE
  Automatic Machines (3d. Stamps)
  Automatic Machines (3d. Stamps)
  Deliveries, Dundee
  Deliveries, Dundee
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Reserve Pay Office Certificate of Indemnity
  Reserve Pay Office Certificate of Indemnity
  Air Trooping
  Air Trooping
  Education Branch (Officers)
  Education Branch (Officers)
TRANSPORT
  Royal Mail
  Royal Mail
  Driving Tests, The Hartlepools
  Driving Tests, The Hartlepools
ROADS
  Fences
  Fences
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Traffic Islands
  Traffic Islands
SHIPPING
  Immingham Docks
  Immingham Docks
  Trade Recession
  Trade Recession
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Radiographers (Protection)
  Radiographers (Protection)
  Ionising Radiations (Code of Practice)
  Ionising Radiations (Code of Practice)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Customs Facilities, Swansea Airport
  Customs Facilities, Swansea Airport
SCOTLAND
  Road Safety, Huntly
  Road Safety, Huntly
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Christmas Island
  Christmas Island
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Carbromal and Bromvaletone
  Carbromal and Bromvaletone
  Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board
  Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board
BRITISH ARMY
  British Garrison, Germany
  British Garrison, Germany
  Personal Numbers
  Personal Numbers
  R.E.M.E. Workshop, Stirling
  R.E.M.E. Workshop, Stirling
  Infantry Brigade Depots
  Infantry Brigade Depots

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DEFENCE ORGANISATION
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have come to any decision on the matters reported in the Press concerning the amendment of the structure of the Ministry of Defence organisation passed into law in 1947, and if so when it is proposed to lay a White Paper before Parliament and introduce the necessary amending legislation.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the noble Viscount will no doubt have seen that the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place that he hoped to make a statement or publish a White Paper very soon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I read carefully the Report of the Questions of yesterday and the day before, and perhaps I might ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware of the great and wide publicity interest which has arisen because, apparently, of widespread leakages of what the Government's policy may be. It is very undesirable, in a matter of this kind, that it should be communicated to Parliament in such a manner as that. May I therefore express the hope that the White Paper will be produced as early as possible? In spite of what the Prime Minister has said, I think it ought
770
to be a matter for Parliament to debate before any final decision becomes operative. May I ask the noble Earl also whether he is aware that, considering the terms of the White Paper of October. 1946, which I have in my hand, and the fact that that required legislation and debate, not only on the White Paper but upon legislation, we hope that Parliament will certainly be asked to pursue the same course in this matter?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, may I deal with those points in order? I think what the noble Viscount has described as "leakages" have really been speculations in the Press; and speculations often, so far as one can see, very wide of the mark and not to be taken too seriously. So far as a debate is concerned, I think it is recognised on all sides that matters of Government machinery, where they fall short of legislation, are the responsibility of the Executive, and therefore it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to settle these matters. But, of course, once any decision is made public, it is always challengeable in Parliament. I would suggest that we wait for the statement or the White Paper, and then the noble Viscount can see what he thinks of it and, if necessary, challenge the decisions.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should be happy to await the arrival of a White Paper. But the peace-time experiment commenced by my noble friend Lord Attlee in 1946, which was put on the Statute Book, is of such importance that if there is to be any substantial change there should be a debate not only on the White Paper but also upon amending legislation. In view of the kind of suggestions which have been made—which still, of course, have to be proved—surely it would require legislation to carry them into being.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, can the noble Earl assure the House that they will be challengeable in Parliament before Parliament rises for the Recess?
THE EARL OF HOME: Anything is challengeable in Parliament. We shall have to wait and see when the Prime Minister can produce his statement or his White Paper. I cannot give any decision on timing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I really think we ought to ask for an assurance that there will be no fundamental change in the structure and administration of the Service Departments until there has been a debate. I hope, therefore, if no White Paper is published before the end of this month, that it will not be operative until after Parliament reassembles.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Viscount has said. I should have thought it would be unlikely to involve legislation, but I will look at it in the light of what the noble Viscount has said.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD rose to call attention to the increasing importance of our Overseas Information Services in view of their value in cementing the unity of the Commonwealth, and in combating foreign propaganda directed against the British outlook on world affairs; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we all know the saying that "the pen is mightier than the sword," or, to quote Shakespeare
" that many wearing rapiers are afraid of goose-quills."
I believe that at no previous period in the world's history has the spoken or written word been of more importance than it is to-day, when millions are stirring into literacy and news and ideas can be flashed across the world in a matter of seconds. With the advent of nuclear weapons, and consequent global suicide in the event of their use, the future battle of the world must surely be the battle for men's minds allied to supplying their economic needs. In fact, I consider our Overseas Information Services a very close second in importance to defence—they are really a part of our defence.
As a nation we excel at many things, but in putting our case to the rest of the
772
world we rather lag behind. This is not necessarily the fault of any British Government, but is rather the fault of our national characteristic of modesty, a characteristic no doubt chiefly due to our world supremacy of the 19th century, when our achievements were self-evident and to play them down was clearly looked upon as an eccentric English joke. We can, however, no longer afford the luxury of false modesty, a charming trait when practised among cultured individuals but quite incomprehensible when practised on the countless races of all creeds whom our information services now reach.
Your Lordships will know the basis on which the Overseas Information Services are organised in this country, and how the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade each assume responsibility for overseas information work in their respective spheres. Those four policy Departments work in close unison with the three operational agencies—namely, the British Council, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the Central Office of Information. Of those three operational agencies I should like first of all to say a few words about the B.B.C.
Broadcasting has a unique place in our information services, inasmuch as by this medium millions of illiterate or semiliterate people can be contacted. It is a form of mass diplomacy as opposed to the old system of contacting a handful of influential men in a nation. I believe that it was Dr. Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie long enough the mass of the people take it as the truth. It is certainly not necessary for Britain, so rich in her achievements and civilisation, to distort the facts. There is no doubt that the external services of the B.B.C. have the greatest reputation for truth of any broadcasting service in the world; and long may this record continue! Nevertheless I should like to see more appeal to the emotions brought into some of our programmes. I am thinking particularly of broadcasts to Russia and the countries behind the Iron Curtain.
We all rather tend to look upon propaganda as something un-British, as not quite nice; like using a toothpick in public—all right for foreigners but taboo if you are British. But, my Lords, we have had propaganda ever since Eve

773
persuaded Adam to eat the first apple. The Drogheda Report on the Overseas Information Services appears to take a poor view of the value of propaganda. It states:
"… the effect of propaganda on the course of events is never likely to be more than marginal."
With great respect, I disagree. We have seen how for forty years Communist propaganda, by appealing to the baser emotions of humanity, has convinced millions throughout Europe and elsewhere that the Soviet is the promised land, in spite of the fact that those same millions enjoy liberty and standards of living far above that which they would have under the Soviet system. Surely this is not a marginal" result.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood will, I understand, be fully exploring in his speech ways and means to combat Communist propaganda, so I will leave the field clear for him. I should, however, just like to say a few words about the planning and control of the B.B.C. programmes to the Communist countries. As your Lordships know, under the 1952 Licence and Agreement with the Government the B.B.C. enjoys independence of programme content, apart from two instructions from the Government: first, that the news items for audiences abroad must not differ in any material way in their treatment from its treatment of items for audiences at home; and secondly that programmes must be planned in the national interest. The Corporation receives no direction from the Government and is entirely responsible for its output.
May I quote from a lecture given by the Director General, Sir Ian Jacob, to the Royal United Services Institution in May of this year, on the conduct of external broadcasting? Sir Ian Jacob said, talking of the principles of external broadcasting:
" We give a strong exposition and explanation of British thought and action. There is nothing detached or objective about this, though"—
and this is important—
" when conflicting views are held by substantial elements in this country they are not suppressed."
Well, there are quite substantial elements in this country who favour certain doctrines preached by the Communists. Am I to understand that this is one of the
774
views broadcast to The countries behind the Iron Curtain? If so, it is not surprising that our propaganda in this sphere is not always very effective. It is quite all right merely to broadcast the complete truth of events when you are broadcasting to a politically mature people. But surely, when broadcasting to politically immature people, and to people suffering under the Communist regime, there ought to be a more concentrated attack. Communist propaganda is an utterly ruthless machine and cannot be fought with sweet reasonableness.
When we come to the Middle East, we are, of course, at a disadvantage, with only three Arabic services to cater for all Arab countries, irrespective of whether they are friendly or hostile to us. I should like, first of all, to see more specialisation in Arabic programmes—for instance, a programme specially to counter the foul outpourings of Colonel Nasser's "Voice of Arabia ". I cannot see how this can be done when to embrace the whole Arab world we have so few programmes.
Africa is another area where our external broadcasting services should be increased, with a view to combating Communist propaganda and cementing the Commonwealth and Colonies. With the tribal system breaking down through out Africa, the illiterate African turns only too easily to Communism. I have not the least doubt that the world's next trouble spot will be the Horn of Africa. Here we have the intelligent but highly-strung and politically immature Somalis divided between five countries, one of which, Somalia, is soon to get her independence. Be sure that Nasser and his Soviet overlords will soon be concentrating their propaganda machine among those Somalis who are not to get their independence. Definitely we need a great network of transmitters in Africa if we are to make the British point of view understood. But we shall require more than the £5½ million a year which the Government grant for the whole of the external broadcasting services, think it a great credit to the B.B.C. that it does so much with such small funds.
At the end of the war we had the most powerful transmitters in the whole world. Then the B.B.C. could be picked up almost anywhere on the short wave

775
band of a radio. To-day it is the Communist stations who crowd the atmosphere. Much of the B.B.C.'s equipment needs replacing or modernising. Let us again have the most powerful transmitters in the world; let them be our "battleships" of the future. I ask the Government to be much more liberal in the matter of finance for our external broadcasting services. Especially must we look to the growth of television. Many countries who will be introducing television programmes will have to look to outside sources for enough material to fill them. Let us make sure that Britain is ready to supply this need. If we do not, America will. Surely £5½ million is quite inadequate to put Britain's case to the world on radio and television. The figure ought to be nearer £15 million.
Unlike the external broadcasting services, the Central Office of Information is more concerned with reaching the educated and influential members of the public overseas, through the medium of the Press. The information officers working on behalf of their various departments—whether they be the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the British Council, the Commonwealth Relations Office and so forth—are obviously the kingpin, the pivot, on which turns the question of whether the British case is well or badly stated to the editors, radio commentators and others who help so much to mould public opinion in any country. A certain degree of the success of an information office will obviously depend on the information officer's charm of manner, imagination, and enthusiasm for his work. These attributes cannot, of course, be acquired by examinations. No effort should be spared to get the right type of men to put Britain's case overseas. They should be supplied with an adequate junior staff to allow them to be free to leave their desks to meet the leaders of opinion and other important men in the country. We must also back them up at home with an efficient London Press Service. Money must not be spared to bring the London Press Service up to 100 per cent. efficiency, both technically and editorially.
Time is getting on, and I cannot therefore go into all the excellent work that is done by the C.O.I. in keeping the peoples of the Commonwealth and Colonies in close touch with the mother country;
776
nor all the rest of the excellent work done throughout the world, often by numerically quite inadequate staffs, to combat misinformed opinion about Britain. I should, however, like to see the activities of the information offices in India stepped up by increased staffs and expenses. It will indeed by tragic if Britain becomes a hazy memory in this vast sub-continent, so much a part of our history. Contracts for the build up of India's industrial power are increasingly going to foreign competitors. For instance, a short time ago Russia outbid us for the supply of colliery machinery to India. You may be sure that many of the so-called technicians who swarm into India to install this machinery will be skilled Communist propagandists.
It is of paramount importance that the C.O.I., through the field elements of the information staffs, do everything in their power to assist British industry to sell our goods overseas. As I have already stated, the battle of the world to-day is for men's minds and to supply their economic needs. We cannot afford to lose either of these battles. Britain has not told the world nearly enough about what our industry has achieved and can offer. For instance, the Financial Post of Ottawa writes:
" Lack of publicity or of any effort to improve public relations, appeared as one of the main reasons why so many Canadians have misleading ideas about British industry."
In many fields we are leading in the race for industrial and scientific progress, but in this fiercely competitive world we must prove and advertise the fact. Now is the time for the C.O.I., in conjunction with the Board of Trade and organisations such as the overseas service of Aims of Industry, and "Operation Britain", to get really bold and tell the world that our goods have no equal in design, workmanship, and manufacture. We should commence a tremendous drive on advertising our industrial skill throughout the Americas from Canada to Patagonia. In the Latin American countries in particular, we are lagging far behind the Americans and the Germans. We must tell the Americas, by high-powered advertising, our great achievements in turbo-jets, atomic power-stations, Zeta, and all the other achievements in which we shine.
Before I finish, I should like to say a few words about the British Council, which is a very important part of our

777
Overseas Information Services. Many think that the object of the British Council is solely to encourage the arts, but in fact only 2 per cent. of the Council's expenditure goes for this purpose. This percentage might well be increased, I think. The most important part of the Council's work is in the teaching of English throughout the world. It should be our aim to make English the universal language, because obviously the more human beings there are who can understand English the greater will be the understanding between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. The B.B.C. can help here by stepping up their programmes for the teaching of English, but the Council must try to increase the recruitment of United Kingdom teachers of English.
Sufficient teachers will be forthcoming only if their job is attractive enough financially and offers security of contract. I think that in many cases a teacher going abroad will need to have two contracts, one with the overseas authority of the country to which he or she is going, and one with the British Council, so that what the former contract lacks in salary or security the latter can make up. When a teacher returns home after a certain period of service abroad he should receive a pension until he can be reinstated in his profession. I should also like to see a stepping-up of the inter-university exchange scheme, particularly with the Commonwealth and Colonies. There are, of course, many more spheres in which the work of the Council can be expanded. I have mentioned merely the two which I consider the most important.
It is, of course, easy to criticise, and nearly everything I have suggested requires more money for the Overseas Information Services. The Treasury certainly cannot grumble at their present cost which, including that of the external broadcasting services, is barely £15 million a year. That is not a vast sum when we consider our world-wide responsibilities in defence of the free world. I very much doubt whether £15 million is spent to better purpose anywhere, and I ask Her Majesty's Government under no conditions to stint the Overseas Information Services, for I should consider £100 million a year a cheap price to pay to help the free world win the cold war. If necessary, let us do with a lew less free wigs and teeth, but on no account stint the information Services.
Finally, I should like to see a very high-powered individual who would sit in at Cabinet meetings and be answerable for the general co-ordination and drive of the Overseas Information Services. Here I do not necessarily mean a professional politician, but someone chosen from outside, a person with great imagination and knowledge of the subject. There surely must be plenty of such people among the literary fraternity or in some such sphere. There are two "musts" to-day: we must win the cold war, and we must export or die. The realisation of these two "musts" will to a great extent depend on the efficiency and scope of the Information Services. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD LORD BIRDWOOD had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government to resist to their utmost the world-wide Soviet propaganda campaign in the spheres of political, cultural and social relations; to ensure that the Overseas Information Services are more adequately equipped and more positively directed for this purpose; to insist that negotiations with the Soviet Union towards this end be conducted on a reciprocal basis; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount who has just spoken. He tabled his Motion before mine, and then allowed me to come in with him so that we could have this joint debate this afternoon. I support everything the noble Viscount has said, and if I do not follow him in further examination of the machinery of these Overseas Information Services it is because this afternoon I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of their work—the part they have to play in what I think is rightly termed the "cold war."
I would make one important point. When I came to examine this matter more closely, I concluded that it was not that the information services themselves were at fault but rather that there seemed to be some lack of method behind them for this particular purpose. Within their terms of reference, which include information—and information is the term always only used—these services, so far as I can judge, perform their functions efficiently, with imagination and effective

779
co-ordination. But surely there is for them today a task which goes far beyond the mere scope of objective information.
Subversion—both in our own country and in the countries of our Allies—has frequently been referred to as the great enemy. I have wondered whether our Overseas Information Services are fully equipped to meet this further task of combating this subversion. It seems that we have not yet discovered exactly where to fit them into this purpose, and since we all recognise that, however intrinsically efficient they may be, they are bound to be ineffective unless they are fed with the right material, much of what I have to say really concerns the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government viewed (to put it crudely) from the point of view of its news value.
There is another point that I would ask your Lordships to accept: it concerns the terms of reference. We are discussing the Overseas Information Services, and therefore it might be said that it is inappropriate to bring in the question of subversion within this country. I could quote chapter and verse on these activities, and on the agencies concerned whether they are concerned with their source in the Kremlin, with the contamination of coloured students arriving in this country or with planning trouble in the London Docks. All, in fact, shelter under the same great "umbrella." If anyone has any doubts about that, I commend to them this small book, The Communist Solar System, written by and for the trade union movement, with a foreword by Mr. Herbert Morrison.
I should like to establish the nature of our duty in this work, for unless we all have some sense of the ethics involved it is certainly meaningless to talk of a cold war. I would anticipate those who say that we should first put our own house in order, and that only then are we justified, on moral premises, in executing an ordered campaign against Communism. Most certainly we should always be ready to acknowledge the penalties of democracy. The evidence is there for all to see, ranging from the Wolfenden Report down to a Litter Act. But, my Lords, having made that acknowledgment, I still say that we are justified in regarding this work as our duty.
This is no time for a sermon on abstract values, but the point I want to make is very important for my purpose. As I see it, we are faced always with a choice. We can believe, as we were bidden to do as Christians many years ago, that we should always turn the other cheek; we can believe, as intellectual neutralists do, that in the fullness of time a movement such as Communism will be lost and absorbed in the welter of human affairs, discarding that which is bad and retaining the good. That is a point of view which appeals to a good many honest citizens. But it is a point of view, I might point out, which is no comfort whatever to Hungary, or to the many millions who share Hungary's fate and who, I think rightly, look for some alleviation of conditions, some signs of tolerance and liberation within their own lifetime.
The other point of view is the background to everything I have to say. It holds that, just as a physical organism of the body thrives in use or withers in disuse, so will the free world live or die according to the actual purposeful measures and direction which it is prepared to take both to stimulate its own processes and, by the same token, to sap, gradually and deliberately, the vitality of a rival alien system. That is why I speak of the need for positive direction behind such things as the Overseas Information Services. Your Lordships may rightly ask for an example of what I mean. Let us consider the Summit Conference. If the Summit Conference succeeds, there is nothing much more for the Overseas Information Services to do, because nothing succeeds like success itself. But even if it fails, need we despair? If the Overseas Information Services are tuned up to their task of presenting to our own country and to the world the real reasons for failure, then, as I see it, apparent failure can be regarded as ultimate success.
Once before I had occasion to quote Mr. Kennan, and I quote him again, with no apology, because his wisdom happens to suit the situation exactly. After referring to the fashionable dismissal of Soviet distortions as "just propaganda" and therefor not worth answering, Mr. Kennan says:
"I am always startled by that phrase ' just propaganda.' Why ' just '? What is the matter with propaganda '? Is it not a serious and important force in world affairs? "

781
Mr. Kennan goes on to say that there is nothing we could do in a few days which could influence and alter a strangely corrupted mentality, but there are things which could be said over the years which would make it far more difficult for the Soviet to ignore the distinction between the real and the unreal, and thus place limitations on their ability to use falsehood as a weapon of policy.
It is just this repetitive assertion of the truth and repetitive contradiction of the false which we recognise as the cold war. Our sin would seem to be one of omission. Could it not have been known, for example, that for a period of eighteen months Imre Nagy and General Maleter would have to face up to their trial and their execution? During those fateful months the widow of General Maleter was busy in New York contacting all and sundry in the hope of bringing the supposed fate of her husband to public notice. Yet who read of Nagy or Maleter in the Press? Who heard of them over the air during those months? We have no Government control of the Press, but, as I understand it, at daily Press conferences at the Foreign Office there is influence without control. The whole relationship between the Government and the B.B.C. is just such as that—influence without control; and I cannot believe that the Press, which, after all, is still the first agency for moulding public opinion in this country, would not be quick to respond to a greater sense of urgency in the cold war if that urgency were imparted to them by the Government of the day.
There are those who say that the answer is to call back into commission the war-time machinery, the Ministry of Information and the controls, the Political Warfare Executive and so on. I respect that view, but I do not share it; and I do not share it for the following reasons. When nations resort to physical war all diplomatic contact with the enemy is severed; the Government take over complete control of every national activity, and the information services are then tuned up to supplement the work of the forces in the field. But once formal peace is signed, back again come all the embassies; the heads of State meet and discuss; and a free democracy can, as I see it, then conduct its international relations only on the basis that it is illogical to negotiate
782
openly, on a strictly correct official level, with a foreign Power, and at the same time wage a hostile compain against it on an equally official level through the Overseas Information Services. So what happens? The information services continue to project their objective message concerned with British trade, technical achievement and culture, and it is left to the unofficial sources to do what they care to about the cold war.
I claim to give away no secrets; I claim to have no inside information; and I make only the deduction which any normal thinking citizen can make when I say that in theory such conditions result in a Government expecting the things it might like to say about a foreign Power being said for it by organisations such as Industrial Research and Information Services (known as "I.R.I.S."), Common Cause and many others. If then a foreign Government is provoked the Government can turn round and say, "We are sorry. This is just the way things work in a democracy. If rude things have been said about you, we just cannot help it." That kind of situation is regarded as an advantage, a demonstration of individual liberty working in a democracy.
Yet, my Lords, I have come to the conclusion, after some study, that that logical laisser faire method fails in many respects. In a free Britain, the conscience of the Press, the common sense of the British public and the initiative of the individual may be sufficient to place limitations on the British Communist Party in this country; but the impact on Soviet Russia remains negligible. Whether we are thinking of Communism at home, and its penetration of the unions and the universities, or whether we are relating it to its source in the Kremlin. my experience is that: if you turn to any individual or any commercial interest in this country for the money necessary to finance anti-Communist working, you are doomed to disappointment. In industry, of course, shareholders will ask awkward questions. But, even more sinister, seemingly no industry in this country dares face its employees with the knowledge that money has been given for anti-Communist work. There are various interpretations one can put on that situation, and I find none of them very comforting. As to the individual, there are no honours or awards for anti-Communist work, none

783
of the satisfactory publicity that an individual receives for giving to charity.
And so there is a dilemma. Private enterprise seems either unwilling or unable to meet the situation, while a rigid direction of the Overseas Information Services by the Government, apart from the reasons I have already given, lends itself to the accusation that perhaps the Government of the day is using its powers in office for its political advantage. I have my own ideas of how this problem could be resolved, but in a debate of this kind we have a difficulty. Much of what one would like to say must, as I see it, remain unsaid. One would like to believe that there were facilities for holding this kind of debate behind closed doors, but there are not, and I can only hint at what is in my mind and trust to your Lordships' discretion to fill in the gaps. Before I close, I shall make a definite proposal. For the moment, I want to follow up the analysis in the sphere of foreign relations.
I would ask a question of the Government. Is foreign policy constantly being related to its information value? I do not suggest that we should abandon principles in the expectation of being able to hit the headlines ", but I am suggesting that no policy should be decided without thinking out the ways and means by which it will be explained to the world. If I could frame the question more definitely, I would ask: is a Minister present in the Cabinet, when an important decision is taken affecting foreign affairs, to put forward the "information" aspect of the decision? If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster merely has to add co-ordinating information to his normal duties, he can in no way be expected to measure up to a task which involves an intimate knowledge of the whole working of the Communist machine.
It interested me to realise that while in the Drogheda Report the cold war, as such, is defined pretty clearly, there is no mention whatsoever of it, I think I am right in saying, in the White Paper on the Information Services published in July, 1957. That does not mean to say that this work has not been considered. What it does mean to say is that if it has to be considered, we must certainly observe reticence. I must observe reticence in the manner in which I ask my question,
784
and I expect reticence in the Government reply; but I think that we can expect some reassurance that this aspect is being attended to.
So important do I regard this issue of policy being related to its sale value that I should like to indicate the type of policy which I regard as rather more saleable than much of the material which finds its way into the Press and on to the air. I take the view that we should do well to play down the whole controversy which surrounds the disarmament issue. If I may give an example, to publish, as was done the other day, on the occasion of the arrival of an American unit in this country, the size, weight and range of the missile for which it is responsible, was, apart from being a possible security risk, undoubtedly most monotonous reading. I think that it was Mr. Bevan who, in a debate early in the last world war, said that if the Germans did not manage to bomb us to death, the Ministry of Information would most certainly succeed in boring us to death. I cannot help feeling that that situation has its analogy to-day. I could hope that the Government would conclude that since armaments are the symptoms of division, rather than the divisions themselves, they would at all times, and particularly at a Summit Conference, give priority to these real divisions. In the range of real dissensions there are a hundred and one matters awaiting discussion by a Summit Conference and I am going to choose only one aspect of real division—I refer to the cultural exchange.
No responsible citizen could argue otherwise than that nothing but good could come out of the great international community of artists, scientists and literateurs, meeting and mixing and exchanging their ideas and their talent and ideas. Unfortunately, the Soviet impose conditions which one in duty is bound to resist, because on examination one discovers very soon that the Soviet Government regard the cultural exchange as the vehicle for their political message behind the culture. I should like to quote an example which took place ten days ago. A gentleman who held a high office in the well-known Society for Cultural Relations with the U.S.S.R., an organisation in this country, resigned. In his letter of resignation, published in the News Letter, he said:
" As a member of the Society for Cultural Relations with the U.S.S.R. and for many

785
years a former employee at its headquarters and a member of its executive committee, I can have no doubts regarding the closeness of the link between this organisation and the Soviet Embassy or the spirit of accommodation to the political needs of that Embassy in which its affairs are conducted. The time has come for me to resign both from the executive committee and from the Society and to urge all other members who are not hard-core Stalinists or fellow travellers to do likewise."
Hence there is a gulf between us and the Soviet in this matter.
Your Lordships will know that there is a British Council Soviet Relations Committee, which strives constantly and persistently to effect cultural exchanges on the basis of individual contacts at the lowest level, free of central control. Let them all come over—the dancers and singers and artistes; they are all welcome. But what happens? The Soviet State Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries—the title is indicative of its method—insists that the entire negotiations be channelled laboriously and ponderously through foolproof controls—that is, foolproof from their point of view. Their aim is to negotiate cultural exchange through a Communist organisation in this country, when naturally it receives State blessing. Off goes a party wandering round this country, piloted by people who are completely unrepresentative of our life. The result of this one-sided control is to give an absolutely false picture of life over here and to feed the existing illusions of Soviet citizens. The British Communist Party is assigned a position to which it is in no way entitled, and—this is the important point—the very last interest which is served is true Anglo-Soviet friendship.
Sometimes it seems that responsible British citizens unwittingly foster this process. For example, when Members of Parliament of all three Parties contribute to a publication, British Soviet Friendship (a copy of which I have here), sponsored by the Society of that name, they lend a false prestige to the British Communists who are in fact behind such a publication. People in the Soviet Union begin to say that the Labour approach, the Liberal approach, the Conservative approach to our country are being submerged by the views of those great men, John Platts Mills, Andrew Rothstein and others.
Nor do I excuse the artiste himself. If you ask any British actor of note, after his return from Moscow, whether he took an opportunity in any way of defending Western democracy or of challenging the position about Hungary, the lofty reply will be given to you that art is not concerned with politics. How unreal, how naïve, how utterly dishonest, to regard these matters concerning the great international schisms of ideology of the world as though they were the politics in a by-election in rural England! If they cannot at least face up to this higher responsibility, cannot they refrain from hitting their own side? Every time a Member of Parliament, a trade union delegate, a private individual or an artist goes over, he or she will deliberately be tempted to criticise his own Government, his own Ministers, Mr. Dulles, French African policy or British colonial policy. Whatever may be his feelings. I suggest that he performs no service to the free world by emphasising our limitations over a glass of vodka. There is another inequality to which I should have liked to refer, but I will put in only a footnote about it. This refers to books and newspapers. It is quite impossible at the present moment for any Soviet citizen to read a contemporary British book which conveys a sense of life in this country in a favourable light.
EARL WINTERTON: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He has made, I am sure without meaning any offence, what I regard as a serious charge against a body on whose executive committee I formerly served; that is, the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Who are these Members of Parliament who go to Russia and do these things? I have never heard of anybody doing them.
LORD BIRDWOOD: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I have often wondered whether developments within that body are working in a way which is not at all favourable to the freedom of the West. There are certain steps which have to be taken within the Inter-Parliamentary Union; and I am thinking particularly of the constitution of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I think, just as the noble Earl does, that the Inter-Parliamentary Union may wake up one day and

787
find that its own vitality has been sapped. As I say, I am grateful for that intervention.
I have said enough to indicate the anomaly of the cultural exchanges, and your Lordships will expect some indication of how I propose that the problem should be met. I spoke of a firm direction. I suggest that that direction should have as its watchword the one principle of complete and unyielding reciprocity. There should be no retreat from the demand that if we send over our representatives of art, culture and the sciences on terms which are acceptable to the Soviet Union, so their corresponding representatives must come to this country on our terms, and we must impose those terms. In implementing that kind of policy, we have the overseas information officers in the Foreign Office, we have the cultural attaches, the B.B.C., and the British Council. I do not attempt to define in detail the steps which should be taken, but I cannot believe that in this work there is not a leading and vital rôle for Her Majesty's Government to play, through these information services, and perhaps in association with some new and independent outside agency.
There is my specific proposal. I am suggesting that a panel of experts should be set up, sitting at the elbow of the Government in an independent capacity, representing a kind of unofficial information Cabinet, to consider every single situation as it turns up, as the news comes in, and wondering and planning how it can be turned to account. I can think of one-hundred-and-one tasks that await it to-morrow. Its relations with the Press, on the one side, and the Foreign Office, on the other, would have to receive careful consideration. In fact, on page 12 of the Drogheda Report there is just such a proposal. The term used is a "Permanent Advisory Committee of Independent Persons". As an alternative, the Drogheda Committee suggested that an independent inquiry be held into the whole problem about once every five years. Whether or not my suggestion for a permanent committee be accepted or considered, I would suggest that the Government might consider that other proposal and. in fact, I definitely ask them if they will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee, to be set up to consider not so much the
788
machinery of the information services as the technique of Communism, and relate those services to that technique bearing in mind the points I have raised.
I have only one final reflection. The other day I was reading a debate which took place in May, 1940, on the operation of the Ministry of Information, and it seemed that so much that was then said could be placed straight into its modern context to-day. There was the same demand that neutrals should be considered; the same demand for the immediate contradiction of the lie. But there was an element in that debate which to-day is missing; that is, the stimulation that in those days we all fought for a cause which we recognised could not contemplate defeat, because we were fighting for values which were new and enduring. I sometimes think that if the Christian message which was given to the world so many years ago were to be restated to a society which had to live with the problems of Communism and democracy, unknown at the times of mere Roman colonialism, it might be repeated, perhaps in rather different terms, to the simple injunction of rendering unto Caesar that which is Cæsar's; and I hope that the right reverend Prelate who is to speak may have something to say about the position of the Church in relation to a problem which certainly perplexes many honest citizens. For myself, I feel that the information services will be used more effectively, and we shall find and devise ways to use them, if we can recapture that sense of a mission which saw us through so many long years in the late war.
3.48 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all glad that the two noble Lords who have spoken have brought this subject before your Lordships' House this afternoon, because it is of importance to us all. But, having said that, I must say that I disagree profoundly with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has said, and particularly with his contention that we should have a sort of apartheid in this country, and cut off any association with the countries behind the Iron Curtain. To me, it is most important that we have the freest intercourse with Russia and other countries behind the Iron Curtain that we welcome to this country delegations and cultural missions

789
from them and that our delegations and cultural missions go to them. I still feel that we cannot do better than follow the aspiration of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, when, as your Lordships will remember, he said:
" My aim in foreign policy is to go to Victoria and be able to buy a railway ticket to anywhere."
That, I think, is not far wrong.
The necessity for the Overseas Information Services is, I believe, well summed up in the Government's White Paper. Although I am not as a rule an admirer of Government White Papers, at any rate those of this Government, I do not think we can do better than follow what they have said in the White Paper of 1957. They said:
"Britain's full influence can be exercised only if we are prepared to devote enough effort and resources to ensuring that the peoples of other countries have every opportunity to understand our ideas, our policies and our objectives. Furthermore, we shall strengthen our economic position only if our efforts include vigorous salesmanship overseas. Information services are one of the means by which policy is promoted and opinion influenced."
I would say that that statement of Government policy is the right aim and one with which we should all agree, because it is a constructive and positive aim. It does not depend upon criticising other people. It aims to show the rest of the world what we are doing and what the British way of life is like.
In this field it is important to consider, for once, the facts which, in my view, we have not as yet considered. The information services overseas are the prerogative of the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. Their agencies, so to speak, are the Central Office of Information, the British Council, and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Naturally, the impact overseas on the non-governmental public—that is, the wider public—is almost entirely confined to the activities of the British Council and the B.B.C. As to the British Council, it is, I think, significant of one view of Government policy—and I contend it is the wrong view—that in 1954 the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who was then Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, went on a tour of the Far East and Australasia and, as a result of that tour closed down the British Council work in Australia, New
790
Zealand and Ceylon. I protested about that in your Lordships' House at the time. I thought it was the wrong policy.
So far as Ceylon is concerned, where it was important that the work should be kept on—and in fact the Drogheda Report, which the noble Lord, Lord Bird-wood, mentioned actually suggested that the work in Ceylon should be enlarged—the work of the British Council was completely stopped, on the ground that it was not well done. I asked the noble Earl at that time why, if the work was not well done, did he not ensure that it was well done. That, if anything, was a reason for the reassessment of the work in Ceylon, and not a reason for closing it down. I got no "change" from that argument, and the office and the work of the British Council in Ceylon, as well as in Australia and New Zealand, were closed down by the noble Earl, with, of course, the support of the Government. I may say that I told the noble Earl that I was raising this subject to-day. He told me that he was unable to be present, but that he had no objection to my doing so. In fact, he said, "You can be as slanderous as you like." I do not wish to be slanderous; I simply wish to set out the actual facts, which speak for themselves.
It is a fallacy Ito think that the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office Information Services are substitutes for the British Council. In fact, the two types of information service—I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Home, would agree—are complementary, because the British Council is confined to educational, scientific, professional and cultural fields, while the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office Information Services deal with political, economic, financial, industrial and commercial matters. So they are complementary, and if you close one down and add another official to the other service, you are not in fact making any substitution at all. The C.O.I., of course, is an official Government agency, with all the advantages and disadvantages that that status entails. It is again not a substitute for the British Council.
My own experience in these matters may he of some interest to your Lordships. I recently toured in Malaya, Thailand, Burma, India and Nigeria. Whenever I go to a country—or to any

791
town abroad, so far as that goes—I always try to visit the British Council Office and see the official there, because I feel the Council's officials need a good deal of support, and I hope they are encouraged by what interest we can give them. In my view the British Council in these countries are doing excellent work. They are limited in finance, of course, and as a result they concentrate, quite rightly in my view, on the provision of libraries and the teaching of English. It is practically the whole work they now do, and they are quite right to concentrate on it. In these areas—and this is an important question which is not always realised—the officials of the British Council play a great part in the cultural life of the community in which they live. I have found, for example, in Enugu in Nigeria, that Mr. Anderson, who is the head and who is related to a right reverend Prelate who sits in this House, plays a considerable part in the life of the community, quite apart from the British Council work. That is the same sort of thing that happens elsewhere. You find them playing a great part in that way, and I think their presence in these places is invaluable.
So far as the British Broadcasting Corporation's Overseas service is concerned, as the noble Viscount himself said, it costs about £5¾ million per annum or a little more. There is an odd revelation in the White Paper. If it is true, it is scandalous—in the Parliamentary sense of that term, of course—and if it is untrue it is misleading. From paragraph 10 of the 1957 White Paper, it appears that we are broadcasting to Europe, including Russia, 245¾ hours per week of programme time, and for the whole of the British Colonies 11½ hours per week. That seems to me a great disproportion. We have something like 65 million people at least in the British Colonies. They are our friends.
LORD ST. OSWALD: May I say a word in explanation? To the satellite countries and to Soviet Russia it is necessary to broadcast on several wavelengths at the same time, because of the jamming activities of the Soviet Government.
LORD OGMORE: I was going to bring that out, and to say that I do not know how much of the 78¾ hours' broadcasting gets through to Russia and the satellites,
792
because of the jamming. But, whatever the explanation may be, and however much the noble Lord wants to rush in and assist the Government on this point, no one can tell me that that is other than a most extraordinary balance of programme time. Sixty-five million of our fellow subjects, for whom we are responsible, get 11½ hours of our time, and European countries, many of whom, or some of whom, are not very friendly towards us, get 245¾ hours. I want to be perfectly fair, and I understand that since the White Paper there has been a reduction in programme time to Europe and that the figure is now 214¾ hours, as against 11½ hours. As usual, I am afraid that in this field, as in every other, the Colonies are the Cinderellas. They cry out for our friendship and they are not fed. We pour out our blessings upon those who make the greatest efforts not to receive them at all. I hope that that will be remedied. The neglect of the Colonies, in this field as in so many others, has been the cause of many of our difficulties in the past. I do not think that, in these present times, we can possibly put up with that state of affairs, and I hope the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will give us some encouragement that this situation will be remedied.
I do not ask for a great increase in the overall expenditure, but I do ask that there should be a better balance of the programme hours which are going out at our expense. I know that the Colonies get a certain amount of the General Overseas broadcasts, but so does everybody else, and also they get certain material and services. In this way we are indebted to many of the B.B.C.'s devoted staff who have been seconded and who go out to the colonial territories in order to assist with their broadcasting services. This was a definite policy, because when we dealt with broadcasting in the Colonies just after the war we took the opinion of Sir William Haley, the then Director-General, and he was very helpful and sympathetic. He took the view, which I think was sound, that seconding officers to colonial territories which then were starting up broadcasting on a fairly wide basis was not only helpful to the Colonies but very helpful to the B.B.C., as it enabled the young men who had never had experience of the growing pains of the organisation to

793
get experience of some of the problems which starting up broadcasting entailed.
With regard to television, the eighth wonder of the world, we were pioneers in it, although from some of the claims made in this field one sometimes would not think so. But I am informed that not nearly enough use is made of our recorded material, either from the B.B.C., the I.T.A. or the film corporations there is some mention of this matter in the White Paper, but no financial provision whatsoever. No grant has been made by the Government to expand the supply of television material overseas, although they were requested to do so as early as 1951—and in fact the Government allocated a sum for this purpose in 1956, but quickly withdrew the allocation, so that none actually has been made.
As to the Commonwealth Relations Office information services, there are just two questions I should like to ask—and this matter comes particularly within the scope of the noble Earl, the Secretary of State, so I hope we shall get an answer. If he is not able to answer to-day, perhaps he will answer later, although one question I have taken up with him previously. The first concerns Calcutta, a vital area in the Commonwealth to-day. The Drogheda Report found that the office there was
"completely unequipped to cover the vast region, covering a number of important towns, of which that city forms the centre."
In my visit there in the autumn of last year I found that there had been no change; it was still completely unequipped. Moreover, in the main shopping street of Calcutta there is, or was in October, a large store with one of the main windows full of American material. The "Voice of America" (or whatever the organisation is called) had leased it and had put on a show. Our similar—if one can call it such—display was in a little shop in the back streets. That really is not good enough in Calcutta, which was built up by our forbears and was for so long the centre of British influence right throughout the Far East, from China to Suez. This is one of the few places and one of the few subjects on which I think there should be more expenditure. I am not asking for much extra expenditure, because I know the difficulties of the time; but I feel that
794
this is a case where we could very well spend a little money.
The other question I want to ask is about the old former British settlement of Penang, formed by Francis Light towards the end of the 18th century. There was a famous library in Penang, a very good library—when I was there thirty years ago I used to use it a great deal. When I was there last September I heard that there was some doubt about the future of this library. Apart from current books, it has some valuable old books. I should like to be assured that the future of the library is not in jeopardy.
In view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I should like to say a word about our main competitors on the air. The United States and Russia, of course, broadcast a good deal more than we do now. They did not in 1950. In 1950 we were broadcasting 648 programme-hours per week; the "Voice of America" was broadcasting 497 and Russia 460. Last year, taking the same month, we broadcast 559·44 programme-hours per week. The U.S.A. figure had gone up to 666, excluding 70 hours of music, and that of Russia up to 896·55. So we had dropped roughly 100 hours, the United States had gone up nearly 200 hours, and Russia had gone up over 400 hours. This is, so far as the United States is concerned, without taking into account Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberation, where a large number of programme-hours go out.
When I said before that I thought the Government's view was based on a fallacy (and to some extent the fallacy is not less shared by the Drogheda Report) what I meant was that I believe one should not neglect one's friends and concentrate on one's potential enemies, if you like to call them such—or actual enemies, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, would call them—or neutrals. I think it is a dangerous policy to neglect's one's friends; yet that we are in danger of doing. The flowers of friendship need constant watering, and we must remember that even in the old Commonwealth countries, like Australia and New Zealand, there are people of the third and fourth generations now; they do not know us very well; in many cases they have few contacts with us. And in the Asian and African members of the

795
Commonwealth, of course, that consideration applies even more. In this day and age, to neglect them, as we are doing—remember that the Government have closed down altogether Council work in Australia and New Zealand and Ceylon—is, I think, potentially highly dangerous.
So far as our Allies are concerned, as we know, during the May crisis there was a very considerable amount of restriction of broadcasting, censorship of broadcasting and censorship of the Press in France. I am told that during that period, which was a very tense period, the figures of listeners in France to the B.B.C. went up tremendously. The people in France, and elsewhere in Europe, depended at that time when there was a tense international situation on the B.B.C., which had never failed them. I think that is a very important matter to remember. Do not neglect your friends. Cultivate them at all times. I do not believe that there are many people in this world to-day who do not know what the threat of Communism means; I think most of them know it. But they do not always know what are the problems and difficulties of the Free World, and that is the sphere in which most of our effort should take place.
There is just one more word I should like to say, and that is that we must be cautious, in view of the difficulties of the times, in asking the Government for a lot more money in this field. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has asked for £100 million. I think that is out of all proportion to what we could possibly afford. Nevertheless, I believe that we should spend our money to the best advantage, and I do not believe we are always doing so now. There needs to be a reappraisal of the money we spend, which is, after all, a fairly big sum—over £15 million. Then, once we have arrived at a true appraisal, we should stick to it; there is nothing worse than dithering about. Your Lordships will remember the old Army saying. "Order, counter-order, disorder." It is very discouraging to the staff and very upsetting to all who have to deal with information policy abroad. We shall listen most carefully to the reply of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is of course so deeply concerned with this subject.
4.10 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, the subject which we are debating to-day is not a new one and we are glad to welcome to the ranks of old "war horses" who keep bringing it up the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is not only in the ranks but taking the lead. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, is an old champion of this cause. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strang, in his place, and I hope that we may hear from him. We have in the past had great support from others, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and many other Members of your Lordships' House. In the past those of us who support this viewpoint of overseas information services suggested that the Government ought to take more interest and to give more attention. We now, I think, argue that this is of paramount importance, and in the few words that I address to your Lordships I shall confine myself entirely to overseas information in the sense of propaganda, and propaganda in the sense of being an alternative to the hot war.
The preoccupation of every Government, in every country, now is war; and in spite of recent advances in knowledge in nuclear and other scientific fields, apprehensions must, of course, be based on past experience because one cannot base experience on anything but the past. But we have to look to the future, and I wonder whether some of your Lordships may not remember what I thought was a most impressive little speech from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from the Benches on my left not long ago when he summed up his view of the position in the nuclear field. He went perhaps rather further than some of us would go in damning the whole nuclear field as "poisonous" and "untouchable" something to be thrown away. I do not know that we could all go as far as he does, but I have a feeling in my bones that basically what he says has a tremendous amount of sense and rightness in it, and that we shall be coming to that point of view.
In the present generation, however, there are people who feel that if our civilisation is pervaded by some foreign and unpleasant invasion we should once again put our backs to the wall, and fight in the streets and in the villages until we are wiped out. When Sir Winston Churchill's famous phrase was uttered

797
some time ago, the circumstances were very different, because those who were going to fight to the death were fighting for the existence of somebody else and something else that would survive after their death. In this nuclear age we know that, if we do go to war, it is unlikely that there will be anything left at all; therefore, the position is quite different. Indeed, I feel it difficult to understand why this present generation feels that it has the authority to sacrifice itself as a whole, dissociating itself from generations to come and generations that are past. There is another body of opinion which says that we must not sacrifice the future, the children to come and generations of the future. My own feeling is that we have an equal, if not greater, allegiance to the generations of the past over thousands of years, to civilisation, philosophy and religion which has been built up by people before us and which, if we take this suggested line, we are throwing away.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me for diverging on to the general subject of war, but it seems to me to be extraordinarily important when we are discussing this particular subject: When I talk of "propaganda" I do not mean trying to make people believe things that they do not want to believe, or things which are not true. All I mean is that we should get across to people who are either misled or ignorant the truths which are vitally important for the future not only of this country but of the whole of civilisation.
My Lords, overseas information expenditure, of course, covers not only the type of propaganda which I have in mind but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, told us, that which has a great deal to do with places like Canada and Australia, where the type of propaganda I am speaking of is not required at all. Those are understanding and sympathetic friends, and we need not educate them in things in which they are all educated. Therefore, I am not altogether in sympathy with Lord Ogmore's point of view that one of the urgent things is to step up expenditure in those parts of the world where our own views are very well represented—for instance, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who I am pleased to see in his place. I do not think he needs any further support by broadcasting.
LORD OGMORE: I was referring particularly to the 11¼ hours. Would the noble Lord suggest that 11¼ hours of programme time per week is sufficient for our 65 million friends in the Colonies?
LORD REA: I should think that it is adequate time for propaganda, but not for information.
LORD OGMORE: Surely we are not talking about propaganda; we are talking about the whole information services of the Government. It is not propaganda in the usual sense of the term. It is stating to other countries of the world what we are doing and why. That is not propaganda.
LORD REA: I appreciate the noble Lord's point of view; but I should not have thought that the proportions were badly out of step. Surely it is the people behind the Iron Curtain that we need to tell far more than the people in Australia or Canada.
We were talking yesterday about Cyprus. One was very careful not to say anything which might be misunderstood. But is not Cyprus a very strong example of what can be done, what has been done and what has not been done in the propaganda field? The propaganda which brought about the present tragic situation in Cyprus has, I think, been going on for fifty years, and those of your Lordships who, like myself, have been able to have a word with Archbishop Makarios will, I think, be convinced that in that case it was not Communist propaganda; it came from another quarter which I need not mention. But it seems to me that we did not counter this propaganda. To-day, it is the Conservative Government that must take the blame for not countering it enough; yesterday it was the Labour Party, and the day before yesterday it was the Liberal Party. No Party appreciated the great power of propaganda in that little country which is now in such a tragic state.
It is suggested that it would need a very big new organisation to-day. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, that we cannot go back to the organisation which we had in the war-time days, which was referred to by Lord Ogmore—the Political Warfare Executive and the Political Intelligence Department, of which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and I were both in some way connected, and which had an enormous power in

799
getting things across to people who could not otherwise know our real intentions and that there was no distortion in those intentions. America and Russia spend a vast amount on propaganda and overseas information. Although I am not quite sure that I would go quite so far as the noble Viscount in asking for £100 million in that field, I do not think he is far out. I think the £15 million which we get, which is only one-quarter of one per cent. of the national expenditure, is a fantastically small figure.
What I am saying—I hope I am not putting it too high—is that in propaganda and information we have a real alternative in a not very long period to the machines of war and our tremendous defence programme. I do not advocate that we should cut directly the sum we are spending every year on defence, but that we transfer gradually from it to this minute £15 million and alter the balance, so that in time we shall not be spending on defence items quite what we are spending to-day, and the fear of war will be turned aside by overseas information rather than by piling up armaments and instruments of torture and death.
There is a vast, open, unused area, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, for this work of information, and I think it is this vacuum and this void which can be wickedly used to persuade the hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain that the policy of the Western Powers is aggressive and murderous, and that they are merely looking to exploit and colonise. And, of course, on our side, we are surely left wondering to what extent these hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain are truly antagonistic to our conception of freedom and of self-expression for freedom, as much for them as for ourselves—because it applies to both. I do not think that these hundreds of millions are basically antagonistic; they are merely ignorant, and they are certainly misled. Meanwhile, the Governments of the world press on in a general armaments race in reluctant preparation for the horrible conflict which, if it does come, will wipe out probably most of mankind and all of civilisation.
What are we going to do—what are we doing—about enlightenment and the dissemination of truth, to ease tension, to dissipate suspicion and distrust? I do not
800
think that we are doing nearly enough. Religion and medicine have learned that to combat evil prevention and deflection and disclosure succeed, where conflict after the evil has arrived will fail. Force as a political power is, I suggest, becoming obsolete. It may be found already to be obsolete. What is to take the place of violence and force? I urge that we must do everything in our power—far more than we are now doing—to fight against the suppression of truth, to fight against the distortion of truth, and to exploit that good in both ourselves and our adversaries which is the crux of the democracy which it is the responsibility of the Western Powers not only to foster but to save from annihilation.
4.21 p.m.
LORD EBURY: My Lords, in rising to address you for the first time I ask your indulgence for any lapses I may make. If I may, I should like to congratulate the two noble Lords. Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Birdwood, for airing this highly important subject. My own remarks will be extremely brief, but that does not mean that I am in any way underestimating the importance of the subject; it is because I feel that other speakers are far more qualified and have far more experience than I have. I have really no expert knowledge on this matter.
My Lords, I belong to a generation that grew up after the war, and among the many things that I have found baffling in this complex modern world is the very real decline of British prestige and influence abroad. I appreciate, of course, that the economic balance of power has altered drastically, especially since the drainage of our resources needed for paying the price of fighting the war, but, even so, I am still baffled. Recently, however, due perhaps to more knowledge and understanding of contemporary affairs, I find myself, if less baffled, considerably more saddened. However, I hope that no one will suspect, as I am young and slightly saddened, that I am young and angry. I believe that one of the main reasons for the decline of British prestige and influence is that we simply will not make a case for our policies abroad and are losing untold good will by allowing our case to go by default. By default, my Lords, is surely the most unnecessary way to lose a case and to lose a battle, and we are fighting battles now, as we always have been in the past,

801
to preserve for mankind humanitarian and Christian principles forged through trial and error and experience.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House spoke yesterday, when he was referring to colonial development, of trusteeship. What he said was absolutely correct. Yet surely we in this country and in the Commonwealth are trustees in a much wider sense. Who, looking at history, would doubt our contribution to the defence of freedom? Mistakes may have been made, and sometimes serious ones, yet on balance our record is both progressive and enlightened. Yet now our star appears to be on the wane, and we are castigated in some quarters as an oppressive, reactionary and imperialist Power.
Your Lordships know, I know, and the vast majority of these people know, that that is simply untrue. But that is just our trouble. As a nation we have always tended to assume that because we believe something to be right and to be true there is on need to convince the world that it is right and true, because the world must already be convinced that it is right and true. If someone tells a blatant lie about us, we are inclined to shrug it off and to say: It cannot be helped. They do not think as we do." We have been far too slow to see the fallacy of this. Attacks and criticism pour in from all sides. I say this with a deal of hesitation, having regard to my inexperience, but even our American allies sometimes do not under-stand but, indeed, criticise our actions. We seem, I regret, to have learned nothing from the past. It surely must have been obvious in the 'thirties that propaganda would be a prime weapon both of attack and of defence in the future, and yet here we are in 1958 allowing our case to go by default.
The U.S.S.R. have not been slow to adopt and improve propaganda techniques, and now, as a result, we are perpetually on the defensive, trying to justify ourselves and face each new Soviet thrust. I do not want the information services to engage in slanging matches, or to hurl insults and abuse. I want them to make strong and vigorous statements of our case at every possible opportunity and through every possible medium. If we have achieved something good, then let us say so before someone else gets in to say that it is bad. The Commonwealth of British Nations has made and can make a
802
decisive contribution in halting the tide of tyranny and oppression, but we shall contribute nothing unless the world knows and understands what we are trying to do. It is the information services who must make the decisive contribution here.
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to speak immediately after the noble Lord's maiden speech and to be the first to congratulate him on his thoughtful and interesting remarks. I hope I shall be able to follow him in the comparative brevity he has shown, and I am sure that I express the feeling of this House in saying that I hope that the maiden speech that he has made will soon be married to many others. suppose that most of us here are past the fifty mark, and it is very refreshing and adds greatly to our debate when we have some who stand below the fifty line taking part in our discussion.
May I say that I have listened with almost wholehearted agreement to all that has been said here this afternoon? I, too, believe, with many of your Lordships who have spoken, that the Government's eyes have been too closely fixed on military defence. That is understandable—very understandable indeed—since the Government are, of course, in a responsible position; but, nevertheless, it is, I believe, short-sighted. In the evolutionary battle of life that was fought millennia ago it was man, with his fragile equipment but with his quick wits, who won, and the dinosaurs and those great monsters that moved with impenetrable armour that were lost in the mists of history. So I believe it will be in the future. To-day there is a great battle of ideals. It is not enough to assume that other races and peoples—and, indeed, our own folk here at home—will see the justice and excellence of that for which our country, we believe, stands. Truth, to prevail, has to be spread; it has to be proclaimed; it has to be commended, and it has to be embodied. We here in this country have a political way of life, and that is one which we should all want to commend. Our contention is that it is not being adequately commended in the world to-day. That way of life is, briefly, the democratic way of life. Democracy, as I understand it, does

803
not mean freedom before the law; it does not mean security from want, or freedom from want. It means freedom and security—not one or the other, but both.
Like the previous speaker, I have no desire to cast any reflection on the information services. Within their limit I believe they do an exceedingly good job. But surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has said, to act in this sphere we need something much more free, more positive and more imaginative. We need a new instrument, a body of experts if you like, freed from day-to-day ministerial control; a body composed of journalists, educationists and experts in public relations, who would keep their minds and attention continually on this problem without continually being harried as, alas! so many civil servants and those in Government employ needs must be.
Having said that, I must make clear that the Christian attitude to the Communist menace is not perhaps quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has suggested. There are those who would like to see the Christian Church make common cause with the anti-Communist forces. The Church of England has quite definitely refused to do so; and, lest that statement should be questioned and lest it should be thought that it is the peculiar and personal opinion of a single Bishop, I should like to quote a few sentences on this subject from the report of the Lambeth Conference of 1948. The Conference Committee which reported on this matter had within its number one who carried great respect in this House, the late Lord Archbishop of York, Dr. Garbett, who gave his wholehearted assent to the contents of that report. The Conference of 1948, while declaring atheistic Communism to be contrary to Christian faith and practice and something which must be opposed by sound teaching and example, had something further to say:
"Communism cannot be overcome by argument alone. It has to be outlived and not merely out-fought. By making common cause with anti-Communist forces the Church might have some success, but such a short-term policy would prove in the end to be disastrous to the Church, both in the East and in the West."
804
The reasons given by the report for taking that attitude are first of all that:
"Ever since Apostolic times there has been a communistic strain—not an atheistic communistic strain but a communistic strain—in Christianity itself. Secondly, in the long-term policy to win the workers of the world for the Kingdom of Christ and to win them from a policy based on materialism Churchmen must begin by entering into the despair as well as the hope that has inspired modern Communism. Thirdly, they must do full justice to the truth in Communism, both in its critical insight into history and in its desire to help the oppressed; and, lastly, they must realise that those who accept an economic theory of Communism, as distinct from Marxist atheism, do not thereby put themselves outside the fellowship of the Christian Church."
So much for the most authoritative statement from the Anglican Church on the attitude of the Church towards what has been called the "Communist menace".
I now pass to another point. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, seemed to suggest that if Our Lord had lived today He might have stated the ethical implications of His teaching somewhat differently. In one sense, of course, that is perfectly true. For instance, He perhaps would not have spoken of the Good Samaritan in the story of that name. Instead, He might have spoken of the Good Arab or the Good Communist. The clothing of His teaching would no doubt have been different, but the content of His teaching would have been precisely the same: "If a man strike thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also." I cannot see that Our Lord, would have altered that phrase by a single word or intonation had He been speaking today. His ethic, unlike the Communist ethic, does not vary with the political situation. He came to proclaim principles of eternal validity and of Divine Truth.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I must try to explain what I mean. Many modern people of a literalistic and practical frame of mind—and so many modern people have that frame of mind—turn to the Gospels, and there they read: "Love your enemy," "Turn the other cheek," and "Lend to him that asketh of thee." They look at Christians and Churchmen and they see that Christians do not obey. They conclude, therefore, that the Christians whom they know are really rather humbugging and hypocritical, and that the Christian ethic, as so-called, is something unrealistic and

805
inapplicable to the workaday world of to-day. But they forget that other instance in the Gospel where St. Peter asked Our Lord, "How often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him—till seven times?": he wanting to know that at the eighth time he could hit back. Our Lord answered (it must have been with a smile) "Not until seven times but until seventy times seven." In other words, conduct in such a situation cannot be governed by rule, no matter how much human beings want those rules and desire to have them. As in the opening prayers of our Sessions we are taught to say that, having done all, we are unworthy or unprofitable servants.
What, then, do these hard sayings of Jesus mean in the world of to-day? I believe that we must remember two things about them. First, they satisfy the ideal of action. People may ask "But of what use is it to set that ideal?" It is of very great use indeed. If we turn to geometry, while it is perfectly true that no geometrician has ever drawn a straight line—the shortest distance between two points—who shall say that the ideal embodied in that definition is not of the highest value and significance in geometry? To continue in a mathematical metaphor, it is the task of those who observe these dictums of Our Lord to come as close as possible to their fulfilment in actual life. Secondly, the pictures which are given to us in such phrases as, "Turn the other cheek," "Lend to him that asketh of thee", and others, are, as it were, objectifications of the motives which should inspire our action. They are not rules to be accepted literally, any more than the statement of Our Lord when he said: "Except a man hate his father and mother he cannot be My disciple." No! These statements are surely attempts to probe human motive and to challenge us just where we most often fail.
I believe that it was Hugh Redwood who in one of his books told the story of a Salvation Army lassie who went into a house in the East End of London and there found the husband, half drunk, beating up his wife. He then began attacking her. She, being a hefty lassie, rose up and "hit him for six". The result was eventually that that man was converted. Who should say that she was wrong? Nay, rather, she was perfectly right. If
806
she had observed the literal interpretation and turned the other cheek, no good would have come to her. But because she did what she did, the man concerned learnt to respect her and the situation turned out as I have said. So what our Lord proclaims is not a series of new rules to be observed, but new motives; He proclaims a new motive and a new spirit which should inspire human action.
The Christian Church has won its greatest victories by the preaching and practice of its message, not through religious war and battle—they have always corrupted the Church. And democracy, too, will win only by the preaching and practice of its principles. I lend my support to the Motion this afternoon because I do not believe that we are in this country adequately doing just that. If the Government were to spend more money and engage in some of the activities which Lord Birdwood has mentioned in his speech, as other noble Lords have done, then I see no reason at all why such activity should not have the wholehearted support of Christian people—but on one condition, and one condition only: that such instrument, or instruments, of policy observe one rule, that they tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I feel that your Lordships will all agree that this debate, which still has some way to run, has, so far as it has gone, been useful and stimulating. We enjoyed from Lord Massereene and Ferrard a speech to which he had obviously given a great deal of constructive thought, and which we shall read to-morrow in order to obtain its full benefit; a speech from Lord Birdwood, which has stimulated ideas on how best to combat Communist propaganda; a very telling speech, if I may say so, from the noble Lord on the Benches opposite, Lord Ebury, who made his maiden speech—and we hope, and I am sure, that we shall hear speeches of that quality from him on many future occasions; and the complement of the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Manchester, when we know that there are perhaps more exciting debating distractions which he could have attended just round the corner.

807
If it is true that the Communist world will be converted, rather than conquered, by the example of the free democracies, and if it is true that the uncommitted nations of the world will be moved from the fence only by the compulsion of ideas in the fields of social and political organisation which are demonstrably better than anything the Communist world can put forward, then Britain, which can, I think, claim without arrogance to have laid the foundations of modern political democracy, should be the leading salesman of her wares and of her virtues. That is really what has been said in speech after speech this afternoon. If in the past, when we were in possession of great physical power, we were apt, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, sometimes to neglect the impact of ideas, because our deeds spoke for themselves, it would be possible (and this is why I enter a caution here) to fall into the opposite idea that ideas are all that matter.
It is perhaps well to insist at this early stage in the debate that not even the most perfect information services can be a substitute for a clearly-directed British foreign policy. Nor can they excuse us as a nation from the effort which is necessary to sustain our defences and to husband our financial and economic power. Ideas may be weapons, but, my Lords, they will be blunt weapons and break in our hands unless the story they have to tell is the story of a Britain equipped in every department of the national life to meet the challenge of the 20th century, and of a Britain able and determined to exercise a telling influence on world affairs. I do not think, my Lords, that I can improve on the words that were used in his report by our late colleague Lord Drogheda, when he said that information services should be part of the "normal apparatus of a Great Power."
Information services must have very clear objectives. They must assist our friends to appreciate the direction and the motives of British policy. They must help the uncommitted countries, with the fullest knowledge of British institutions and achievements and way of life, to understand the aims of our policies. They must buttress the cause of the free world, and they must counter on all possible occasions Communist propaganda and every evil manifestation of it. It is
808
hardly possible to keep this debate coherent unless from the front Bench here we make a division of subjects, and I propose, with Lord Birdwood's permission, to leave the question of the cold war and propaganda and, I am afraid, very largely the rôle of the B.B.C. to my noble friend Lord Gosford, who will reply. I would say only this on Lord Birdwood's speech, on the subject of countering propaganda from this country. It will not be easy for my noble friend to give a detailed reply to Lord Bird-wood's questions. There is a great deal he can say, but there is a great deal that is better not said. I think Lord Bird-wood understands that, so I hope that he will be lenient with my noble friend if he cannot meet him in full.
To the world at large the information services must project Britain as a nation claiming attention in her own right. Because the world is going technological, it must be kept up to date on all the achievements in this country of science, in particular our advances in the use of atomic energy, and on our technical achievements all over the country and through the whole range of industry; and it must be kept informed of the progress of our industrial revolution, because since the war there has been nothing less than that—an industrial revolution which, the world might be reminded, enables this country to earn such wealth that it is able to maintain a standard of living as high as any in the world.
And if, as is the case, the world is searching for social evolution and political stability, then it should be told of Britain's rôle as architect of the Commonwealth Association, of our position as the partner responsible for guiding to independence many new nations, and of the processes of cooperation and consultation which we have evolved with each other in the Commonwealth family. On our success in telling the world about the part we have played in the Commonwealth story will rest much of our influence and our authority. I would agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Ebury, when he said that this case must not go by default; and it is here, perhaps, among our friends (and in this I find myself in close agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore) that our greatest efforts might with the greatest advantage be deployed.

809
Within the Commonwealth there are great tasks for our information services to perform. I would remind your Lordships that in the old Commonwealth countries generations of young people are growing up, immensely loyal to the British tradition and to the British Crown, but not having the same intimate knowledge of British life that their grandparents and parents had. In many of the old Commonwealth countries, too, immigration on a large scale is significantly diluting what were, until comparatively lately, populations of pure British stock. Again, in the new Commonwealth there are young people growing up who have never know the impact of British administration. In India, for example, old members of the Indian Civil Service, which did so much to hold that country and the administration of that country together, are gradually disappearing, though we trust that their traditions will live. To these new Commonwealth countries, Britain could become just another foreign country and we could lose our established ties and special relationship with them. I think I need give your Lordships only one illustration—the danger which would follow a decline in the teaching of English, with the manifold repercussions, to which I will return and which will be apparent to your Lordships.
I will allow myself only one more generalisation before I refer to the progress of our information services. No doubt the information which is put out by any country reflects to the foreign observer the national habits and characteristics—the national character. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Manchester said something profoundly worth while when he said that British information must be genuine. Of course, information must be adapted and presented to widely different understandings and, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said, to widely different temperaments of different people, and the study of particular audiences is basic to the success of efficient information services. But in the long run it is the truth which will tell.
I have had many examples of this in recent years in my travels round the Commonwealth. One finds oneself in a Commonwealth town and some sensational news comes in from a foreign capital. The reaction of the Common-
810
wealth people is to wait for corroboration by the B.B.C. or the information services of the United Kingdom. That places a tremendous responsibility upon the British Press and upon the B.B.C., but it gives them a tremendous opportunity as well, and it is to that opportunity we want to gear our information services.
The House is familiar with the instruments and with the methods available. The instruments are the information services of the Government Departments concerned with overseas affairs, supplied with material provided by agencies such as the Central Office of Information, the British Council and the B.B.C. Because I want to be selective to-day, I am going to ask your Lordships to accept the assurance, which I feel your Lordships are likely to accept, that the Government wish to strengthen and make more efficient all the information services. I think that the Government's White Paper on the expansion of the information services is a witness of that. We realise that more money must be spent on the information services—an additional £2 million was spent last year—but I suggest that the amount of money is less important than that the money which is there should be concentrated to achieve the greatest impact. It is that aspect with which I want to deal to-day.
Until last year I think we were all conscious that there was little overall direction of the information services, and there was some evidence that we were not making the best use of our limited resources. Since then, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been put in a position to direct, to co-ordinate, to focus discussion and to plan ahead—in other words, to achieve the best possible projection of British policy. It may comfort the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, in particular, as he was talking in terms of independent advisers, to know that the Chancellor of the Duchy meets regularly with the chief information officers of the overseas and home Departments in Whitehall for a tactical review of the whole field, and if any change of method or emphasis is needed, then, with modern methods, it can be quickly transmitted to the officers in the field. Of course we will study the noble Lord's suggestions. I rather think that the Drogheda Committee's proposal for a five-year review was for a review of the allocation of

811
resources, and I am a little doubtful whether any independent committee could add very much to the knowledge of the chief information officers of the overseas Departments. But, of course, we are always ready to adopt any machinery which would make the information services more efficient.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl would allow me to interrupt him for only a moment to raise the question of whether such a meeting is adequate for certain purposes. For the normal Commonwealth information, I would say, yes, entirely, but not to foresee certain situations within the context of Communism which may arise. I have in mind one example, of when Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev came over here and a Press conference was anticipated when they left. There should be a certain body of people studying how best a Press conference should be conducted and what measures could be taken if it went wrong. Issues of this kind are outside the scope of the normal conference which the Chancellor of the Duchy might hold and to which the noble Earl has referred.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think that many such matters would be within the scope. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will have a conversation with the Chancellor of the Duchy later, but I think he will find that this machinery should be sufficient to achieve most of the results, though not all, for which the noble Lord has asked this afternoon. For other purposes one must have other machinery.
There is another important function of information officers here in London, and that is to assist foreign and Commonwealth correspondents to secure quick and accurate information of Government policies and of the reasons which underlie them, so that our policies may be clear and understood by our partners in the Commonwealth. I do not think I am being complacent on this matter of machinery when I say that from my own observations this service has noticeably improved owing to these changes in the last year.
I should now like to indicate to the House some features of the expansion of these information services, and to start with the physical cover in the information field, because it is upon the men on the spot—that is to say, the informa-
812
tion officers in the field—that the success of much of our effort rests. They provide the newspapers and the public with the information; and if, as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said, you get a man with initiative and enterprise to talk, explain and persuade, then he will have a great effect in his own environment. In the information services to have the right man in the right place is halfway to success, and we are taking great care now with our selection and placing. Having visited a good many of these gentlemen who are doing this job, I must say that they often work in unpleasant climates, sometimes with audiences who do not want to be convinced; they do (and I should like them to know it) work which is of great value and vital to a proper understanding of Britain overseas.
Within the Commonwealth we have reinforced our posts in the last year in India, Pakistan, Ghana and Malaya; in the Central African Federation, Nigeria, the West Indies, East Africa and Singapore. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to know that there is an information office in Calcutta, and we have stepped it up (I always listen to advice from the Opposition, and particularly from the noble Lord) so that it has now two officers, one a Principal Information Officer—a higher rank than there was before—and we are considering new buildings for it. So far as I know, the library in Penang is going on all right, but I should like to have a further word with the noble Lord about that. That is a considerable reinforcement over a large number of Commonwealth and Colonial Territories. In the old Commonwealth, in particular, posts in Australia have been strengthened, and in Canada, where there were three posts, there are this year seven, with new posts in Winnipeg. Edmonton, Vancouver and Quebec. I should like your Lordships to remember that, unlike the Press in this country, the Press in Commonwealth countries, and in Canada and Australia, in particular. is purely provincial. Therefore, there is a great deal of work to be done by the information officers, keeping in touch with the provincial Press. Men must be armed with material which is well produced.
If any of your Lordships is interested. I should like you to go along to my information office in the Commonwealth

813
Relations Office and see the media which are available and the quality of the information which we send out to the posts. They embrace all types of information media—films, television, booklets, reference material, posters, exhibitions (we had one very successful exhibition in Africa not long ago, and the Brussels Exhibition is, I believe, recognised to be a success for Britain), picture sets and newspaper articles.
In catalogue form, I should like to give your Lordships one or two illustrations. There is the London Press Service which now goes out on twelve wireless beams with the latest news and comments; and there is an industrial Press unit which is being set up by the Central Office of Information to increase the content of industrial news that goes overseas. The commercially produced magazines are, I think, of a high quality, and the six-weekly colour magazine, known as Commonwealth Today, now has a circulation of 300,000 and is produced in ten different languages. There are libraries for people eager to read British books; and visitors, mainly Commonwealth journalists, are brought here before tours so that they can see at first hand this country and its ways. Films are sent into the towns of the Commonwealth, and they are also sent by mobile vans into the country. They are allowed 13,000 prints of films, in fifteen languages, which are sent to 130 posts. There is a weekly newsreel of events in Britain which goes to 62 different countries.
Then there is television. I remember—and it made a great impression on me at the time—my noble friend Lord Woolton, who is so wise in these matters, advising this House in the early days to get into television "on the ground floor", so far as information services were concerned. The development of television overseas is uneven, but now in 33 out of 48 countries with television services they are able to take British material; and enough material is now provided to major posts to offer from 25 to 30 minutes of television time a week; and by the end of the year the amount will be one hour. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me about the hours of broadcasting as between the Communist countries in Europe and the Free World. It was a question at short notice, and I have obtained the figures as well as I could.
814
I think the position now—because there has been a great switch of effort, from some countries where we thought the effort was being wasted to others where we thought it would be of more value—is that 100 hours a week are broadcast to the various Communist countries in Europe, and 250 hours a week to the free world. If the noble Lord wishes to have a breakdown of those figures, I may be able to give it to him at a later stage.
This is the second day that I have made a long speech to your Lordships, but perhaps I might say a word or two about the British Council, which does unpublished but sterling work. It presents to the world the educational, professional, scientific and cultural life of this country; and in many of those other countries the cultural background is the same as our own. I know that we are apt often to ridicule culture—the things we really think are valuable are often most subject to ridicule. Still, I am glad that a number of noble Lords have given to the House what I believe to be the true picture of the British Council activities, which, as I see it, is something like this: libraries full of students working diligently from British text-books; students eager to read British books and technical articles in all kinds of magazines.
Then, there are scholarships offered to foreign students at the universities, and help with British teachers. I do not know if the House realises the number of students from the Commonwealth who are in this country to-day. In 1946 there were between 2,000 and 3,000 such students in this country. In 1950 there were 10,000, and in 1957 35,000 students educating themselves in one way or another, 11,000 of them at universities. Each of those students is a potential carrier into his own homeland of good will for Britain. From the moment when each year 7,000 of them arrive at London Airport (that is the number for which the British Council are able to cater at the moment) they are met, they are shown their way around and they are given every chance to integrate in the best way into the life of the community here. That work of the British Council is one the value of which cannot be overestimated; nor is it possible to give too much gratitude to the people who give voluntary service to help the British Council with the students.

815
Lastly, there is the teaching of English. If people in the new Commonwealth, or even further afield, learn to talk in English, they will learn to think in English; and the wide repercussions of that, and the high dividends that that would pay to this country will be well understood by your Lordships. If English, which is already a truly international language, can be made the accepted international language of science, commerce and administration, then the benefits which will flow to this country will be immeasurable.
So what do we plan to do? We plan to recruit English teachers to serve in schools and universities overseas. Your Lordships will remember that the superannuation rights of these teachers are now, of course, reserved; and although some of them have misgivings I think it is clear that for a long time ahead there will be a shortage of teachers in this country, so that they should not have any difficulty—and I hope local authorities will consciously co-operate in this if the teacher wants to go overseas—in getting a job when they return to this country. We want to expand the existing arrangements for training local teachers, for bringing Commonwealth teachers here on scholarships to learn the techniques, sometimes at special courses arranged for this purpose, of teaching English, and for improving our techniques and facilities for research in teaching English as a foreign language. I want to emphasise that, because so often we think that we have to teach English abroad in the same sort of way that we teach English to our children. We have to learn that there are many new and promising techniques to teach English as a foreign language to those who have never understood it. We want to develop, too, the use of films and television and new media of teaching. I find it impossible to exaggerate the importance of this field, and I think we are making promising progress.
My Lords, I have covered a very wide field, but I have left gaps which my noble friend will fill. I have scarcely touched upon the British Broadcasting Corporation, a great instrument of influence, or on the techniques of fighting the cold war. I would add only this point. In my view, a balanced and truthful account of what we are and what we stand for
816
is a winner. We must counter the enemy in every way, but the facts of life in Britain should be allowed to speak for themselves continuously, and they will win the day. I have tried to give to your Lordships a picture of information services, well thought out and balanced, representing modest progress and sober progress, but on the right road. I hope I have convinced your Lordships that the determination is there, the direction is there, and that the men and material are there, and that if we use our imagination, intelligence and foresight we shall be able to give to the world the great story which Britain has to tell.
5.15 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, if I ask for a few minutes of your time this evening, it is not because I intend either to repeat or to differ from what has been said this afternoon. I want to place some emphasis upon what has either not been mentioned or in my view has been inadequately discussed during our debate up to this moment. I would take as my starting point a remark of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, who has just spoken. when he said that, however perfect your mechanism of broadcasting information, it will not be of much use unless you have the right facts to put into it.
What I want in a very few minutes to suggest is the kind of thing that we ought to have available in order that we may present the Western world worthily to the rest of the world. I am all in favour of an excellent shop window, but it is no great use having a good shop window unless you have something pretty good to put in it. I am not, of course, going to suggest specific policies—it would be completely out of the scope of a debate of this kind—but I should like to make two comments or two suggestions of the kind of thing that I think should be available for those who are putting our case towards the rest of the world.
I have sometimes been greatly perturbed by remarks of this kind made, and made by very influential people on both sides of the Atlantic: "Of course, it would be a very good thing to have a Summit Conference, and it would be a very good thing to work out the proposals for such a conference if we thought there was a likelihood that those proposals would be accepted." If you have a good

817
proposal, in my view the improbability of acceptance is not a reason for keeping silent about it. I should like to see a positive effort made to find a constructive and reasonable proposal which might be put before a Summit Conference, if there is one; but if it is rejected there, or if there is no Conference, it should be published to the world. It would then help us to present ourselves to the uncommitted peoples, or the hesitating or uncommitted sections of our own peoples as having a constructive policy which would he to the advantage of the world as a whole.
As I say, I cannot obviously now put forward specific policy proposals, but I can suggest the conditions that such a proposal should satisfy. The first is that it should be such as if adopted would reduce the tensions and dangers of the world. Secondly, it should be such as not to aim at changing the relative strength of the West and the East as it now exists. That is a matter for later proposals or other measures. But not only would it of course be criminal folly to make a suggestion which, if accepted, would make our Western world strength relatively less in relation to the Communist world than it is at present, but it is also absurd and useless for any purpose of propaganda to put forward proposals which, if accepted, would obviously increase our relative strength vis-à-vis the Communist world. For not only is it completely impossible that it would be accepted, but it would seem to the hesitating or uncommitted peoples of the world absurd for us to have proposed it; we shall get no credit and rather discredit for having produced such a proposal. But there are within the sphere of plans that have been recently discussed some quite positive and promising proposals which would meet those two conditions of being useful, not in ending the competition of the two worlds, but seeing that it would, if accepted, be at a lower and less dangerous level, and, if not accepted, would present our case favourably to the rest of the world. That, my Lords, is the first suggestion I want to make.
The second is this, I will preface it by recounting a conversation I had with a good friend of mine, a Moslem from a part of the world where the impact of West and East is already crucial and
818
dangerous and may become more so in the near future. He himself is a sincere Moslem, but he is at the same time a man who understands deeply the value of our Western civilisation and, indeed, of the Christian faith. He realises, as indeed many Moslems do, how much there is in common in ultimate values recognised in both the Moslem and the Christian faiths. He made this remark to me: "Why at present does the Western world present itself in the picture of a world offering bombs and dollars? Have you nothing more to say?"—bombs and dollars; the modern equivalent of "guns and butter." "What of the voice of your great past?". He realises, as well as anyone brought up in our Faith and in our system realises, what is the heart and core of what the Western world has given and has to give—the infinite and ultimate value of the human individual, the illimitable possibilities of human development, the absolute and imperative need of freedom and a free system if that potential development is to be realised.
As he spoke I thought of what those who have used the English language and been brought up in the English tradition on both sides of the Atlantic have done over the last 300 years to form and transform the thought of the world and the political forces of the world: Milton and Mill, Jefferson and Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, yes, and Winston Churchill. Where are those voices now? Among our statesmen and our writers on either side of the Atlantic, where are our Miltons and Mills, our Jeffersons and our Lincolns? If they cannot be found we may do not so badly in our armaments competition or in economic competition; we may do well in the mere mechanism of broadcasting and propaganda. But in our contest, this vital and crucial contest now for the soul and mind of the world, we shall lose if there is no one to take up that great heritage and resume that great tradition.
5.25 p.m.
LORD ADRIAN: My Lords, we have been debating great fundamental principles. I have only a very limited theme, and it is one which has already been dealt with admirably by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. My only excuse for speaking is that I have been associated for some years with the work

819
which the British Council does on the scientific and medical side. Of course, much of the work the British Council does is aimed at improving the understanding of countries outside the Commonwealth. I believe that about two-thirds of the total budget of £3 million goes that way, and of the £1 million or thereabouts spent on Commonwealth services a great deal must go for teaching English. I expect there are dozens of ways in which we could spend more money on information services, with great effect. I am quite sure that we and all the wealthier members of the Commonwealth could spend more than the £1 million on medical and scientific contacts alone, with great profit to our future relations with one another, and particularly the countries with which we are most concerned to-day, countries which have recently become independent and which are, very naturally, looking around to see what the rest of the world has to offer.
We have a good deal to offer in the way of science and medicine and technology. It may not be proof that our hearts are in the right place or that our system of government is any better than the system in other countries, but at any rate our science is good enough to make many people want to come here to study it and our ties with the new Commonwealth countries are still strong enough to make it easier for them to come to Great Britain than to go anywhere else. If we can take able young men and women over here for a year or so for advanced study or research, if we treat them well and give them all the opportunities they want, we can be quite sure that they will go back with the sort of understanding which will really help to keep the Commonwealth together. When we give fellowships for this kind of study here, we are only asking intelligent people to come and see for themselves, and that is the best kind of information service which we can give.
The same kind of service has been carried out now for more than thirty years in the United States, and between us and the United States, by the Commonwealth Fund Fellowships which were founded by Mrs. Harkness and, which the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, will know all about, as he has been Director of the Committee. Every year we send twenty
820
of our best young graduates to work for a year or more in American universities. They are befriended there for the whole of their stay by the officers of the Fund. They are encouraged and they are paid to travel. They can put our point of view to their colleagues in the United States, and when they come home they can understand the American way of looking at things. Your Lordships will know how these fellowships have greatly helped both countries to get on together. The 500 ex-Commonwealth Fellows that we have in Great Britain now may be as critical as you like of some aspects of American policy, but at any rate they will not believe all that they read about it in the Communist papers.
The more we can copy that kind of scheme for improving relations in our own Commonwealth, the better we shall be spending the money we have to spend. We already copy it to some extent in the British Council's scholarships for postgraduate study. Some of them go to countries outside the Commonwealth, but they also bring students here for postgraduate work, and they have brought about thirty a year from the Colonies and Commonwealth. There are scholarships of the same kind financed by other bodies like the Nuffield and Leverhulme Foundations. I think about half of those are now given for science. It would be difficult perhaps to give many more of these scholarships for post-graduate work, without being in danger of lowering the standard too much, but I hope that it will be realisation of that danger rather than the expense which will limit the numbers we can take. I hope that the British Council will be given, adequate funds to look after them when they are here, to give the kind of facilities the Commonwealth Fund Fellows get when they go to America, so that the overseas Fellows here will not find themselves less favourably placed than the Fulbright and the Marshall Plan scholars from the United States and Great Britain to-day.
There are, of course, a great many other aspects of the British Council's work that could be expanded. I have mentioned only this particular one, that of bringing able students to post-graduate work, because I have some personal knowledge of the excellent harvest that it can bring. Visits on which the guest can see for himself what the country is like are far more

821
effective than lectures and missions overseas which tell him what it is like. I believe that even the short visits of senior people to this country can help us a great deal. They are, in fact, one of the methods used with considerable success by Communist countries. I have been to Moscow on two such visits with parties of scientists. It would take much more than a short visit to convert people who have lived under our own system—and I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, that we did not come back Communists. But we did come back with friendly feelings towards our own immediate hosts, and we could not fail to be impressed by the material achievements which we saw. Senior Commonwealth visitors have probably seen most of the material achievements here already. For them personal contacts will be far more effective than the sight of new hospitals, schools and atomic power stations. They may well have seen them in other countries, too.
So may I end by saying this? One knows that busy people here have their own cares, and will not want to spend their time explaining what they are doing and entertaining people from overseas; but I think that our information services ought to feel that they have a claim on all of us to help them with any of these guests they bring over here. If we do that, we can at least say that we have taken some part in bringing the Commonwealth a little more together.
5.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that we were all delighted to hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House what the Government have recently been doing in this field. I personally found his remarks reassuring and enlightening, and perhaps more is being done than many of us have supposed. I was particularly impressed by the number of students who had arrived in this country this year. Of the noble Lords who put down the Motions, I found myself more in agreement with Lord Massereene and Ferrard than with Lord Birdwood. Indeed, on the point in regard to contacts with the Soviet Union, I was more in agreement with Lord Ogmore than anyone else.
One of the fundamental objects of our Overseas Information Services must be to bring together conflicting ideas in the East and in the West. There are many
822
different ways in which we can pursue this object. We have no magic wand to wave which will merge the basic ideological and philosophical differences in our attitudes. However, all the contacts which are being arranged through the information services, the British Council, the universities and private channels are, I believe, gradually bringing our points of view a little closer together. As I said in another debate, the Russians whom I knew twelve years ago seem now to understand our point of view more clearly than they did immediately after the war, when closer relations with them broke down over their refusal of Marshall Aid and their policy which led to the Berlin blockade.
I believe, too, that the continued protests from the West about Soviet oppression in Poland and Hungary do have their effect, even if sometimes ghastly backward steps seem to be taken, as over the execution of Nagy. Such barbarous actions should, to my mind, stimulate us to redouble our efforts in the field of information and exchange. A multiplication of contacts in all walks of life and increased intermingling at all levels would seem to provide the only long-term solution to the problem of bringing the Soviet people, and ultimately their leaders, to understand our own moral values. I am glad to see that Mr. John Gunter, in his remarkable volume, Inside Russia Today, seems to agree that this is the policy we must follow.
I think, therefore, that those in the cultural field should be greatly congratulated for arranging, for example, the extended visit of the Moscow Arts Theatre to this country. I had the great honour to meet various members of that company, including Mr. Solodovnikov himself, on more than one occasion, and I cannot believe—I think I should address this remark particularly to Lord Birdwood—that the friendly relations which have undoubtedly been established between, in this case, the theatrical professions in both countries are altogether meaningless. Obviously, I cannot go into details about our talks, but I believe that we are beginning to understand one another. Incidentally, I should add that, far from being watched and observed the whole time, the Moscow actors, during the six weeks or more that they were here, moved about quite freely and mixed with

823
a wide circle in this country. After all, it is not the Soviet people, their industrialists, their engineers or their artists who have been responsible for the terrible methods of repression which are still sometimes employed.
I know that at these commercial or cultural meetings we do not usually discuss Hungary or Poland or disarmament. but with Mr. Solodovnikov, for example, I did discuss objectively, and I hope usefully, the question of the freedom of the writer, whether in the theatre or elsewhere, to express his own views about conditions in his own country as well as in other parts of the world. This freedom of expression obviously lies at the heart of the problem. I believe that greater freedom is beginning to develop to-day in the Soviet Union, and that nothing, not even renewed repressive acts by their Government, will succeed in stopping altogether the slow evolutionary process of our coming together.
The object of my saying all this is that I feel that we should continue to increase the contacts in every sphere, and certainly not reduce them. Even if the exchanges sometimes appear to be unbalanced—that is to say, more going one way than the other—contacts are contacts, and wherever they are made, as such I consider them to be good. I hope, therefore, that bodies such as the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council, who are concerned with such exchanges, will not impose too many conditions on the operation of the exchange programmes. I recognise, of course, that while the Soviet Union continues "jamming" we are at a disadvantage. But I do not think that we should then say that, because of the "jamming" of our radio programmes we should not send to the Soviet Union delegations of an industrial, commercial or cultural character. I do not think that at this stage we can expect to achieve complete reciprocity.
It seems to me that, despite these difficulties, the information services and the British Council, as well as private organisations, should redouble their efforts. When such contacts are made, let us take every opportunity to express our views to the Russians; congratulating them, perhaps, on what they may be doing in some industrial or cultural field, but also
824
—and this is most important-condemning what we must condemn. As other noble Lords have said in other debates, it is important that the information services should use every means at their disposal to put over the British point of view: not merely the Government's point of view but our way of life as a whole, which may entail putting many different points of view.
In particular, our information services should use the most up-to-date method which the noble Earl has mentioned—that is to say television. This is especially so in uncommitted countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, spoke of the spoken word. I should like to look at the visual image, if your Lordships will permit that expression. In the White Paper a year ago it was stated that there was no early prospect of television supplanting sound broadcasting in many countries. It was, however, admitted that it was growing fast. And when it does come, it does in certain parts of the world certainly distract people from listening to the wrong radio stations. When television comes to these new countries—Africa and Asia, for example—I should like to think that it was Britain that helped these countries to get it in the first place.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said in the debate last year, one company with which I am associated—Pye—achieved what many at the outset thought would be impossible; that is to say, the establishment of a television service for Baghdad. This station was opened by His Majesty King Feisal on his birthday, over a year ago. Despite the numerous difficulties involved in this pioneering operation, the station has never been off the air, and it is manned almost entirely by Iraqis. It is now running satisfactorily and has become an institution in Iraq which our Iraqi friends wish to keep and extend. I believe that there are plans for extending the service to Basra and Kirkuk. Meanwhile, there are now more than 8,000 receivers in Baghdad, and since a conservative estimate of the number of viewers per receiver there is twenty-five—some people put it much higher—the total number of viewers in Baghdad may, it appears, be well over 200,000. It might, therefore, be possible to say that television there has already become as influential as some of the newspapers.

825
This operation was mounted under great difficulties and at considerable financial risk on the part of the company which I have mentioned—and, of course, in the teeth of acute international competition. The point which I now make is this: is it proper that this kind of operation should be left entirely to private enterprise? I should be most grateful if the noble Earl could comment on that in his reply. The Iraqis, we know, are reasonably well off and can afford it, but in countries which cannot should we not make them loans which might enable them to equip and run a television service which would thus maintain British links from the engineering and commercial points of view, as well as that of programming? Now that the Baghdad operation has proved a success, surely similar schemes might be drawn up in other African and Asiatic countries. But we must move fast, for our rivals have similar ideas. I hope that Her Majesty's Government—and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—will give this matter their very careful consideration, and that the Government will announce soon plans of this kind. Why should we not go ahead and assist countries such as Turkey and Pakistan, India, Nigeria and Ghana, which have not got television, to start a television service before they accept equipment, and, even more important, programming advice, from others, including the Soviet Union?
Our information services are doing a great deal of useful work on programming on the lines set out in paragraphs 16 to 20 of the White Paper. But should we not, in certain cases, think of assisting certain countries to obtain their equipment, as well as their programmes, in Britain, and also, perhaps, help them with their initial running expenses? The cost would not, as noble Lords might expect, run into millions. It is perfectly feasible to erect and equip a station for some £50,000, and running expenses need not amount to more than £25,000 a year. These stations would be more effective than the television stations which the Americans are erecting for their own Armed Services in different parts of the world. It seems to me, therefore, that we should help over equipment. This would certainly make it easier—it is not, of course, a condition in any way, but it would certainly make it easier—for us
826
to follow up with programming when the station gets on the air.
To revert for a moment to programming itself, it seems to me important that we should not forget the entertainment value of a television service. People will not buy receivers in large numbers unless really popular programmes are transmitted. The size of the audience is in direct relation to its popularity. I was most impressed by the catalogue which was sent to me this morning of films issued by the Central Office of Information. I will leave a copy of the catalogue in the Library for your Lordships to see, as I do not believe there is one there at the moment. The noble Lords in this House—and I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Rank, is not still in his place at this moment—would greatly appreciate these films and benefit from them. They are excellent examples of their kind. There are films on the Royal Family, on Britain now, on the English countryside and on domestic and other industrial developments. There are hundreds—nay, thousands—of them available, as well as a large number of children's educational films. All these are excellent, but the fact remains that few of them attract large audiences. I feel, therefore, that serious consideration must be given to the proposal that we should provide, in the first instance, popular entertainment programmes. Then, later, more serious documentary or current affairs items can be "sandwiched" between. We must be realistic about this matter. These programmes never attract a large number of viewers unless they are presented in a controversial form—I might even say highly controversial form.
It is a curious fact, my Lords, that perhaps our most popular ambassador in the world to-day is Robin Hood. In saying this I should perhaps declare a small indirect interest, but Robin Hood has become a world figure. He is in his fourth year on the networks in the United States of America. Hundreds of these films have now been made, and the fourth series has now been produced, also in this country, for syndication in the United States. New television stations, from Vancouver to Sydney, in the Commonwealth, and from Baghdad to Tokio, seem to make Robin Hood their choice—and often their first choice—as an entertainment series. I can think of only one television country

827
which has found Robin Hood unacceptable, because of its unfortunate theme that it may not be wrong to rob the rich people in order to help the poor. I leave your Lordships to guess which country that may be! At any rate let us not forget that the Robin Hoods, and, I believe, some other forms of entertainment, may greatly assist us in putting over more serious aspects of the British way of life in many parts of the world.
In paragraph 20 of the White Paper it is said that the Central Office of Information will be authorised to negotiate for the rights of such films as might be made available in countries where commercial showing would be unremunerative. I should be most interested to know whether any action has been taken on those lines. But, all in all, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will proceed in the way I have suggested and will help from the equipment point of view, as well as in documentaries and entertainment, for those are positive directions in which I hope our information services will move.
5.52 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, having inflicted myself on your Lordships for no less than ten minutes as recently as yesterday, I can assure you that I shall confine my remarks to much the same period of time to-day. I shall not follow the noble Lord who has just made such an interesting and engaging speech into the activities of Robin Hood, of which I must confess I had never heard until three or four minutes ago, but shall turn to the more sombre picture presented by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, with whose speech I am almost entirely in agreement.
It has been said to-day—and it has been obvious for many years—that the British attitude generally towards our propaganda or counter-propaganda is one of tolerance. It has been said that the world is well aware of the admirable attributes of the British as a race, and that it is not really worth while going to the trouble and expense of informing people of what they already know. I think that that view was largely held by Sir Winston Churchill when he was Prime Minister, and I believe that the lack of proper support and funds for the information services stemmed from the days when he disregarded them. During the war it was different. There was a
828
Political Warfare Executive, to which my noble Leader has referred this afternoon, and other organisations of that type; but they died with the ending of the war.
I believe that since then far too little has been done in that field, not only in "selling" our way of life and our ideas to the world generally, but in trying to introduce counter-measures against those who misrepresent us—which is another matter. Towards the end of the war, in 1944–45, we endured in the Middle East a series of mutinies among the Greek Forces under British Command. Several mutinies occurred, all of them engineered from a very obvious direction—whether by the common enemy or by those fighting with us is quite unimportant. Mutinies took place and were a perfect nuisance. The Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Forces, sent for a representative of the Ministry of Information in Cairo and asked him what he proposed to do about it. The representative replied that he had no knowledge of any mutiny; that he had been given no line to pursue if there was a mutiny, and that in any case he had no machinery with which to deal with such an eventuality. On the strength of that, leaflets were prepared by my own staff, small as it was, and the following day those leaflets were dropped by the R.A.F. over the mutinous forces and no doubt helped to settle the matter. There was a clear and, in my opinion, extraordinary case where the machinery broke down altogether so that one doubted whether it had really existed.
I believe that in the 1914–18 war the late Lord Tweedsmuir found exactly the same difficulties as I have described, and I am sorry that the present holder of the title, who was in the Chamber a short time ago, has not taken part in this debate. The late Lord Twcedsmuir, too, found an inability or disinclination to face the need for information services and to supply the proper machinery and funds. A lack of co-ordination among these scattered organisations still exists, although the noble Earl the Leader of the House has told us of these fortnightly meetings which are now taking place under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Even so, one feels that the agenda is largely taken up with matters affecting the Commonwealth, and that that is to some extent converting the converted—which was not

829
really at the back of the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, in bringing forward this Motion.
In his speech our noble Leader said that:
" The information services must counter Communism at whatever level it is found."
I doubt whether that is possible with the present machinery, for it is questionable whether the Foreign Office are fully aware of what they are up against in this matter, although if I am wrong about this I shall be glad if the noble Earl who is to reply will so inform me. Agitprop the organisation, part of the Soviet Pyramid, which deals with agitation and propaganda, is on the highest level of all but one and operates directly under the Præsidium of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. It is a world-wide organisation, ranging right from the very top, in the Kremlin, down to the smallest Party or Press organisation in every country in the world. A lead is given and it is slavishly followed everywhere. I have no idea of its size numerically, but its scope is virtually unlimited, and I doubt whether the Foreign Office are fully aware of the activities of Agitprop, which means, agitation and propaganda—agitation for the masses and propaganda for the intellectuals. It has been well said that the strength of Communism is not to be found in the doctrine which it propounds but in the character of the organisation which it has built to achieve that end.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, on bringing forward this Motion. I believe that it is timely. I agreed with his speech, and although we have heard from the noble Earl the Leader of the House a speech that was to sonic extent reassuring, I doubt whether that is really tackling the root of the matter. The problem is not so much to keep our friends (although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that that is important) as to make absolutely sure, so far as we can, that the lies and the attacks made upon us from elsewhere are counteracted, at least to the best of our ability as regards the cost of any such organisation.
I agree that £15 million would not begin to cover that cost. When the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, mentioned £100 million I thought I detected among some
830
of the more sombre Members of your Lordships' House, just after lunch, an uneasy stirring in their seats on hearing mention of so large a sum, but I do not believe that it is a large sum, compared to what it could achieve. After all, £15 million, the annual expenditure on this absolutely vital Service, is about the cost of one aircraft carrier. Last Tuesday I spent a day on the "Ark Royal", a magnificent ship; and that sum is about what she cost. She could probably be put on the bottom of the sea in eight and a half minutes, as "Hood" was in the last war. Of course, I very much hope that does not happen, but one wonders whether the cost of armaments is really comparable to what could be spent on making those armaments, in the long run, unnecessary.
6.1 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, my reason for taking part in this debate arises from my connection with information services under war-time conditions in the Mediterranean area, and, since then, from my residence and travels in various Colonial and Commonwealth territories over the past seven years. At the end of the debate on the international situation last March, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack spoke most sympathetically when replying to certain anxieties expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and by myself in connection with our information services. That this debate is taking place comparatively soon afterwards, and has attracted such an array of speakers, is, I think, an indication of the seriousness with which both Her Majesty's Government and the Back-Benchers of all Parties in this House treat this most important matter.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House gave us a most interesting and comprehensive account of what our information services, or some of them at any rate, are doing. But I am glad that he did not claim we are already doing sufficient, and that the Government are considering the expenditure of more money. It is perhaps worth drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that the White Paper issued in 1957 was based on the findings of the Drogheda Committee, whose Report was submitted to the Government in 1953, though its publication was not until April of 1954; and it is

831
only now, in 1958, after an interval of four years, that we are really beginning to see the first fruits of the recommendations of the Drogheda Report. Furthermore, in the last paragraph of the White Paper of 1957 it is stated that the extra expenditure of £2 million, which was comparable to the recommendation in the Drogheda Report, will not in fact come into full force and be fully expended for some time to come. So between the Drogheda Report's publication and the fulfilment of its recommendations there will be a lapse of, not four, but perhaps five or six years—and that, my Lords, is rather slow going.
That brings me to a question about a certain discrepancy in figures, which I think may easily be cleared up. At the time of the Drogheda Report we were expending £10 million; at the time of the White Paper in 1957 it was stated that we were expending £13 million. I think we should be right in assuming that that increase in expenditure was due not to any improvement but rather to the higher cost of the services as they existed at the time of the Drogheda Report and that by expending £15 million now we shall, in fact, be spending only £2 million more than we were spending in 1953.
That brings me to the most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, about the Advisory Committee, or the alternative of an independent inquiry, upon which I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House did a great deal to ease our minds. I hope that this Advisory Committee, such as it is, which sits under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster every fortnight, is really bearing in mind the present cost of living (shall I put it that way?), which is bound to affect our information services from year to year; that it really will alter the services and bring them up to date; and that it will no longer be necessary to have any further inquiries, so that no time may be wasted in adapting the services to the present needs of the ever-changing world. I believe, in that connection, that the expenditure of another £10 million, without wasting any of the Treasury's money, could well be afforded, and in fact will prove to be necessary in a very short space of time indeed.
832
The noble Earl the Leader of the House invited your Lordships to visit the Information Department of the Commonwealth Relations Office. I think that perhaps he was really referring to the Production Department, which is in fact situated at the Central Office of Information. While considering what I should say this afternoon, I tried to equip myself with a few facts and I paid a visit last week to the Central Office of Information in its brand-new building, only ten minutes walk from this Chamber, on the other side of Westminster Bridge; and I am sure that your Lordships would find a visit there a most worthwhile visit. From my very slight experience of the operations of a news service and the production of a newspaper, and of propaganda work in films. I came away convinced that that Central Office of Information is a first-class organisation, working at a very high degree of efficiency; and that, although it was cut down by half between 1947 and 1952, and has had only a slight increase since then, because of its reorganisation and streamlining technique it is now giving a better service than it was in 1947.
There was one aspect of the Central Office of Information to which the noble Earl the Leader of the House did not refer, and that is the courses which that Office runs for the benefit of officers of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office and of the British Council, and also for officials of Colonial and Commonwealth territories who come over to attend both a long and a short course of instruction in the various arts of information. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, in respect of the Foreign Office, why it is apparently necessary for the Foreign Office not to co-operate in the same way as do the other Departments concerned in these courses at the Central Office of Information. I realise that they have some courses of their own. This is, in fact, part of a question of which I have given the noble Earl notice, so I do not think he need begin scribbling. I want to know just what the courses are that the Foreign Office run for training their own officials, because I believe it is the Foreign Office posts which cover two-thirds of the total outlay of the Central Office of Information from the point of view of its production and the oversea posts which it is

833
furnishing. Also in that connection, apart from the courses they are running, there was a recommendation in the Drogheda Report that 30 per cent. of the posts in the Foreign Office should be reserved for specialists, and I should be glad to know whether in fact that is being done.
May I turn for a moment to the Commonwealth and Colonies and how our services operate there? I have had the opportunity in the last eighteen months of visiting our United Kingdom information offices and our British Council offices in Ghana, Nigeria, Tanganyika, Kenya and throughout the Caribbean area. I should like to make one or two brief comments about that. First, there are one or two points which I think need stressing. They are mostly dealt with in the Drogheda Report. The first is the question of premises. I have found that whereas the Caribbean area is well served, the British Council offices in East Africa are very inferior and it is noticeable that it must be difficult for them to do their job properly.
The second is in connection with news service. The London News Service provides good coverage, but it is up to the information officers to edit the news they get, adapt it to their region and send it out in proper form. It was a criticism in the Drogheda Report that quantity seemed to be rather better than quality, and I think that that is a criticism which probably may still be justified. It is clearly connected with the lack of staff to do the necessary editing. The third point, which is entirely to the credit of the services, is the very fine co-operation between the information officers and the British Council itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, these services are complementary and I assure your Lordships that they do work in that fashion, that they do not overlap and that a happy relationship, and a very effective one, exists between them.
Finally, I think I should mention a point which may not occur to many people in this country—that is, that these services, which are put there at the expense of Her Majesty's Government and of the people of this country, are expected to receive the support of the Governments on the spot. I am happy to say that in almost all cases there is considerable enthusiasm and the closest co-operation between the Governments and our information services, but I have come across
834
one case where the British Council was rendered ineffective by the attitude of a higher Government service. I think that that sort of thing is intolerable and should always be reported upon when found.
If there is any gap in these services, I would say that it is in the provision of the background story to the Commonwealth. The masses are touched, of course, by day-to-day events, which are provided for efficiently by the London Press Service of the C.O.I. and the various papers, magazines and pamphlets which they issue, but on the spot there is a grave lack of instruction or education in the background which we wish the Commonwealth and Colonial people to absorb. Of course, this refers also to the information services in foreign territories. This is no occasion on which to try to teach history to your Lordships—that would be entirely unnecessary—but I refer to the remarkable period which runs from the loss of the American Colonies in 1776 for the next 100 years, at the end of which the word "imperialism" began to lose its real meaning and became a term of denigration instead of pride. In that period the most remarkable things were done by our people all over the world, and the British Commonwealth and Colonial Empire as we know them to-day were being fashioned. We have never lent ourselves to the modern meaning of imperialism, which stemmed only from the grab in Africa which was originated by the Germans at the Conference of Berlin in 1884. I think it is that period which is so ignored all over the world, even in our own Commonwealth and Colonies. That must be put across, and I suggest to the Government that that is a significant gap to be filled.
I am afraid that I am speaking at some length, but there is one subject which I must cover—a rather more detailed study of the situation in East Africa and the Horn, upon which I touched in the debate on the International Situation to which I have referred. I have to thank both the noble Earls, Lord Gosford and Lord Perth, for providing me with information about our services in those territories. It becomes clear that from the Foreign Office point of view the services in Somalia, which will be a key area in the next two years at the most, are not sufficiently well served yet, and I think that that is acknowledged. We have only one

835
information office in East Africa, in Tanganyika, started only this year. Others are promised in Kenya and Uganda in the next two years, but, all in all, our information services are very deficient in this area. It can be best served perhaps by broadcasting, and that is a matter with which I wish to deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, complained, I think rightly, about the lack of broadcasts from the B.B.C. to our Colonial territories, but, in fairness, I think it should be remembered that many of these territories have their own broadcasting stations and are able to give considerable coverage to their people. Kenya is broadcasting regularly no less than l7¾ hours from Nairobi, six from Mombasa, seven from Nyeri and six from Kisumu. In Tanganyika and Uganda the coverage could be improved, and in the Somaliland Protectorate three hours broadcasting is woefully inadequate. I should like to know from the noble Earl how many hours are broadcast from Radio Cairo, and how many are broadcast in Swahili, Somali and other languages understood in that area.
I think we might have to look into the power of our transmitters in that area, because they are not very strong, and possibly are not heard outside the territory. If we could put in a powerful transmitter, it seems an admirable opportunity to get our information and propaganda into Somaliland itself, which, naturally, is a vast area which cannot be reached at the moment from outside. Finally, there is the question of the co-ordination of these services. I still believe that there should be yet closer liaison on the spot, and that we must direct our information on the radio to East Africa and the Horn as a propaganda effort. Here I would take up what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Birdwood: it must be directed with a positive aim and not merely by way of putting over information. It must be with the deliberate purpose of attacking the enemy. By that I do not mean telling lies; I mean propaganda in the true sense of the word—we should speak the truth but also deny the lies of the other side,
836
and that is a very different thing from spreading lies about our enemies.
It is my understanding of the situation that this aspect of our information services, especially broadcasting, which is all powerful in East Africa and the Horn, is being neglected. I have been told by one Governor in that area that they do not answer the specific accusations of Radio Cairo, but prefer to ignore them in the hope that not too many people will hear. I suggest to your Lordships that the time for that attitude has past, and we should have some overall broadcasting policy, possibly co-ordinated by a regional broadcasting officer in East Africa and the Horn, to ensure that enemy propaganda is answered, and answered on the spot. I remember in the war these directives coming so often to me when I was directing radio stations just behind the front line in Italy, giving me orders to do things that if I had not done the week before I ought to have been sacked. That is why I feel we need a regional officer on the spot, who will seize every opportunity to counteract the evil propaganda which one day will lead us into serious trouble in that area if we do not take action immediately. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would carefully consider that matter with his colleagues.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.22 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to make a statement about Business to-morrow. Owing to the number of Amendments for debate in Committee on the Opencast Coal Bill to-morrow, and to meet the convenience of noble Lords opposite, who are unable to sit late to-morrow, it has been agreed that the House should sit on after the luncheon adjournment, without again adjourning at 3.45 p.m., until the conclusion of the Committee stage, which is expected about 6.0 p.m. Any Amendments which have not been dealt with by that time will be postponed until the Report stage.

THE OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES
6.23 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am happy to find myself for the first time in debate immediately following the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because his grace of address reminds many of us of the brilliant eloquence of his father, which on the all too rare occasions that he came down to address us made him a powerful advocate of any cause that brought him here. It too, because the noble Lord has just returned from a Parliamentary Mission to the Caribbean that we welcome him to take part in our debate to-day.
This Motion covers a wide area and certainly provides a large enough subject for any of us to "take a crack" at. I propose to choose North America as the subject of my remarks. It is difficult to go straight to it without raising one or two points, though after the considerate and full way in which the noble Earl the Leader of the House dealt with the subject, and, happily, allayed many of our points of concern, it seems almost unnecessary to go over these details. Moreover, when one speaks at this stage in the debate it is natural that any prepared order of any points one intended to make is dislocated. The Central Office of Information, by its output, gives us knowledge of the many channels of its activity. Above all this debate has brought out that the effect of promotion must depend upon central direction, and this should include not only momentary decisions but also long-term ends, and both in turn have to be in step with the comtemporary diplomatic climate.
I would insert here that the quality of the work must depend on the personnel employed to promote it, and that the important angle of emoluments must always be borne in mind. The noble Earl, Lord Home, set many of our minds at rest as to the question of direction. He told us that there was this fortnightly conference which, in substance, does ensure that there is efficiency and continuity of direction. The White Paper told us that the information staffs abroad comprise those of the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office, and it referred also to the British
838
Council, to which the noble Earl referred so adequately as to remove the necessity of anyone else adding much as to its achievements. But it is curious that the White Paper put the Central Office of Information, in paragraph 6, last in the list. It also said:
"There will be no encroachment on the responsibility of individual Ministers for the work of their information staffs."
That tells us fairly strongly that it is co-ordination and not management; and I will return to that later.
It is admitted that a modern Government has to concern itself with public opinion abroad and be properly fitted to deal with it; indeed, that was the conclusion of the Drogheda Committee. Elsewhere it has been recorded that promotion should be one of the strongest arms of British diplomacy. We see that many other Governments must apply a much larger proportion of their national income to propaganda than we do, and therefore we are driven to the conclusion that our expenditure is less than it could be. The noble Earl the Leader of the House reminded us that it will be something of the order of £15 million. The operations of the B.B.C. comprise a large part of this whole concern. In your Lordships' House last year there was a debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who speaks with such particular knowledge, covered the field in a manner which assisted many of us to know what goes on.
No debate should occur without reference to the activities in North America of the British Consular services and of the foreign services of the Federation of British Industries. Those of your Lordships—and there are many—who, like myself, have lived a large part of your lives in the United States of America and who go there regularly, have been concerned about the sufficiency of our promotion there. The Suez incident brought many of us to a position of dismay; but perhaps it would be fair to suspect that in that instance even the Embassy, uninformed, could not give a lead. I say that because directives must be received in Washington and Ottawa well in advance of the breaking of the news, so that the information officers can be fully briefed and prepared to take action with the Press and the radio the moment the news breaks. Dealing with North America I think it would be wrong

839
not to refer to the skill and industry of our present Ambassador in Washington, who has been assiduously presenting our case all over the American Continent. I would address myself to the noble Earl who is to reply with regard to the British Embassy at Washington. We have there a Minister Diplomatic, a Minister Economic, and a Minister Commercial. All rank senior to the head of the British Information Services, who now is one of several councillors. Surely it would seem that the individual holding that office as head of the British Information Services should rank as a Minister. It is understood that during the war, Sir Harold Butler, then head of the British Information Services, did rank as a Minister.
I would turn now to Canada. I suggest that our service there is insufficient. The organisation in Canada needs strengthening, and it should be regarded as meriting more promotion and more publicity in its own right. I would suggest further that what is expended in effort in Canada rebounds in the United States so that it hits with two barrels instead of one. Now may I turn to the recent industrial missions from Canada to this country, and from this country to Canada, the last one having just returned? They brought out the need for more projection into Canada of British accomplishments and capabilities—that is, the commercial angle which I suggested is also needed in the United States. In the diplomatic field, I suggest the Suez incident, to which I referred a few moments ago, was insufficiently presented, and this was confirmed by the later repudiation at the polls of Lester Pearson. The Canadian electorate now, with better knowledge, realise what the British case was.
I suggest that the Commonwealth countries are equally important, or more so, than the Foreign Office countries, in his speech the noble Earl certainly gave us the impression that that is recognised, and we are glad to think that he, in his responsibility as head of the Commonwealth Relations Office, has that opinion. He will doubtless reflect it with the authority of his office through the deliberations and directions. But he also said something to which I particularly want to refer, and that is that this matter is inextricably linked up with migration.
840
The percentage of the total inflow into the Dominions to-day has fallen below 30 per cent. in Canada, and is nearly the same in Australia. That presents a case which demands recognition of the fact that our policy towards migration to the Commonwealth should be an active one rather than passive.
I wish to express my appreciation to the noble Earl for bringing to your Lordships' notice the fact that so large a proportion of the recent inflow into both Canada and Australia had little previous knowledge of our British traditions and achievements, and had no previous grounds for a particular loyalty to the Crown. It needs that promotion and publicity which I have just advocated. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who drew attention to the fact that it is much the same in Australia. There is, alas!, a growing tendency to seek technological guidance and education in the United States rather than in the United Kingdom. This, in spite of the fact that in the last decade—as the noble Earl brought out in a debate in your Lordships' House—United Kingdom investment in Australia is considerably greater than that of the United States.
It seems to me that this subject has to be looked at partly diplomatically and partly commercially. I am inclined to look at it effectively from the commercial side. These whole efforts are co-ordinated by a central direction, and vast sums of money are spent on promotion and publicity in the commercial field by large corporations, and in the diplomatic field by other countries, including the United States. Are we really satisfied, if we look at it as "John Bull, Limited," trying to do 45 per cent. of the world's trade on sterling, and needing ourselves a large volume of trade, that that £15 million is sufficient? The noble Viscount who moved this Motion tried to convince us—and I think he probably impressed us—that a very large sum is justified, certainly something far above £15 million, for "John Bull, Limited."
Therefore, the burden of my belief is that we should expand the degree of our publicity and promotion, and that, apart from the diplomatic aim, it should include a strong commercial selling aim, and that the expenditure must permit emoluments to assure the highest calibre of talent. I shall be asked about the cost. We can afford a vast sum for social welfare, and

841
the extravagant prescription content. Surely to justify the large expense necessary (I do not decry for a moment a healthy State) we can justify a larger expenditure which can assist our balance of payments in peace time and contribute to safety of food supplies in war.
6.37 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, rising to speak in a debate of this importance so late in the evening means that a great part of my material has already been devoured by previous speakers. I fear that what I may now say to your Lordships may appear somewhat disjointed in its presentation. I must declare at the outset that I am not so sanguine as certain other noble Lords, including, I am sorry to say, my noble Leader, as to the efficacy of the information services in their present form. I do not know how many years ago it became apparent that kid-glove methods were not meeting the requirements of the cold war, and that other methods were needed to counteract the Cominform methods of propaganda. We have yet to see, in my view, that realisation put into action. What is entailed, I think, is ambitious but necessary. To carry it into action it will be necessary to marshal the forces of Press, radio and publicity, and what is now known as public relations, into a single body, not simply to match, but to beat the Soviet propaganda machine at its own game.
I hope this may come into effect through the setting up of the Departmental Committee, requested by my noble friend, Lord Birdwood, in his speech. In that request, I fully support him. The essential component is a body of experts such as existed in the Ministry of Information during the war. The story of the death of the Ministry of Information and its partial resurrection as the Central Office of Information will be better known to other noble Lords, as I was not in the country at the time. Post-mortems are often odious but also illuminating. What I understand happened was that during the period of the Caretaker Government in 1945 there was a general expectation that the Ministry of Information would disappear altogether, and during that period most of the best people in it left. When the Government of noble Lords opposite took power, they very rightly decided that the public should continue to be informed, and the Central Office of Information took the place of the
842
former Ministry. But it was a very different animal, without the bark or the bite or the stature of its predecessor.
Nothing would be easier, nothing would take longer, than to give a catalogue of the shortcomings of the C.O.I. today. I should prefer to speak more generally and less spitefully in saying how I think our whole endeavour could be better applied on this front. At the present moment the most effective means we possess of reaching those behind the Iron Curtain is through the overseas services of the B.B.C. I am an admirer of that service, and some months ago I had first-hand evidence of its success in an Iron Curtain country, where the penalty for listening to the B.B.C. is 25 years' imprisonment; and still they listen. I must say how disturbed I was by the remark, and I feel it must have given a false impression, by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he said that we should concentrate on sending our news broadcasts to people who wanted them, not to people who do not. We are not sending these broadcasts to the Governments of the satellite countries; we are sending them to the unfortunate people of those countries. It is most unfair to consider that those people, who thirst for news from the B.B.C., are indifferent or unwilling to receive it. It is doing them an injustice and misstating their unhappy position.
I am still not satisfied that the policy controlling and inspiring this service is the best available for its purpose. I had put to me the other day what seemed a very good summing up of what is required as news by the satellite peoples. That is the provision of what would appear in an Opposition newspaper in that country, if such a newspaper were allowed. But that I mean to include the cultural, the frivolous, the political and everyday news, the last being almost the most important of all. Because what the minds of these people are searching for is a comparison between their lives and those of their counterparts in the West. Here also lies the great danger to Soviet or to any other form of dictatorship. And yet they are beating us at that very game in which they hold fewest cards.
I can give a recent example. On the 26th of last month the Czech newspaper Rude Pravda carried the news that hydraulic mining, practised extensively in Russia and to some extent in Poland,

843
had now been introduced into Britain. This method gave a high rate of output per manshift, the equipment was easy to move and operate, and there was no danger of explosion. A colleague of mine wrote to the National Coal Board to discover if it was true and when it had been announced. The reply was that the announcement, in much the same words, had been made by the Coal Board on June 23—that is to say, 72 hours before it appeared on the streets of Prague, demonstrating that Britain was adopting Russian technical methods and was therefore behind.
I can also give an example of how we could make similar capital through overseas broadcasts. At the Ninth Communist Party Congress in Prague, deputy Premier Kopecky made a statement about tuberculosis in Czechoslovakia, including figures of an increase of 22,000 cases a year, between 5,000 and 6,000 dying every year and a total of 137,000 actively ill. At almost exactly the same time my right honourable friend the Minister of Health announced for England and Wales a reduction in tuberculosis cases of 38 per cent., in deaths of 78 per cent., and that the 1957 total was 4,250. That is 4,250 in a country of 45 million against 5,000 to 6,000 in a country of 13 million. There is plenty of ammunition of this kind that is not being used. Would it not be of interest to advertise that it takes a Rumanian workman 160 hours of labour to earn a pair of shoes, while his opposite number in Britain can earn them in seven hours?
There is another aspect of the daily news that is not fully available to the occupants of Iron Curtain countries, and that is home news which may show the administration in a bad light. The happenings in one town are often not known in the next, but they may leak over the frontier and could be picked up and passed back rapidly by a proper organisation to a Western country. If, for instance, the inhabitants of Transylvania could be told over the B.B.C. what had happened in Blaj two days before, that would make an immense impact. This is done to some extent, but not, I feel, enough or promptly enough. News value based on being up to date has the same sharp appeal to a public East of the Iron Curtain as it has in the West. Any broadcasting service
844
which could build up a reputation for this sort of dexterity, handling news which would not appear in the official Communist newspapers of the country itself, would have a very determined following in those ill-provided lands.
Another thought has occurred to me. The time allotted for these broadcasts, which I believe to be of immense value, is very restricted. It means they are easier to jam and harder to listen to. My information, which I confess is not the highest technical information, is that most of the cost of a programme is in the collection, presentation and recording of the news the actual transmission being a relatively small part of the cost. Therefore if, once recorded, the same programme could be repeated during several hours, it would make the courageous business of slipping away to listen that much easier and that much less dangerous, and add to the huge expense of jamming by the Soviet Government. I believe General Gruenther gave figures recently stating that jamming Western broadcasts costs Russia more than the whole expense of the programmes beamed from the West to the Iron Curtain territories. It is significant also that in the Polish Rising of 1956 the first thing to be attacked and the building most completely wrecked was the jamming station which prevented the people from hearing news from the West. It has not since then been repaired or revived.
My Lords, I have said that I do not wish to dwell on criticism of the C.O.I., but I have heard criticism which, for the health of that organisation. I sincerely believe should be aired. I am thinking in this instance of that part of the organisation which works through the Foreign Office and the Embassies. Without particularly seeking criticism from among foreign correspondents, I have been told the following, regarding the C.O.I. representatives abroad. They are painfully unpunctual in answering and dealing with Soviet propaganda and Communist actions. There is often an exasperating attitude that, "It is up to the Russians to explain that one". That is the attitude the noble Lord, Lord Ebury, described in his interesting maiden speech as a characteristic British attitude. But I do feel it is a characteristic which should be suppressed in an information officer. I am told that during the Berlin blockade there was a

845
C.0.I. tendency to say, with a nonchalant shrug, that it was up to the Russians to lift the blockade! Fortunately the Government of noble Lords opposite who were in power were not in any way as nonchalant as that.
I make no apology for reiterating that speed of reaction is of vital importance in the cold war. There are excellent information officers—far be it from me to gainsay that—but they are marked for their scarcity rather than their plenty. There is what one might call a "slacking majority" of those who conceive their duty to be not answering questions but avoiding an answer, in the hope that the subject may be dropped and themselves exonerated from making any reply. Some of the more skilled in that capacity, I am told, are to be found in the higher ranks of the information services. I should like to think that this regular tactical review to which my noble Leader referred, under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will make some difference to this situation, but I am bound to mention that my own information is fairly up to date. Above all—and this I say with some feeling, though without any personal pique or personal axe to grind, since I have not been a foreign correspondent myself for very nearly twenty years—there is a tragic failure to use the British Press abroad, to call upon its wisdom, its experience, its training, its local contacts and its patriotism. There is a tendency lo be afraid of the professional, and I can hardly say anything more damning than that.
I have said that I admire the B.B.C., and I should like to think that that entitles me to say also that there is one incident of which I was told, which I cannot admire. An honourable friend of mine in another place told me that some months ago he switched to what was I think the 9 o'clock news, and at the end of the news he heard the British announcer saying that Radio. Moscow would be broadcasting during the next week at the following times on the following wavelengths, and would include in its English programme certain interesting quiz competitions for which there would be valuable prizes. My honourable friend, being of an inquisitive nature, discovered what these prizes were to be—they were, in fact, short-wave radio sets.
846
I have not given my noble friend notice of this matter and I do not know what he would reply, but I hope he will not mind, since I am not asking for a reply, if I give my own opinion—I think it was daft. I think that for the B.B.C. to advertise gratuitously the broadcasting agency of another country which is in fact jamming every foreign broadcast directed towards it, and which encourages its public to win prizes which will in fact enable them to listen more easily to Radio Moscow, is—I take the words out of the mouth of the right reverend Prelate who spoke a little earlier—turning the other cheek; but it seems to me to be taking that philosophy almost to the limits of masochism.
Much of the information I have gathered from this debate suggests to me that in that field we are children compared to the Communists. We have got to grow up, or at least we have got to recover from that second childhood which followed the war. Tile Ministry of Information was. I think everyone would agree, a superb master of its craft. So I return in conclusion to my opening point. I believe that we must bind into a single, efficient organisation, the forces and talents we have at our disposal. We must give them the effective tools to attack the job. This will require expenditure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in saying that this expenditure will be worth while, and it may eventually and ideally enable us to reduce cost and the weight of armaments. I think we must believe that it will be worth while having, as I trust we all have, the complete confidence that if a true description of the sort of society in which we live can penetrate those dark regions beyond the Iron Curtain in a lucid and truthful form, the tyrants themselves, who live on lies, will have cause to tremble.
6.54 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think it is quite clear, from what has already been said in this debate, that no one in your Lordships' House underrates the importance of the Overseas Information Services. They are supremely important as an instrument of our foreign policy, and I take it as axiomatic that we must endeavour, through them, to reach the maximum audience throughout the world. Rather than go into any one side of the information services, I should

847
like, as briefly as I can, to consider them in relation to three different types of target which they are attempting to reach. There is, first of all, the information service to our friends and Allies; secondly to the countries behind the Iron Curtain, and finally to the rest of the world—the uncommitted nations.
So far as the first is concerned, I fully agree with what has already been said by many noble Lords, that it is vitally important not to neglect our friends. As I see it, the need is for a ready exchange of information and for the development of a deeper understanding between us; and that can best be achieved by personal contacts. All the instruments engaged in the information services—the British Council, the Central Office of Information, the B.B.C. and the others—do excellent work in this field and I should like to mention also the equally valuable work done by a host of private organisations, such as the English Speaking Union and the various societies that exist for the promotion of friendship between individual countries. I believe that the development of personal contacts between the Allied countries is likely to be the most fruitful source of further understanding. I should like particularly also to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said in commending the work of the British Council with regard to foreign students. It was very heartening news to hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that we have 35,000 foreign students at present in this country.
There is one thing I should like to say on the question of broadcasting to our friends in the Commonwealth. The figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made it look as if the B.B.C. was neglecting the Colonies. I agree with him that a great deal more could be done in broadcasting to our friends in the Commonwealth, but I think that in taking into account the figures of direct broadcasting on short wave we should also take into account the figures of re-broadcasting of the General Overseas Service in the territories concerned and also the use of the B.B.C. programmes sent out on disc by the transmission service, because I feel that even a quarter of an hour's programme on the National Broadcasting Service of the Colony con-
848
cerned is probably as valuable as twenty-four hours of short wave broadcasting from this country.
I pass now to the information services to the countries behind the Iron Curtain. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord St. Oswald had to say, and I do not want to detain your Lordships for long. I would only stress, as he has done, that the B.B.C. has its most devoted adherents in the satellite countries—and indeed in Russia itself—and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press, as I know they have pressed in the past, for the abolition of "jamming" in order that the air can be freed for broadcasting. I am afraid I have dealt rapidly and extremely inadequately with those aspects of our information services.
Lastly, I should like to come to the information services to the remainder of the world—the uncommitted countries, particularly those in the Middle East and the Far East. As I see it, we have more or less a stabilised situation now in the West. We have a kind of "Maginot Line" which cannot be broken, at any rate other than at the cost of a nuclear war. But it would be a great danger were we to rely on this Maginot Line and allow ourselves to be outflanked in the Middle East and in the Far East. In my opinion, it is in that area where we are now engaged in a cold war, the weapons of which are political and economic. On the political side, our diplomatic policy must be strongly supported by our information services. As in dealing with our friends, so in this field of the uncommitted nations, again I believe that personal contact is most vital. But whereas there are a number of societies in this country promoting good relationships with the other Western Powers, there is a lamentable lack of such effort in the Middle East and Far Eastern countries.
I believe that an example of what could be achieved is the admirable society of the Hispanic and Luso—Brazillian Council, more generally known as Cannon House, which does a magnificent job in the countries in South America. If only some such organisation could take equal care of visitors from the Middle East—or, indeed, from the Far East—I am sure that it would be of the greatest advantage. But so far as this area—the

849
Middle East and the Far East in generals—concerned, I come back to the British Broadcasting Corporation, which I think is our most important weapon. It is a unique instrument. It enjoys a world-wide reputation under its initials "B.B.C.", which do not necessarily connect it with the Government. I think it is all the more effective from the very fact that it is independent of Government control, so far as the content of its programmes are concerned, and I think it most important that that independence should be safeguarded if we wish its influence throughout the world to continue. I am afraid I disagree to that extent with the mover of this Motion, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I think that this independence of programme content is vital if the B.B.C.'s reputation throughout the world is to remain as high as it is at present.
In the Middle East the B.B.C. is broadcasting in English and fourteen other languages (of which the most important is Arabic) for 9½ hours a day; but, of course, these broadcasts are on short wave, and it is impossible to compete on short wave with a virulent Cairo Radio broadcasting throughout the Middle East on medium wave. The pattern of these crises in the Middle East is now becoming familiar. They begin with an outbreak of propaganda from Cairo Radio, which influences the masses; they, in turn, put pressure on the Governments, and a crisis arises. Now the Arab peoples are no fools, and while they may enjoy some of the excitement of Cairo Radio's hysterical broadcasts they do not necessarily accept every word as truth. I am certain there is a great opening for broadcasts of a factual nature in Arabic, but if they are to compete effectively they must be on medium wave. Happily, this has recently been achieved by re-broadcasting via Cyprus transmitters. More, however, is required, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider earnestly the need for further medium-wave transmitters in the Middle East in order to increase the effectiveness of the B.B.C. The B.B.C. itself has had clear evidence of the value of this medium-wave broadcasting in that (I believe I am right in saying) the number of letters from Arabic listeners since they have been broadcasting on medium-wave has doubled.
850
In the Far East, where the B.B.C. is broadcasting in eight other languages besides English, it is clearly impossible, in view of the vast distances, to achieve this medium-wave broadcasting. At the same time, I still feel that more ought to be done, if possible, to increase the effectiveness of our short-wave broadcasting. Already the B.B.C. is re-broadcasting from Tebrau, in Malaya, but if the "Voice of Britain" is to be heard properly in the Far East then further short-wave transmitters for re-broadcasting will have to be provided in the Far East. Your Lordships will recall that the late Lord Drogheda's Committee recommended in 1954 that there should be an additional two high-powered transmitters in Tebrau. I think there is some argument now as to whether that is the best possible site, but I would urge the Government to consider now more transmitters for re-broadcasting in the Far East.
Further, the B.B.C., as well as its broadcasting influence, has a very large influence on the personal contact side. The fact that it is held in such universal respect for its broadcasting means that a number of students from overseas come to London and study broadcasting technique from the B.B.C. Also, there are other foreign nationals actually working in the Corporation on short-term contracts. These students and professional broadcasters go back to their countries, and often come to occupy positions of authority in their own broadcasting services. That, in turn, increases the good will of the B.B.C. and tends to spread its influence, and I think that is something that we should all wish to encourage.
I have no doubt that the B.B.C. will continue to be in the van of sound broadcasting, but I would echo the words of my noble friend Lord Bessborough in saying that we must also keep in the van of television broadcasting. I should have hoped that funds would be provided to the B.B.C. to enable it to run a television transcription service as it does a sound transcription service, so as to provide programmes for overseas countries. But if this is thought to be too heavy a capital outlay for a doubtful return, then I would at least suggest that funds ought certainly to be made available to the Corporation for the dubbing of its present television programmes into foreign languages. It has the programmes ready made, and foreign-speaking staff to dub them, and I would suggest that, without a great deal

851
of expense, a lot could be achieved of considerable use.
In conclusion, my Lords, I realise that the various suggestions I have made, like the suggestions made by other noble Lords, all require increased expenditure, and for that reason may be unacceptable. I do seriously ask, however, whether it would not be wise just to be a little extravagant on this occasion. It is, indeed, our best hope of a positive step forward towards peace.
7.8 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, at this late stage of the debate I do not intend to detain your Lordships for any great length of time. I feel grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Birdwood, for having set down these two Motions on a matter of such great public interest. I think it is of great importance to recognise the value of the information services in cementing the unity of the Commonwealth and also in combating the world-wide drive of Soviet propaganda. I was greatly impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Birdwood, who seemed to be so intensely aware of the Soviet propaganda danger, and I think his awareness is realistic.
I should like to say a word or two about a problem which has caused considerable anxiety and much food for thought to such bodies as the National Book League and the British Publishers' Association, and that is with reference to the export of British books—particularly textbooks of a scientific and technical nature—to countries in Asia. Fewer than twenty years ago the only textbooks exported by the United States went either to Canada or to the Philippines, but World War II produced an entirely different situation. It dried up the European export markets, which were blocked temporarily, and since that time the American publishing activities have had an enormous success throughout the whole world, and especially in countries within the British sphere, such as Pakistan, India, Ceylon and Burma. To-day the United States textbook is a familiar sight in university libraries everywhere. On practically all technical subjects (and by technical subjects I mean mechanical engineering, economics, electrical engineering, atomic
852
physics, business and industrial management and similar subjects) it is firmly established overseas. One would not object to this situation were it not that in countries like India, Pakistan. Burma and Ceylon, the British textbook has practically disappeared from library shelves.
This phenomenal success of the United States textbook is largely due to the Aid and Information "programmes of the United States Government. Moreover, heavy subsidies and gifts have been made by American universities and other American institutions and trusts. When the Americans run into currency difficulties and restrictions, where there is a shortage of dollars, they operate under a scheme—the American Informational Media Guaranty Program—whereby the United States Government pay the exporter in dollars and are reimbursed by the importer in blocked local currency. Our Government run no equivalent scheme for countries where sterling is in short supply, such as Turkey, Pakistan or India. The reason why Her Majesty's Government should take note of this situation, and why they will, I believe, eventually be forced to do something about it, is that the distribution of British books and periodicals creates a favourable climate for the sale of other British products overseas. Obviously, if technicians are reading American textbooks they are more likely to use American machines—and the same would apply to British textbooks if they were supplied as extensively as previously.
What can be done about this problem? I have a number of suggestions. One is that Her Majesty's Government should follow the example of the United States to a very minor extent, in the purchase and presentation of major book "selection aids" to all central libraries, university libraries and education centres abroad, especially in areas where competition is greatest. It is estimated that this could be done for a sum of £40,000 plus an annual sum of approximately £8,000. Four hundred of these centres could be serviced, and we could thus avoid the situation which is occurring in many places where all selection tools are American. By "selection tools" I mean books, bibliographies, and means whereby it is possible to find out what British books apply to particular subjects.

853
Another thing which could be done is the organisation of a limited number of subject book exhibitions in areas not served by the British Council. We might also send out a regular service of news-sheets on British publications designed for such specialists in foreign countries. These lists could be prepared by experts in this country and sent to various individuals and bodies recommended by our information officers and officers of the British Council in different parts of the world. I would suggest the establishment, under Government approval, of a joint standing committee of the two major organisations—the British Council and the Central Office of Information—on the one side, and a voluntary organisation, the National Book League, and the Publishers' Association, on the other, to consider this whole problem. Perhaps that would be the best way of making a start towards seeing what can be done to remedy this rather unfortunate situation that has arisen over the last ten years and which is causing so much anxiety.
I should like to say a word or two on the question of combating world-wide Soviet propaganda. The Soviets have the advantage of clear aims and a closely-knit organisation in Which there is a fanatically held belief that the end justifies the means, however ruthlessly those means may be used. The "Achilles heel" of the Soviet system is its disregard for fundamental human rights and liberties. The individual human being and his development count for little in Soviet countries. The individual is depersonalised, de-humanised and reduced to a mere social unit. Mere counter-propaganda, though of course it is necessary, is not enough to meet this situation. Something more positive is required.
We must make known abroad, particularly in uncommitted countries, the general and moral principles which lie behind our policies. I believe that the British Council, which works on a long-term basis, does much valuable work in building up a climate of opinion favourable to this country and to Western values in general. I am sure that increased financial support for the work of the British Council and an extension of its activities in Africa—which I regard as the" key Continent—would be highly desirable. My information is that Tunis
854
and Morocco would be a good field for an extension of the activities of the Council, for apparently there is a great demand among the Arabs there for a knowledge of the English language.
No praise can be too high for the work the British Council is doing in services and facilities for students from abroad visiting this country, and particularly for those students who come from the Colonial Empire. I find myself very much in agreement with what has been said in this regard by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am convinced that it is this kind of activity, directed at individuals, that in the long run does most to benefit this country and Western values. May I conclude by congratulating Her Majesty's Government on providing another £18,000 for the promotion of the arts abroad by the British Council? That goes some way towards the £55,000 asked for, but our effort still falls far short of what can be regarded as adequate in relation to the effort being made in this sphere by other countries. We simply must recognise the advantages, commercial and otherwise, which result from the exhibition abroad of our drama, music and visual art. Such promotion of the arts is more than justified by the current achievements of our artists in all three arts in which we are second to none in the creative and executive fields. An increasing number of people abroad are influenced by the arts in numbers which far exceed the extent of, say, the professional classes. Two examples of them which I can give are the fact that two years ago in Jugoslavia an exhibition of Henry Moore sculpture attracted no fewer than 45,000 people.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We are listening very carefully to what he has to say, in which we are much interested, but could he please speak a little louder?
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I apologise if I have not spoken loud enough to be heard on the other side of the House. I was giving an example of an exhibition held in Yugoslavia, two years ago, of Henry Moore's sculpture, which attracted 45,000 visitors. And there was another example last year of spectacular success in the same country, when Sir Laurence Olivier and the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre Company bad a tremendous

855
success in Belgrade with what one might imagine would have been the least promising of Shakespeare's plays, Titus Andronicus. I submit that those activities reach a very wide public and are well worth doing. Any way of increasing this country's prestige abroad should be encouraged, and the promotion of the arts represents a great field for development by the British Council.
7.22 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, the theme which the noble Lord who has just sat down introduced into his speech is one on which I should like to detain your Lordships for a few minutes before the winding up of this debate. In other words, I want to refer not so much to the cultural side and general propaganda as to the effect, sometimes forgotten, of the way in which American publications may affect the trade and production of this country. I think we are rather apt, thinking as we do in terms of the cold war and Russian activity, to think of all the publications which the Russians are pouring out—of children's comic productions, textbooks and documents for the table of the doctor's waiting room and the barber's shop—and to forget some of the consequences flowing from the American reply. America has replied very effectively from the point of view both of the propaganda of Russia in general and in relation to their culture, and of general opportunities for publicising the American way of life.
With her large-scale presentation of books and periodicals by the Information Media Guaranty Program, to which the noble Lord referred, there is the publication and sale of United States textbooks and technical books at cut prices—the distribution and publication of books from the U.S.A., of which 100,000 copies of some issues are going out at the moment—and the spending of five million dollars to finance the translation, publication and distribution of books abroad. To date she has produced 3,626 editions. In addition, there is the low-cost publication programme, which in 1957 launched 41 million copies of books in 185 editions and 21 languages. Those appear to be, as they are, very effective answers to the Russian effort.
While agreeing with all the general and quite impeccable principles which the
856
noble Earl the Leader of the House offered to us in his speech this afternoon, I take up one point that he made when he said that if we can get the English language established, we shall have gone a great way to achieve all that we want in these foreign countries. I agree with him completely; but I would say that I want the English language not to have the American accent that I fear it is being given at the moment. What these business-men, colleagues and friends of ours in America, are doing, is selling the American way of life and selling to the students of the country, as Lord Croft said, a general idea, so that when they grow up they will have learnt in terms of America and they will buy in terms of America.
If your Lordships read any of the official publications of those responsible for the information services of the American Government you will see, not just that they are conscious of that, but that they are deliberately aiming at it. They have made it very clear. They have departed in the translation of their textbooks from the ordinary pounds, hours and seconds basis, used in text books heretofore, and have adopted the metric system, because it would lead to the cutting out of the rest of the English production. Indeed, they made it clear two months ago in the official publication Books in the U.S.A., in the following words:
" In the past two decades, the flow of United States books across international boundaries has increased from a trickle to a flood. On the crest of this flood is the United States university text book now used by some students in nearly every country in the world."
That great doyen of publishing in this country, Sir Stanley Unwin, said that trade follows the book. I agree; and I agree, what is more, that we have to watch that it does not follow in a way we do not like. The noble Lord referred to the effect of the Information Media Guaranty Program. I should like to remind your Lordships first of what that is, and secondly of the fact that we invented it but we do not use it. It enables countries short of dollars to purchase American publications in terms of local currency; the currency is then used for the local needs of American Embassies, lodged in blocked accounts or spent on local aid—in Pakistan, on the building of libraries. We invented that

857
as the British Book Export scheme. Sir Stanley Unwin invented it in 1939. We operated it during the war through the British Council, and by the Central Office of Information since the war. When I say that we "operated it", I mean that we operated it in principle; but, as I have no doubt the noble Earl who replies will tell us, like so many other things it works only in principle. That is because the dead hand of the Treasury descends where currency is concerned. Request is made for the money to be used for local expense of the British Council and the British Embassy.
The foreign Government concerned usually refuses to agree to this, since it would lose sterling for its own country, and it therefore follows that nothing happens at all. That is why there are no schemes by which we can deal with our position in Pakistan, in Israel or in Turkey. Pakistan, we all know, traditionally relied in the past entirely upon Britain for her textbooks and publications. Recently it has become increasingly difficult for libraries to get anything, and completely impossible for individuals to get anything at all, because of the shortage of sterling. Even with the help of the Colombo Plan scheme, which was very valuable, for £30,000 or £40,000 worth of British books, many Pakistan universities and libraries are unable to get the British books they need, and their science faculties have lacked all specialist journals over the past ten years. It is estimated by friends of mine in Pakistan to whom I have talked over recent months that, as at a year ago, the unsatisfied demand in that country for British books amounted to £50,000 worth per annum, and £15,000 worth in respect of periodicals.
What about the I.M.G. scheme, which was copied from our scheme and effectively operated by America? They have operated it in Pakistan since 1953. Their authorised expenditure for the current year is 600,000 dollars. In addition, the Asia Foundation has distributed this year 40,000 books and 20,000 more are on the way. This week, I understand, a lending library scheme has been opened at Dacoa University to allow students to have American textbooks on easy terms for the purpose of their studies.
So it is in Israel, where there is a well-educated type of person looking for more
858
education. Nothing from this country is available at all, while America is operating her scheme. She has made available 30 million dollars, not all for books but also for publications, films and general education. On the other hand, we are unable to make anything available because of the shortage of currency. In Turkey, we can wipe English books completely out of existence from the point of view of the ordinary person. No books or periodicals can be bought through the bookshops because of the lack of sterling. An American Information Media Guaranty Program has given up to June 30 last year a total of 2,898,848 dollars, so that we cannot be surprised to know that American publications are plentiful in the shops.
I have tried to curtail the points I had wanted to make at greater length if I had risen to speak earlier. I urge that most careful watch should be kept by the Government on the powerful effect of all this on our general trade prospects in the next ten or twenty years. They should take particular care quickly now to see what can be done about the currency problem in the three countries to which I have referred and in other countries in the Commonwealth and out of it who need attention of that kind in an important way. I strongly urge upon the Government, not any wildcat or large expenditure, but that points of the kind to which I have drawn attention are worthy of some consideration because of their nature.
I am conscious of the genius which has enabled us to achieve such excellent results with the small amount of money available. Before I sit down I want to add my tribute to the two information organisations whose work has been under investigation this afternoon. As one who went to the opening ceremony of the Virginia Exhibition last year and then went with the opening party round the pavilions, British and American, I can only say that the small amount of £50,000 which I believe we made available was spent in a magnificent way to produce a highly cultured exhibit for the American people, which they deeply appreciated. Similarly, I would not listen to anyone who said that our exhibit at Brussels suffers from the meanness of the Government; it does no such thing. It is not always a bad thing to have a limited amount of money on which one must do

859
the best one can. I think that we make a greater cultural approach at Brussels on a shoestring than some of those countries who, by a larger expenditure, have gone in for more flamboyant structures than we have. As one who has seen the work of the British Council in many countries, I should like to say how much we all owe to all sorts of hardworking people who get all the kicks and not many of the ha'pence for the difficult job they do for us in many parts of the world and do it well. All I ask is that a little more "shoestring" should be applied in some of the directions to which I have referred.
7.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I am sure that the organisers of the British exhibit at the Brussels Exhibition will be warmed at heart by the kind words the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has just said about them. It has whetted my appetite even more for the journey I am making tomorrow to see the exhibit myself.
We have had a long and interesting debate, and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Birdwood for their Motions, which have given us the opportunity of discussing this important problem. Your Lordships have made many suggestions for improvements and additions. Naturally these will all be gone into to see what can be done to incorporate them in the services already given. There is no hope at all, at this late hour (and I am sure that your Lordships will not want me to do so), of trying to answer in detail all the questions put to me during the course of the afternoon. I hope that noble Lords who have asked me detailed questions which I do not answer to-day, will forgive me. I will write to them in due course.
Though it is perfectly natural that your Lordships should be interested in seeing that the information services should be used to the best advantage, it is not easy to gauge the success of these activities. The results cannot be measured in graphs or expressed in the form of dividends. To a great extent it is a matter of opinion. However, reports received from our posts overseas, and other evidence, suggest that
860
a considerable degree of success is being achieved. We believe that the services themselves are operating on the right lines and are providing full value for the money and effort expended. I make this assertion without complacency. This is a long campaign, in which we can never relax and in which we must always be on the lookout for new tactics and new weapons. I hope that this debate will have made it clear that the campaign is being conducted with the necessary flexibility and determination.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, one of the dangers in the world to-day is the ignorance within the Communist countries of what is going on in the outside world. The people are fed with propaganda by their own Governments, telling any sort of lies which those Governments may wish to put about; and, of course, it is no easy matter to counteract such lies. In his Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, insists that negotiations with the Soviet Union should be conducted on a reciprocal basis with a view to breaking down the artificial obstacles to the free flow of information and ideas across the Iron Curtain—obstacles which, as your Lordships well know. are none of our making. So long as it remains the Soviet Government's policy to prevent their people, so far as they can, from hearing what goes on in the outside world, so long will these obstacles remain; and I cannot see that any reciprocal action on our part could possibly improve the situation. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, who I think is inclined to agree with me on this point. If, in reality, the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, wishes the same sort of obstacle to anti-Soviet contacts as exist on the Soviet side (though he did not say so in his speech, and I am going by the terms of his Motion), then I cannot go along with him. I consider that it would be wrong in principle.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, did say that when he criticised the delegations that were going to Russia.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: To me it was not quite so manifest.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt to make a brief explanation of what I intended to convey.

861
I would impose no restrictions whatsoever on what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, called "free intercourse." The trouble is that intercourse is not allowed to be free from the other side, and I would say that the only weapon left to us eventually is reluctantly to impose some kind of reciprocal restriction on the Soviet delegations and visitors coming over here—that is to say, we should demand that they come on certain terms, which we should impose, and they will be complete freedom from Soviet control in this country.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Am I right in thinking that the noble Lord is limiting his reciprocity restrictions to visits?
LORD BIRDWOOD: Visits; and, of course, books and newspapers.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I am afraid that I still cannot go along with the noble Lord. I consider that it would be wrong in principle, and it would be completely contrary to British traditions and the British way of life to impose restrictions on ordinary British citizens, as a measure of reciprocity, merely because a foreign Government sees fit to restrict the movement and the reading matter of its own people and to deny them access to information from outside. Moreover, in many cases Her Majesty's Government have no power to intervene in this way with individual freedom. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that a policy of strict reciprocity, even if feasible or desirable, would bring about any change in the Soviet attitude. The only form of reciprocity which we should countenance would be complete freedom of information and contacts between ourselves and the Russian people.
As for making reciprocity a pre-condition for Summit Talks, or at any rate a very high priority in the discussions, at such a conference we should hope as a result of careful preparation to make some progress on those major international issues which are the root cause of tension and represent the greatest menace to our security. There is no doubt that the free interchange of ideas between ourselves and the Russian people, if the Russian Government were in fact to allow it, would result finally in better understanding between the peoples and the lowering of international tension. Subjects which are discussed at such a
862
conference must be those on which there is hope of real progress towards the relaxation of tension. The real causes of tension are political. Priority must be given to the main political issues, and particularly to disarmament. Substantial progress on these issues would undoubtedly create a favourable political climate, in which we should hope to see the gradual lifting of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet people enjoying greater freedom in their contacts with the United Kingdom and other countries of the West.
My noble Leader said in his speech that I would touch on the work of the Overseas Services of the B.B.C. There are two aspects of this work, one the piercing of the Iron Curtain itself, and the other the keeping of the British point of view well in the minds of all friendly and uncommitted countries. In their task of piercing the Iron Curtain, the Overseas Services broadcast in Russian and in the languages of all the Iron Curtain countries, and although we greatly regret that the Russians jam these broadcasts, we know that we are having some success. For many people behind the Iron Curtain radio is the only link with the free world. About 100 hours a week are broadcast to the various Communist countries in Europe. As to the free world, the B.B.C. broadcasts just over 250 hours a week, in some thirty different foreign languages.
There is no doubt as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, that the reputation of the B.B.C. for truth and impartiality is most valuable. The question of the political independence of the B.B.C., however, is a highly controversial one, with which noble Lords are familiar. I do not propose to go into this again tonight, except to quote rather more fully than did the noble Viscount from that section of the Government White Paper on Broadcasting Policy which deals with the external services. It states:
"The Government intend that the Corporation should remain independent in the preparation of programmes for overseas audiences, though they should obtain from the Government department concerned such information about conditions in those countries and the policies of Her Majesty's Government towards them as will permit them to plan programmes in the national interest."
Over the years a system of consultation and advice has grown up between the

863
B.B.C. and the Government which is well fitted to ensure that this objective is kept in view. Broadcasts to Iron Curtain countries, to which the noble Viscount specifically referred, are a particularly difficult problem, to which the closest attention is paid. I have already pointed out that these broadcasts are "jammed" as fully as possible by the Soviet Government, and this, I think, suggests that Moscow, at any rate, considers that they are potentially effective. I should like to take this opportunity, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, to congratulate the B.B.C. on the fine work which it does in this sphere, and to tell your Lordships of the very high regard in which these broadcasts are held throughout the world.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I think other noble Lords, suggested that the equipment of the B.B.C. needed modernising. As the White Paper made clear, the Government have come to the conclusion that capital expenditure is needed to modernise the B.B.C. equipment in the United Kingdom for transmitting the external services to all parts of the world and their local relays to certain key areas. But your Lordships will understand that the putting into effect of this programme is a matter of great technical complexity, which is receiving the closest attention and study, not only of the Corporation but of the Government Department concerned, in consultation with them. I now turn to television.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds to television, would he address himself to the point that I made, that only 11½ hours weekly are devoted to broadcasts to the Colonies? Is there any hope of stepping that up?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: If the noble Lord will permit me, I feel that in order to give a considered reply to his question I should write to him and give him the full facts.
As to television, the details given by my noble Leader will, I think, have shown that the Government fully realise the vast potentiality of television. We are fully aware of its growing importance in countries such as those of the Middle
864
East. I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for his mention of this subject. But in the context of the Government Information Services the important thing is not so much the equipment as what is transmitted over it. Her Majesty's Government, for their part, are therefore concentrating their efforts on the provision of suitable and attractive programme material. On this matter I am in sympathy with the noble Earl, and I am sure that this is the best way of using our limited resources to make a direct impact. I should not deny that it is in our interests that British equipment should, wherever possible, be available. Nevertheless, this is a commercial matter and, as I said, one where we have to be careful about our slender resources. I should like to mention en passant, that, even if we were able to provide equipment to various countries who cannot afford to buy it, there is no guarantee that our material would be used over those networks once they had been installed.
Before I go any further, I should like to correct—or, shall I say, complete—a remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. If I remember rightly, he implied that the Drogheda Committee did not seem to have much faith in the power of propaganda, in that its effect was only marginal.
LORD OGMORE: Has the noble Earl finished with television? I was hoping that I should receive a reply to the point I made: that it was hoped that the Government would provide some contribution towards the supply of television material for countries abroad, particularly in the Commonwealth. Could the noble Earl give us an answer on that?
THE EARL OF HOME: I forget my speeches as soon as I can, but I thought that, so far as television material was concerned, I did give in my speech an indication that the material to Commonwealth countries is being stepped up considerably, with television films and the rest.
LORD OGMORE: I listened to that point with keen attention. I gathered—perhaps I was wrong—that the noble Earl was referring to television material from the Government Information Department, the C.O.I. I think he said it was going

865
up to an hour a week. I did not gather that he was referring to the particular point I made, which, referred to television material from the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. At the moment, as I understand it, they do not receive any grant at all from the Government. It is not a question of stepping it up—they do not receive any. If I am wrong, I will withdraw what I have said. Perhaps the noble Earl can look into that point.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I was saying that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, had pointed out that the Drogheda Committee felt that the effect of propaganda was only marginal. But I feel I should complete that, because the noble Viscount failed to say what is, in fact, in the next sentence of the Committee's Report, which is as follows:
" But in certain circumstances it may be decisive in filling the balance between diplomatic success and failure."
Those words, surely, alter the situation completely. That sentence confirms Her Majesty's Government's view that the information services are extremely important.
I do not propose to waste your Lordships' time by adding now to the comprehensive review of the principals and organisations of our information services which has already been made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Your Lordships will appreciate that the field of activity is a vast one. Tactics are constantly changing, and our forces are always being re-deployed to meet new threats. As my noble Leader has already explained, the objective of our Overseas Information Services is to explain the policy of Her Majesty's Government so that it is correctly understood by the world and, at the same time, to put across the advantages of our way of life, not only to the Communist countries but also to those countries likely to be affected by Soviet propaganda.
Before I end, I will mention two particular aspects of this effort. The first of these is the effort being made to try to persuade the Soviet Government to allow greater interchange of both ideas and people. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that Her Majesty's Government will continue the policy of fostering exchanges with the Communist world, and we will continue
866
our efforts to effect the eventual removal of artificial obstacles to the free flow of information and ideas, and the free movement of people between this country and the Soviet Union. It is only in this way that a genuine improvement and mutual understanding can be brought about.
No amount of persuasion on our part, however, seems to be of much avail. So long as the Communist Governments need to insulate their people and are afraid of the full impact of Western ideas on a population which has been to a large extent starved of contact with the non-Communist world for over forty years, just so long will this Iron Curtain remain. Discussions at the Foreign Ministers' Conference in Geneva in 1955 on the development of East-West contacts were unsuccessful. Since then, very limited progress has been made as a result of bilateral arrangements. But the main barriers erected by the Soviet Union to the free interchange of persons, ideas and information remain.
In April of this year Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Soviet Government that talks should be held in London or Moscow with a view to removing these barriers. The agenda proposed included the cessation of "jamming"; the unrestricted sale and distribution of newspapers, books and films; improved travel facilities; and the organisation of Anglo-Soviet exchanges through representative channels—not, as is often the case, through various Communist "front" organisations in this country. The Soviet reply avoids direct reference to these topics. It describes them as, "the complex questions on which there exist serious disagreements". Her Majesty's Government regret that the Soviet Government have not accepted this proposal.
The situation, however, is not entirely without hope. In 1955, at the request of Her Majesty's Government, the British Council established the Soviet Relations Committee—to which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and other noble Lords have drawn attention—in order to provide a representative body for arranging and sponsoring Anglo-Soviet exchanges and visits. During the past three years an increasing number of exchanges and visits have taken place, and are continuing to take place, under the Committee's auspices. Incidentally, both the Conservative and Labour Parties are represented

867
on this Committee, and I should like to pay a warm tribute to its work in furthering the cause of Anglo-Soviet understanding.
The organised exchanges and visits which the Soviet Relations Committee arranges or sponsors represent a valuable step forward. It is, however, questionable whether they go to the heart of the problem. We should all have greater confidence in the prospects of improved relations with the Soviet Union if the Russian service of the B.B.C. were not "jammed"; if British books and magazines were on unrestricted sale in the Soviet Union; if the Soviet people were allowed to visit the Western countries whenever they wished to do so; and if large parts of the Soviet Union were not closed to British diplomats, journalists and visitors.
Before I close I wish to turn to the problem of providing effective countermeasures to Soviet propaganda throughout the world. Noble Lords have rightly expressed concern at the incessant stream of abuse and distortion which the Communist—and the Egyptian—propaganda machine see fit to inflict upon the minds of peoples of the free world, and particularly those of what are known as the "uncommitted countries". We are often accused of failing to counter this, but our critics should pause to consider what is really implied in this charge.
We know full well that the Soviet Government enjoy certain advantages in this field. They do not have to consider Parliamentary or domestic public opinion or scrutiny. Propaganda and publicity is not, as with us, a means of explaining policy, but has become an instrument of policy itself. As such, it manipulates half-truths, untruths, misrepresentation and the application of funds in a thousand ways of which not a single instance would be tolerated under the conscientious scrutiny of our system. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the price we might have to pay in terms of the effect on our constitutional freedoms and democratic way of life if we were to attempt to compete with the Soviet Union in this way. As regards nailing the lie of hostile propaganda, I can assure your Lordships that close watch is kept on the utterances and writings of our enemies both by radio
868
monitoring and posts in the field, and that, where necessary, these lies are refuted by all the means available to us; and in this matter I am glad to say we enjoy the constant co-operation of our friends and Allies, notably the United States.
Finally, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe, along with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Manchester, that the best possible answer to Soviet propaganda is the constant and steadfast dissemination of the truth about Communist policies and pretensions, rather than in slanging matches. In that I am glad to say the noble Lord, Lord Ebury, in an imaginative maiden speech, agrees with me. I hope that we shall hear him more often. It is to this end, rather than to ingenious methods of so-called psychological warfare, that the efforts of the official information services are directed. We may be limited by resources and by the inevitable restraints imposed by our democratic way of life, but we have ample evidence that, in the Ion run, the flow of factual, objective information, not only from British sources but from those also of our Allies and associates in the free world, has been and continues to be one of the main factors in containing the spread of Soviet imperialism throughout the world.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes, could he say anything in regard to the status of the head of the British Information Services in Washington?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord an answer now, but I will write to him.
8.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would not wish me to prolong this debate. We have, I think, had an extremely useful opportunity to draw attention to the extreme importance of the Overseas Information Services, and I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the fullness of his statement. It is obvious that he is extremely aware of their importance, and I trust that he will bring his wisdom to bear on Her Majesty's Government to loosen the purse-strings of the Treasury.

869
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ebury, on his maiden speech. I had the honour and the pleasure of knowing his father extremely well. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood for putting down his Motion in conjunction with mine, because it has so much enriched this debate. I was rather shocked, I confess, to hear my noble friend Lord Aberdare say that I wished to take away some of the independence of the B.B.C. Nothing was further from my mind. All I was trying to ask was, if we are broadcasting to countries behind the Iron Curtain is, for instance, the recital of the truth of events sufficient? For instance, are we going to tell them about the Red flag flying over St. Pancras? Is that going to cheer them up? I should have thought it would have done exactly the reverse.
I must also thank the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for his extremely full statement, and I apologise if I quoted out of context the passage in the Drogheda Report—I certainly had no intention of so doing. We have had an extremely useful debate, and I should like to conclude by paying a tribute to all those men and women in the B.B.C., and throughout the whole world, in all the information services, who work so hard, often under extremely hard conditions, to put Britain's case. I must also thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, the majority of them with very much greater experience in this subject than I have. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
8.7 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, as there is a Motion in my name on the Paper, I should like, with the indulgence of the House, to say one or two words of comment, although of course I do not intend to move my Motion. The noble Earl,
870
the Leader of the House, referred sympathetically to my proposal for a Departmental Committee, and therefore I hope that although the noble Earl who wound up did not mention it specifically, that proposal will be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.
As to the question of reciprocity, it seems to me to hang entirely on our definition of the word which is one it is indeed extremely difficult to define. I of course, never had in mind, in speaking of reciprocity, that any restrictions whatsoever should be put on British citizens, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, seemed to think. British citizens should be allowed to travel as much as they possibly can to countries behind the Iron Curtain. It is only when the Soviet Union imposes restrictions on their own visitors that the question of reciprocity arises. As to helping our friends, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that nothing should be sacrificed in any respect in putting across the British message to old friends. I thank the House for the indulgence they have given me in allowing me to say these few words.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RESETTLEMENT WORK
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RESETTLEMENT WORK