(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the negotiations with the American oil companies.

Yes, Sir. As I told the House on Friday last, His Majesty's Government have for some time been discussing with the Government and with the oil companies of the United States how the dollar cost of imported oil might be reduced, and how additional supplies of petrol might thus be made available in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs spoke of these discussions in a speech at Harrogate on 10th February. Last week in our Debate I brought the story of the negotiations up to date. I told the House then of some earlier proposals which the Government had not, to their regret, felt able to accept.

I also told the House that we had had a new proposal which we were then discussing. This was a proposal from the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. It was to the following effect: that if petrol rationing in the United Kingdom were abandoned, the company were prepared to bring in additional supplies for sterling. The other United States company concerned, the California Texas Oil Company, agreed to a similar arrangement. Both companies undertook to spend the sterling so acquired in the sterling area on additional goods and services to be used by them in their oil operations, or on the building of tankers here.

When we received this offer we asked the British companies whether, if petrol rationing were ended, they could find the other petrol required from sterling sources. The refinery expansion programme has, I am glad to say, made better progress than we expected, and the British companies have therefore been able to give the Government an assurance that they are now in a position to do this. The supply of this additional sterling oil must, as the Government have always explained, involve some dollar cost, but in this case the amount is not appreciable.

The Government have, therefore, decided to end petrol rationing forthwith. They have always said that they would do this as soon as it could be done without an appreciable dollar cost. The expansion of oil refining by the British companies and the successful negotiations with the United States companies, which I have mentioned, have created the conditions in which we can carry out our pledge. We can now end the rationing of petrol without impairing our ability to import essential foodstuffs, the timber needed for the housing programme and the raw materials for the maintenance of full employment.

It will, of course, be necessary to bring to an end by Order in Council the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Act, 1948, and accordingly His Majesty is being advised this afternoon to appoint 27th May, 1950, as the date on which it will expire. As from the same date, tomorrow, 27th May, the Motor Fuel (Control) Order, 1948, will be revoked, and all the other Instruments under which the present petrol rationing scheme is administered will cease to have effect. The necessary Instrument will be laid before the House today. This means that, as from tomorrow morning people will be able to buy petrol without coupons and without regard to whether it is white or red.

The House is aware that motorists who have used their standard ration only have been allowed to licence their cars at half the normal rates of duty. Now that petrol rationing is abolished, this concession, of course, must be withdrawn; the Treasury are, therefore, making the necessary order under paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949. This means that no more new licences can be issued at half the normal rate, nor can existing licences be renewed at half the normal rate. Nor can existing licences be converted, as hitherto, on the surrender of coupons, from the full to the half rate; but existing half-rate licences will still be valid and will remain in force until the date when they expire.

I am sure that the House will welcome this happy outcome of our negotiations and will be grateful for the efforts of all those who have made it possible, including, in particular, the United States companies concerned. I am sure that they will also wish to thank the public servants who have performed the thankless task of administering the rationing of petrol with such conspicuous fairness and success.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for this announcement, which will no doubt be received with great interest in all parts of the House, may I ask whether he agrees with me that the announcement and its timing are a great tribute to the efforts which have been made by the British companies in expanding their refining capacity?

Yes, Sir, certainly, and of course we have given them full support as far as the Government could do so.

May I, first of all, thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in taking pains to make this statement to the House of Commons before the Recess? May I also, as the Minister who had the duty of introducing petrol rationing in the Autumn of 1939, give him my personal congratulations on being in the fortunate position of being able to abolish petrol rationing, we hope for ever, in this country? However, would he also agree with me that his task in this respect has been somewhat easier than that of his predecessors in office by reason of the greatly increased representation of the Opposition in the present House of Commons, and no doubt also by the stimulating effect upon the Lord President of Parliamentary defeat upon this issue before Easter?

I should further like to ask him whether he realises that there is nothing in the agreements with the American oil companies which have made possible today's announcement which could not have been arrived at many months ago—indeed, before Christmas—if the negotiations had been conducted with a greater skill by His Majesty's Government at that time? In view of the many injurious statements which have been made by Government spokesmen with regard to Opposition leaders, and particularly with regard to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during the General Election, I should like to ask the Lord President to make arrangements for a collective act of penitence and apology by the Cabinet.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the abolition of petrol rationing is due to the success of the principle of bulk purchase?

Well, Sir, there is something in that point. In reply to the right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), I should like to congratulate him on having introduced petrol rationing when it was required and on the great dollar saving which it has made throughout the last 10 years to the economy of the country. Without it we should have been in a disastrous position. I should also like to say that the credit for this achievement goes, of course, principally to my predecessors and, in particular, to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, who started the negotiations which have led to this result. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether this could not have been done sooner. I told the House last Friday that we had had other offers over the last few months which we could not accept for the reason that our dollar position did not permit it. This new offer is a better offer and our dollar position has improved, and we are now able to do this at the earliest moment at which it could possibly have been done.

May I, with respect, ask the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that these negotiations were opened by the Government originally in a most unfortunate manner which actually attracted a rebuke from the American Secretary of State, and that they could have been brought to a successful issue a long time ago?

Sour grapes.

May I ask whether this experiment in freedom is likely to be permanent or whether it is only temporary?

Can my right hon. Friend say what the attitude of the Opposition would have been if he had made the announcement at the time of the General Election, as they seemed to want it?

My reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) is that how long it remains will, of course, depend on how well the economic affairs of the nation are conducted. If the present Government remain in office it will be permanent.

Will not the Minister add to his congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), further congratulations for having suggested in his speech before Easter the use of the method for obtaining petrol which the Minister has now adopted; and will the right hon. Gentleman also say why it was irresponsible to suggest in February what he has, in fact, achieved in May?

In reply to the first question, I think it was—if I may say so without appearing to be condescending—very intelligent of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest this, but the Government had in fact already been doing it for some months before.

In February?

Yes, Sir.

During the General Election?

Before that. It began in November.

Was it then irresponsible?

I have quoted the statement of my right hon. Friend made months ago. He said then that the dollar position was improving and that talks were then going on to see if we could get extra petrol without spending dollars. He said that those talks had been going on and were continuing and that we should certainly do away with rationing as soon as we could afford the extra supplies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bring today's statement to the attention of the Minister of Health, who as late as Monday in this House was confronting the Conservative Opposition with the alternative of more petrol as against more houses; and would he suggest to him that in his field he might also take a leaf from the Conservative Opposition's policy?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health knows all about this statement, of course. Perhaps I might draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to my statement this morning in which I said quite plainly that we had been able to do this:

"Without impairing our ability to import … the timber needed for the housing programme."

We could have done that six months ago.

Does my right hon. Friend know that his decision will be applauded by the great mass of the people of the country, and particularly by the people who are more interested in food than in petrol, and that they will applaud the way the matter has been handled and the courage of the Government in examining the American proposals so steadily and getting, as it seems to us, a better deal; and that we do not take the view that it is as a result of duress from the Opposition?

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that sufficient supplies will be available to meet the additional demands in the initial stages and that we shall be better off in regard to petrol than we were in regard to sweets? Also, what is the technical position regarding the repeal of existing legislation? What happens to people who have red petrol in their tanks tomorrow?

Tomorrow they will be all right, I think. On the first point, I have the fullest assurances that there will be sufficient stocks to deal with anything that will arise over this weekend. The private motorist, will, of course, be able to use red petrol. Garages have large stocks of it and commercial vehicles are not on the road, and therefore I think that it will be all right.

What consequential reduction of staff will now be possible in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

At present, counting in both Ministry of Transport employees and staff and those who work for my Ministry, it is about 2,100. It is coming down all the time, but it is about that. A few are permanent civil servants who will be transferred to other Departments or to other work. The great majority of them are temporary civil servants who will, with the thanks and gratitude of the nation, pass to other employment.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Lord President of the Council, whether this very welcome announcement to the motoring community is the first tangible result of a Dorking weekend?

Will extra supplies of American petrol mean that we may get a higher octane value in our petrol?

I would like notice of that question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Shall we be able to buy branded petrol in the near future?

I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect at present of a restoration of branded petrol.

The House will remember that yesterday I was unable to state the Business for the Tuesday on our return, as the Opposition had not on that point made their decision. I am now, however, able to inform the House that the subjects for Debate in Committee of Supply on Tuesday, 13th June, will be as follow:

Emigration, until about 7 o'Clock, and afterwards, Town and Country Planning.

Have the necessary steps been taken, if any are necessary, to preclude any possibility of His Majesty's Opposition claiming credit for this announcement?

It is inevitable that after those two Debates on Emigration and Town and Country Planning, the Opposition will claim credit for everything within those two categories.

During the past five years we have seen a great increase of Communist activity and we are now faced with what might be considered the greatest single threat to world peace the world has ever known. It is no longer a problem for the police forces of the countries concerned, but for the Governments. To dispense with known Communists in Government service or to restrict the travel of individual members of the Communist Party, or even to outlaw Communism, would appear to be insufficient. What was once a way of life confined to Russia has now become a world menace feared by every free country in the world. A solution must be found of this problem. It must be stamped out from the life of all free nations at least.

If nations are happy and well fed they are not interested, generally, in Communism, although there is always in any country a small pocket of revolutionaries. If some people are denied the necessities of life they will consider any alternative in order to get them. It is impossible to state one set of conditions alone under which Communism can thrive. It is important to appreciate that where a population is undernourished, where, by virtue of geography, that nation is close to the Russian borders, and where there is a weak Government, those are three conditions which assist Communism very greatly and allow it to spread very rapidly indeed. There are people far better informed than I, who will say that Communists could dominate the world at the present time with the arms at their disposal and the military might which they possess. That may be true, but we must concern ourselves with Communist progress during the past five years without resort to arms, progress made without a shot being fired on either side.

Food in exchange for co-operation is a very vital weapon and that weapon has been used. During the First World War a general of the British Forces sent a message back to this House that he could not take care of the situation. It was not a question of arms, but of bread and butter. That situation has arisen in the recent war to a far greater extent than it did in the First World War. I was head of a department responsible for supplies of food to North-West Europe. Many were the times when it became necessary to divert "Liberator" aircraft from ammunition runs in order to take food to civilians in the lines of communication. Taking food supplies is a very great job in war. I once had the job of bedding down thousands of civilians and feeding them on soup and hard biscuits for 10 days. I know the mentality of people living under those conditions. I know exactly how far you can go with them if you offer them a square meal.

In 1946, I was very concerned about this matter, and I went to various newspaper offices in this country trying to get 1,500 words printed on the use of food as a political weapon. I journeyed around many newspaper offices. Finally, after three hours at one national daily paper, I managed to see the editor and he printed 1,500 words for me on the subject. I thought I would receive some measure of support, but I did not have any fan mail. Frankly, I did not receive so much as a post-card.

What newspaper was it?

I have studied the position in the last 10 weeks, particularly with regard to the vital areas of the world and I would like to read very briefly from food organisation reports upon various areas. The report discloses the following facts: Near East: Relatively low supply of calories, animal proteins and protective foods characteristic of countries of the Near East, milk of poor qualtity, fresh vegetables lacking in many districts, deficiency diseases and every indication of poor nutritional states are widespread. Infant and child mortality rates are very high. Middle East: This provides a picture of human misery. The majority of people are receiving little food or other necessities of life and the position is little short of desperate. Far East: Conditions here are bad. Although agricultural production is nearly back to pre-war, in many under-developed areas above prewar, production has not increased as rapidly as the population during the last 10 years. Their position is desperate.

In Africa, the summer of 1949 was characterised by widespread malnutrition in the reservations. Many infants died of starvation and deficiency diseases among children were widespread. Political disturbances continue to hinder agricultural recovery and progress in Burma, China, Indo-China and Indonesia. Political and military conflicts have reduced output in many areas to what farmers need for themselves. Farmers have, in many cases, reduced their marketing to the cities or for export, either because transportation has been lacking or because as one of the consequences of inflation, they no longer care to hold money. Other areas where agriculture is similarly affected by political disturbances are the Near East and Greece. Strenuous efforts have been made, particularly by the food surplus countries, and while it must be acknowledged that much has been achieved, the problem of adequate food remains in every country outside Europe.

Food is in short supply generally throughout the world, and we cannot just take a global load and feed everybody who requires food. We, as a country, of course, can do nothing. We, I am afraid, are paupers and can only ask for assistance. There are, however, heavy stocks of food at the present time, particularly in the United States, and those food stocks could be applied to vital areas. As I see it as a layman, the dangerous possibilities are Communist influence running, first, through Poland and Eastern Germany through to the West, then through Persia and the Middle East, and thirdly through China and down through Malaya. Those are the three possibilities operating from the centre of a rough circle whereby we might be in difficulty.

In all those areas the people in the countries are underfed. I group the countries in two zones—one zone A, covering the Middle East and the other, zone B, covering the South-East Asia position. In zone A, I include Persia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi-Arabia, with a population of 38 million people; if Pakistan is included, it adds another 70 million people. In zone B, I place Burma, Siam, Indo-China and Malaya, with 66 million people. There we have a barrier against the spread of Communism if we can take care of those people, and they number 174 million. In terms of the food required to put them on a decent footing suggest that anything less than 500 calories a day would be quite useless. And 500 calories a day for those people would involve 24,600 tons a day if it were in meats and fats. In zone A it would be 15,000 tons, in zone B 9,600 tons, making 24,600 tons in all.

We have to thank the United States and all the food surplus countries for the efforts they have made since 1945. Their efforts have been nothing short of magnificent. They are in a position to do more at the present time and, if we were to approach those countries, I think they would be the first to buy some security and peace in this world through food, which is probably the finest motive that any country could have.

It gives me pleasure to come to this House and plead with the Government to do everything they can to obtain the necessary co-operation in order that the people in these countries may again be reasonably fed, may even be better fed than they were before the war. Their standard today is 300 calories a day below their pre-war level. If the Government can sponsor something for these people, I am sure a great service will have been done for humanity, a great service will have been done in the cause of peace, and I hope that as a result of their efforts, something may be done to strike an effective blow against the spread of Communism throughout this world.

I expected a different speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks), to whom I listened with great attention. I agree with the main line of his conclusions, but I thought we would get a real bloodthirsty attack upon the growth of world Communism such as sometimes characterises the speeches of the Opposition, and sometimes come out at Question Time from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put the practical alternative to Communism presented by Lord Boyd Orr. He has not even asked for military action or an intensification of the cold war against Communism. He has, in fact, supplied the answer to the question: What is the alternative to Communism? by suggesting that an ill-nourished nation will be seeth- ing with discontent and we must supply that nation with food as an antidote to Communism. That inevitably means accepting the position that the old system of capitalism and landlordism throughout the East has failed to supply the people with food. The result is that after the economic upheavals following two world wars millions of people are starving throughout the world. They look at the present old system which has broken down and then turn to Communism. The answer to that must be a system which will supply them with food. The Communists argue that in order to supply the food, not merely by grants from the West but by creating a new economic system, there must be a system of planning and State organisation and control that we call Communism.

I do not share the point of view of the Communist Party, but if it is only a question of planning and of supplying nations with food, then that side of Communism has to be taken seriously. What I object to about the Communist countries is their totalitarian system, their secret police, their confessions, their destruction of individual liberty, but when it comes to State planning of food supplies and industry, then something in the nature of Socialist planning is absolutely inevitable.

We must realise that the majority of the world at present is being fed by the capitalists and, furthermore, that it is the Communist countries, particularly Russia, who are making no contribution to those world needs. They have the largest food stocks in the world, and are making no contribution to helping the situation in the Far East. That is why we are where we are. It is no fault of capitalism; it is the fault of Communism in not co-operating in feeding the world.

I understand the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am quite prepared to concede that in the present development of the world, the capitalist Western world is better organised from an industrial and technical point of view than the Communist world——

That is not right.

—but is that position likely to last? During the last week we have heard, in several Debates, approval of the Schuman scheme for Europe. We have also heard arguments by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) about a Schuman scheme for the Far East. We are now thinking in terms of a greater planning and industrial organisation which is taking us away from the old capitalist conception. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should have followed his argument to its logical conclusion and should have said that this country should support the world food plan offered by Lord Boyd Orr as an alternative to the policies which are at present involving us in grave danger of war.

I do not agree with the Boyd Orr plan, and I do not want us to be tied up in it.

I know, but I am only carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member has not been enlightened. In his speech he was beginning to think, and thinking is a very dangerous process. If there is to be more food in the world the supply of such foods has got to be organised on an international basis. The hon. and gallant Member has not given us much to argue about, but I ask him to carry this argument to its logical conclusion and not to be afraid of the spectre of Communism. If we can give the answer to Communism in that way, we may be able to give to the world a kind of economy which will avert a clash of arms and another holocaust.

The House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for affording time for this Debate and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) for directing attention to a subject which must occasion much thought. My hon. and gallant Friend has spent many hours of research and labour on the case which he has put before the House. I have had the privilege of listening to his reasoning and to studying his pictorial map before today's Debate. I think his arguments give much food for thought.

The attention of the House is directed to two main subjects; to two major problems which are inevitably linked. On the one hand, there is Russia, about which we know so little except its evil doctrine of Communism, which is spreading in the world and which has not been arrested. Then, on the other hand, we have the question of world food production, about which the experts are pessimistic including Lord Boyd Orr. Russia has large food-producing areas and granaries, and, undoubtedly, is using the distribution of food for political ends. She need not resort to force so long as she can make conquests in other countries.

A pertinent question we might ask ourselves is: "Who is winning the cold war?" Certainly, the free nations of the world are not, and he is an incautious optimist who would say that the free nations of the world are even holding their own. The majority of the Members of this House are aware of the dangers of Communism, but I doubt whether the nation as a whole is as sensitive to Communism as are our friends in the United States and in parts of our Empire, particularly in South-East Asia.

Yet, the challenge of Communism and Russia has to be met, and one of the certain ways of fighting it is by making available more food to the world as a whole. In this country we do not grow enough food to support our own people. We have not grown sufficient food for years past. We shall not grow sufficient food for our present-day population by our present food production methods. It may be that in some future generation, science will provide us with the self-sufficiency remedy, but this remedy has not yet appeared on the horizon. In fairness to the Government they are encouraging the home farmers in greater food production, but are we likely to obtain the maximum production? We must explore every avenue for food production, and, as such, make it our first priority. Some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House are perturbed about the loss of rich farm land to opencast coal activities.

If the Government can take credit for continued assistance to the home farmers, they are not deserving of so much credit for their arrangements in connection with Empire food supplies. I think, as do many of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on this side of the House, that we can do much more in co-operation in the British Empire to produce food. The Empire and Commonwealth have got to be encouraged, and, if necessary, assisted by labour and finance. Post-war figures show we have not given the Empire all the encouragement that we should have given. Take just one case. We are now importing Empire butter to feed our population for 42 weeks in the year. In 1948, it was for 48 weeks. Over the same period there has been a big drop in our Empire bacon imports. In 1948, Canada sent us £19 million worth of bacon and Denmark £5 million. This position has now been reversed, and, in addition, we have sought extra bacon from Poland. Again, in the early years of the Anglo-Canadian Wheat Agreement, Canada received a much lower price than the world price at that time.

Let us help Europe by all means, but our first concern and responsibility is to the whole Empire. That is why I believe that the time is ripe for a full Empire Conference if such a Conference is not indeed overdue. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations appeared somewhat diffident yesterday when such a proposal was made. We on this side of the House are convinced of the necessity for a gathering of the representatives of this country, the Dominions and the Colonies at the earliest possible moment. The first items on the agenda of such a conference should be the menace of Communism, Imperial defence and the greatest possible prosecution of full food production and storage. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to devise means whereby, when there are good years, we can store the food for the lean years. If, at this late stage in this Debate, we can convince the Government of the necessity for such a full Empire Conference, then I suggest that this Debate will not have been in vain.

I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) for raising a very interesting topic this morning. I take it as a very hopeful sign that Members of the Opposition are De-ginning to consider the very serious fact that we cannot get rid of Communism merely by saying rude things about it; that Communism thrives on poverty and misery; and that if we are to contain Communism and prevent its spread in the world, we must give to those peoples in the so-called free parts of the world, something like a decent standard of living. My only regret is that the thinking which is taking place on the Opposition benches today did not take place in the days before the war, when food was destroyed in a world which was clamouring for food—when coffee, wheat and other foodstuffs, of which the people were in need were either burned or ploughed back into the ground while even children in our own country went hungry.

Not only must we accept responsibility for feeding the peoples of the free world, but we must bring to them something like social justice in a much wider sense. War is the great midwife of progress, and we are living in a world where the Second World War has raised in the minds of the old submerged peoples of the world something like a demand for the social justice which the free people of this country have begun to obtain.

As long as there is unequal privilege as between child and child, as long as there is mass unemployment and misery in a country then, indeed, someone who comes along and promises a better world in the name of Communism will find a legitimate soil to work on. Revolutions come when people cannot fear the unknown ahead more than the grimness of the known.

The implications of this morning's discussion are a justification of His Majesty's Government's policy in the last four or five years. We are attempting in our own country to bring food in something like equal quantities to all our children and people for the first time. We are beginning to accept social responsibility for our Colonies in a way we have never done before and this is true throughout the British Commonwealth.

But, much deeper and more important than that, Communism receives its greatest power if, side by side, with the social misery of the people there is political lack of freedom and national lack of freedom among the people. I regard it as of great historic significance that in the years which have followed the war we have given political freedom to the people of India, political freedom to the people of Burma and have removed from one great section of the East one of the great causes of Communist advance. Had the Communists in India been able to associate themselves with the nationalist movement in India, as they did in the years before the war, then, indeed, the present picture in India might be different.

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who opened the Debate in appealing to the great nations of the United Nations to carry on with the development of world food supplies. History has shown that we cannot leave it in the hands of private profit-makers. Increased production in British agriculture is largely due to the fact that, as a nation, we have accepted responsibility for British agriculture. When it was left at the mercy of supply and demand, our agricultural industry steadily declined through 50 or 60 years. Farm workers were paid the most shocking wages of any group of workers in this country, farmers went bankrupt and the industry steadily ploughed its way down to ruin. It is only because, as a nation, we have begun to interfere with private profit making, and begun to accept food production as a great social service, that we are seeing this great advance in British agriculture in our day.

I think we have to learn the lesson, as a world, from the experience of social democracy in this country. We have to see that this question of world food supplies is a matter in which we cannot allow the interests of individuals and the profits that can be made out of scarcity to interfere with the great human demand of all the people. Back in Shakespeare's time the farmer, according to Macbeth, "hanged himself in the expectation of plenty." We must have a world where the farmers know that plenty not only means prosperity for themselves, but also well-being to great masses of people, who starved in every corner of the world through the long time when the great industrial countries of the world, having taken control of the backward countries, neglected their social responsibilities to those countries.

I think we have cause to congratulate the Labour Government on carrying on in its own corner of the world, in our own island and our own Colonies, along the lines which the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey urged we should follow.

I am sure that the House will be grate- ful to the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) for having raised this very important question today, and I am glad to have the opportunity, which I did not have the other night in my haste at the end of the Debate on the Far East, to congratulate him on the very close study he has obviously made of this subject of world food. Broadly, I am quite in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member's approach to the problem and also with that of my hon. Friends the Members for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and Southampton, Test (Dr. King).

I think we have shown by the part we have taken in many organisations since the war that we do realise that world food is at the basis, and must be at the basis, of any lasting world settlement. The part we have played in U.N.R.R.A., and in the setting up and since in the continuance of the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, has borne witness to that. In the particular areas to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, South-East Asia, as he knows we have recently been studying this as part of the problem of development of South-East Asia, but long before that we had begun very large-scale emergency measures, after the war, associated with the Singapore Conference, to try to relieve the very dangerous food situation in that area.

The only thing I would say about the approach of the hon. and gallant Member—and I do not think he would really disagree—is that while it is, of course, true that hunger is one of the things upon which—if I might put it that way—Communism can feed, this is a problem which far transcends the problem of Communism. We would do well, perhaps, not to link our remedial measures too closely in all respects with the Communist menace, because what we are after is a proper organisation of world food supplies in relation to world needs. It will not always be possible to concentrate our efforts on a particular spot because it happens to be most near the Communist danger at the moment. Africa has been barely mentioned, but the food problem in Africa in the long term is just as important as it is in the Far East.

I have not come armed with statistics, but I think it is probably true to say that at the moment we are beginning to emerge from what one might call an absolute world food shortage in relation to the existing effective demand. There are spots in the world economy where one could begin to say there are surpluses, but that is very different from saying that there is over-production and too much food in the world. It is partly a question of local surpluses and local shortages elsewhere, which are hard to bring together, and the problem is also largely one of currency difficulties. It is just as much a problem of paying for food which exists as of increasing the production of food.

There is a great temptation to oversimplify the problem as though it were a very simple one in essence, while in fact it is a very difficult question involving every form of government. May I quote a few sentences from the Final Report of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East, which are worth bearing in mind:

"How simple, therefore, to suppose that, could the poor people and the poorer regions but acquire from those more blessed materially a pro rata share of the world's goods, poverty would be eradicated, and a great cause of strife would disappear.

But comparative differences in the standard of living cannot be adjusted so easily …. Higher living standards cannot be bestowed by one upon another like a gift, and improved economy does not come in a neat package sold or given away in the market place; a higher standard of living must grow out of the application of human skill and ingenuity to the physical resources of a country or a region …. There is no substitute for the application of work and local enterprise to each country's own resources."

It is very important to bear in mind that this is not a question of simple gifts from one area to another, or of short-term relief measures.

As I explained in the Debate on the Far East two days ago, we had that very much in mind at the Sydney Conference. It is because we think the Sydney Conference has laid the right foundation for a long-term development of the whole of that region that we regard the Conference as a success.

I want to be very brief, and I do not want to elaborate what hon. Members have said, because I am in agreement with so much of it. I should perhaps refer to the conditions governing this very large subject of malnutrition and the problem as it affects the more highly organised countries—those with a higher standard of living. Already, there is talk in some areas of surpluses, particularly of United States farm surpluses, and the problem of surpluses is quite different from the problem of over-production.

Basically the problem is one of finding means of payment, and particularly is a question of dollars and sterling. We ourselves are in difficulties over buying dollar commodities which we would like to have, including food, and, therefore, when one thinks of trying to marry the surpluses with the shortages, one finds oneself involved in the whole complex problem of the balance of payments between the dollar and sterling areas. When we try to tackle the other problem of increased production in some of the more backward areas—and there is tremendous room for it—we have to face not only this problem but also those of law and order, technical assistance, the introduction of new methods and so on.

I do not want to make the problem sound in any way impossible. There are many people and many Governments working on it, and we have been working on it ourselves. We much appreciate a great deal of the work which Lord Boyd Orr has done with such great inspiration, and the impetus which he has given to that work in many countries in the world. It is a difficult problem, which many people are trying to solve, with the agreement and support of the Government.

I have found a very excellent preamble to what I have to say this morning. First of all, we opened our proceedings in this House today by praying for peace and tranquillity; and the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) has been good enough to carry the point further by saying that a good supply of food for the hungry would prevent civil wars and the growth of Communism. I doubt whether the supply of food by itself would settle the problem of wars between the nations, because I have found in my travels abroad that some nations which are very well-fed, are as bellicose as others which are on the point of starvation.

On 10th May, I placed a Motion on the Order Paper in which I was supported by 145 hon. Members of the party to which I belong; and I am very proud to have this opportunity of saying a word or two about that Motion, which reads as follows:

"That this House welcomes and supports the efforts now being made by the Secretary General on behalf of the United Nations Organisation to secure peace among the Powers and to prevent a third world war which would result in untold misery for mankind."

The will to peace, therefore, is evident in this Parliament; and I am almost sure I am right in saying that no person in the whole of the British Isles would actually welcome another war. My task today, therefore, is to try to rouse that will to peace, to nurture and develop that will, as opposed to the hatred that is being engendered by provocative speeches on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

I regard the visit of Mr. Trygve Lie to Moscow particularly, and to the capitals of other countries, as momentous. Unfortunately, a great deal of suspicion has been aroused in some parts of the world, and especially in America, about his visit to Moscow. I am under the impression—and I do not want to offend the Americans—that we are in a special and much more favourable position to judge his mission. Geographically, we are half-way between the United States and Russia, and ideologically and politically we are also the same distance between them. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that the British people as a whole welcome this attempt of Mr. Trygve Lie to bring reason to bear where at the moment a great deal of suspicion prevails.

It is quite clear that the United Nations organisation is impotent to prevent the terrible race in armaments now proceeding among the Powers; and it is sad to note that that race is taken for granted by the great majority of people. Just imagine ourselves, for instance, spending nearly £800 million per annum in peacetime in preparing for the next war, in the hope, I suppose, that it will not occur; and maintaining 750,000 men and women in military uniform, most of them doing nothing. I suggest that the economy of this country is being weighted unduly by this cost of armaments, because the more a nation spends on armaments, the less it can afford on social services and the necessaries of life. As the United Nations organisation has failed to prevent the race in armaments, it was well that Mr. Trygve Lie should make an attempt to bring reason to bear among the statesmen and remove the deadlock which has been growing for some time, primarily between the United States and Soviet Russia.

It is no use telling me at my age that all this piling up of armaments is for defence. I do not believe it. I have no illusions as to the significance of Western Union, the Atlantic Pact, fleet manoeuvres, meetings of the Defence Ministers, and, above all, the regular gatherings of the military chiefs of the Powers on both sides of the iron curtain. I do not know how many hon. Members now present were here in 1938 and 1939, but the vocabulary and spirit of 1950 is very similar to that of 1939, when we gave a guarantee to defend Poland against the aggression of Germany, when, in fact, we could not send a single soldier to help Poland against aggression. In less than five years, after the end of the last war, the world is divided into two separate blocs. We talk glibly nowadays of two worlds and of the world being divided into two separate camps, and the human mind is being accustomed to that idea. But all this cannot proceed very much further without an explosion occurring somewhere. I think that history proves conclusively that, when Governments provide weapons of war, there are groups of people in every nation who are ready to experiment with them.

Let me make one point clear above all. Some people regard me as a crank on this problem of peace and war. I do not mind that because I have lived longer than most and have seen more than most, too. I can go back to our blatant aggression in South Africa and all that it meant at the time. Consequently, I have long ago come to the conclusion that, unless the nations can live in peace, nothing else will avail them. Therefore, my task this morning is to try, if I can, once again to arouse the will to peace.

Let me say this, in addition. During the last decade or so, nations have not declared war against each other. In the old days, it was customary with great formality to issue an official declaration of hostilities. Now, however, they do not declare war officially on each other; they just drift and slide into conflict, and, quite frankly, that is one of the reasons I get alarmed about the present position between America and Russia. Then, of course, the quarrel having started, all the nations blame each other. They fear each other; they provoke each other, and, at the moment they are inflamed over two points in particular. They quarrel continuously in the United Nations organisation, and it would be a great tragedy for mankind if this second attempt to bring about permanent peace in the world failed, as the League of Nations failed in the past.

The two points over which they are particularly inflamed at the moment are the control of the atom and hydrogen bombs, and the type of representation to be granted to China in the United Nations at Lake Success after the conquest of that country by the Communists. It would be popular here, of course, if I blamed the Russians for this impasse, and how delighted the Kremlin would be if I blamed the capitalist Powers for bringing about the deadlock. I am not going to do either. I ask now—as I asked once in a conference, when an hon. Member of this House was blaming our Foreign Secretary for all the trouble between us and Russia—is it not a fact that Vyshinsky can be right on occasion and wrong on occasion, too, and that our Foreign Minister can sometimes be wrong, and right some of the time? All the fault of any deadlock, therefore, cannot be attributed to one side or the other.

I would not be true to myself if I did not support Mr. Trygve Lie's submission by saying this. I sincerely believe that it is very much more difficult for a Government representing a democracy to be aggressive than it is for a dictatorship State to make war, because the power to do so is left in the hands of so few dictatorship country. In any event, one thing is certain; we have got to live with the Russians whether we fight them or not. At the end of the conflict, should it unfortunately come, we shall still have the Russians, the Yugoslavs, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, and the Czechs in existence. They will still be there, and the human race had better learn that simple fact.

Let me say another word about Mr. Trygve Lie's mission. The world, we are told, is divided into two categories— Communists and anti-Communists. I wonder whether hon. Members have thought of the problem in another way. I have said this before, and I think it is well worth repeating. So far as I understand, there are over 60 sovereign countries in the world, and, so far as I can gather from history, no two countries have ever been governed alike, and my view is that they never will. Consequently, the Kremlin, Washington, London and Paris had better make up their minds that the whole human race will never knuckle down to one form of Government, or one ideology in politics and economics.

I now pass to the "cold" war. It is a very strange thing how that war has brought about a depressed feeling upon mankind. It has done more than that; strangely enough, it has brought about a "wage freeze" in the trade union movement in this country. Indeed, the "cold" war can freeze very much more than wages; it can freeze the human spirit as well. Therefore, I sometimes wish that our Chancellor of the Exchequer would do one thing in particular. I have heard him delivering speeches on the Budget on more than one occasion, and I wish that when hon. Members opposite complain about restrictions, heavy taxation, lack of petrol, and all the rest of it, he would retort by saying, "If you want all those amenities, and free this and that, then you must not spend so much of the nation's substance on war."

I imagine that if Britain could have avoided the two last great wars, surtax, instead of being 19s. 6d. in the £, might easily be only 6d. My complaint is that a few people at the top of society are able always to arrange all these military commitments and throw millions into war against each other, sometimes against their will. I have been a trade union official, I suppose, for longer than most here, and it may appear strange for me to say that I certainly do not like the clamour for more and still more production. It seems to me that every time we produce anything in larger quantities, the military machine has a nasty habit of swallowing it up. Nearly every invention designed to assist mankind is ultimately employed by the military caste, and, in the end, turned to war purposes. The blessings of peace ought, therefore, to be shouted from the house-tops. If we could have avoided the last two wars, every family, I suppose, could have been properly housed and probably could live rent free. If real peace came, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and clinics would blossom forth, and every young man and woman in the land would be able to have free education and their keep, right up to and through the university.

I wish to make one point absolutely clear in my propaganda for peace. I know I am called a pacifist, but that does-not matter in the least. In a hundred years or less, the world will hardly know that any of us here today will have lived at all. The job I want to do in passing through this life is to say what I think, and to mean what I say. There are some people, even in this country, who talk otherwise of peace. They want peace, but they want it on the Russian plan. There are others who would like peace, but who want the deadlock resolved on an American basis. Others, again, of course, want a British peace. For my part, I do not want a Russian, a British, or an American peace; I want a peace that will please the common folk throughout all lands, who have no desire to kill each other, and who only want to follow their occupations without terror or hindrance, or any of the restrictions imposed upon them by governments in their respective countries.

Communism, which is so much detested by the Western Powers, is not the real issue. It is the behaviour of Communists that creates the problem. I always draw a distinction between the "isms" and the "ists" who practise them. Conservatism, Liberalism, syndicalism, Socialism, anarchism, and Communism might be all right were it not for the people who interpret them. By the way, I do not like the interpretation of Socialism by some of my own colleagues. Why should I not say that? I have said it elsewhere. And I am sure that there are some Conservatives who do not agree with their own Leader's interpretation of Toryism, and that is saying much Communism emerged from war; it was the child of massacre. If the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey does not mind my saying so, I am not so sure even now that civil wars arise exclusively from poverty and lack of food. The civil war in Russia was more of a protest against the tyranny of the Tsar than it was a war about food.

I never said that poverty is solely the cause of the spread of Communism. I merely appealed for help for suffering and underfed people.

I am sure the hon. and gallant Member and I are on the same footing when I say that he will agree with me that food may prevent the spread of "isms" but that force, by way of dynamite and bombs, will never prevent the spread of any ideology. It will not be Communism that will come out of another war, should it unhappily occur. Out of that deluge may well emerge something worse, namely, anarchy. Empires will disintegrate, thrones will topple, trade unionism may disappear in its wake, and starvation will stalk over every land. My purpose is to speak on behalf of the millions who prefer peace to war, and who hope that war as an instrument of national policy will be abandoned once for all.

I am sure that practically no one would disagree with the very eloquent speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I am also certain that a great deal of what was said in the previous Debate today, had the assent of everyone in this House. In the circumstances, it would almost seem as if we were pushing at an open door; and, in supporting the very eloquent plea of my hon. Friend, I may appear also to be stressing the obvious, to be so over-emphasising what all accept, as to convert it almost into a platitude.

The Motion mentioned by my hon. Friend was in general terms. I should like to see attached to that Motion not only the names of 140-odd hon. Members of my party but the names of hon. Members in other parts of the House as well. In the absence of those signatures, I am not going to assume that they are hostile to it; on the contrary, I assume that in other parts of the House the great majority, in spirit at least, endorse the excellent intention of my hon. Friend to give support to the efforts of Mr. Trygve Lie.

It is true that we all appreciate how widespread is the apprehension of an- other war, in spite of past wars that have devastated our earth. It is equally true that no one wants war, with very few exceptions. I say "with very few exceptions" deliberately because I think there are some pathological specimens, by no means confined to one country or to one class, who look upon war as not merely an opportunity for periodic blood letting, but as a stimulus to their virility or as an inevitable necessity in human evolution. They look back and see that countries and Empires have waged wars through countless ages, and they believe that on occasion wars have been used for good purposes. Their deduction from that—which I think is false—is that inevitably there must be a struggle between old ideas and new, between progress and reaction, and therefore war is less evil than, shall we say, the acceptance of human degradation.

Apart, however, from that very small minority who believe that war, if not desirable, must be acceptable, I think we all agree on both sides of the House—and I go further by saying the great majority of human beings in America and in Russia, certainly in the vast lands of China and in the stricken lands of Europe would agree—that the ordinary man does not want war and yet is now living in dread of its coming to pass. It would seem as if we are now doomed indefinitely to living in a state of tension, as if we had reached an equilibrium in which both assumed sides in this hypothetical conflict, are so frightened by the dreadful consequences that, whilst they might not plunge into war, they remain for an indefinite period in a position of armed preparation for a conflict.

In spite of what my hon. Friend said—and I agree with all that he did say—I do not think he expressed one other great difficulty as fully as is necessary. One great difficulty at present is undoubtedly what I would call the cement wall of Soviet ideology. This, in another sense, has occurred before in the history of the world. We know that from time to time in our Western world there have been occasions when men in power, with great multitudes of supporters, have been absolutely convinced that they had the truth. Because of their earnest and conscientious conviction, they have felt it obligatory upon them to try to eradicate all heresies or deviations. The Catholics and the Protestants have engaged in this cruel fallacy with great earnestness and sincerity.

Today our friends—and I call them deliberately our friends—our human friends in Soviet Russia have fallen into that same old fallacy. That being so, I can well appreciate some of my friends saying, "It is all very well to support the excellent intentions of Mr. Trygve Lie and to denounce war and warmongering. But," they are entitled to say, "what do you propose should be done. What, in the given circumstances, can you suggest that has not been earnestly considered by our own statesmen and others in this country?" They are entitled to ask any of us who are supporting my hon. Friend whether we have anything more to offer than merely echoing what they support, which is dread of another war.

However, I should like to stress once again that it is no good assuming that the great mass of Russian people, or, for that matter, the great majority of Russian leaders, are not utterly sincere. It is well for us to appreciate that to the full. They are absolutely as sincere as were the Catholics and Protestants in bygone days who harried, persecuted and, on occasion, destroyed their opponents. They really believe they have begun an earthly paradise and that they have established the foundation of proletarian emancipation. I think they are wrong, but we have to appreciate the depth of conviction that resides not merely in the Communists of Russia but in their prototypes in this country. It does not follow that they are right. I suppose the devil himself is sincere in trying to get people into hell. Without appreciation of that sincerity, we apply a self-righteous and superficial judgment.

Only last night, turning to Bernard Shaw, I came across again that very famous passage of Don Juan's in "Man and Superman":

"That is why battles are so useless. But men never really overcome fear until they imagine they are fighting to further a universal purpose—fighting for an idea, as they call it …"

The same character goes on:

"It is not death that matters but the fear of death. It is not killing and dying that degrades us, but base living and accepting the wages and profits of degradation."

Whether we entirely endorse the characteristic utterance of Bernard Shaw through Don Juan in the latter part of my quotation or not, certainly we would endorse all he says through his character in the first part of the quotation.

That is why I am glad emphasis was laid this morning on the fact that the causes of war lie not simply in economic distress and deprivation. I entirely agree. These causes constitute a very powerful factor and a very ancient one. In the old days when one tribe found its subsistence rapidly dwindling and went from its own area to another area and found a tribe living there in plenty, that was often in itself a provocation to primitive strife. Similar factors obtain today, but they are not the only factors. There are many others precisely because man's mind today ranges far wider than the mind of primitive man.

This conflict over an idea is the preeminent problem, of present-day life. Here, for instance, are our Russian fellow human beings. Without doubt, in many respects they have remarkable achievements to their credit. The mass of the Russian people, so far as I can tell, have been given a sense of belonging to their country. They are no longer the same kind of degraded oafs that they were in Tsarist days. They have eliminated such evil things as racial antagonism, feminine subordination and the ill-treatment of the child.

Let us gladly and with grace give all credit to the Russians for their remarkable achievements in many directions. They also say that they have the one idea by which in the end the whole of the human race can be released from its poverty, destitution, ignorance and superstition. They believe it. We believe in a contrary idea. The Americans, too, in their own way believe in an idea which is very different from the Soviet idea. The American technocrats believe that by the development of the machine and of the mind of man applied to the problem of production as they have developed it in America, they are in sight of the possibility of permanently solving one kind of problem that has beset mankind for so long. Because, therefore, we have an idea in our own democratic Britain and they have an idea in their own form of democracy in America, and the Russians have another idea, that of Soviet Communism, we have this dreadful prospect of implacable hostility existing between these three and other Powers.

In the end, no doubt, it will develop into a pure antithesis between two parts of the world, and a mighty conflagration that might very well be the prelude to the end of the human race on this earth. It is not altogether impossible. Just as Babylon, Rome, Carthage, Greece and Egypt have passed away, having reached great heights of culture and civilisation, in this more closely integrated and contiguous world it is possible, both for reasons of external violent impact as well as for reasons of internal disintegration, for the whole human race to pass away, and for this little planet—this one speck on the great strand of planets—to be the mausoleum of man's hopes and aspirations.

I quite agree that in these circumstances it is quite possible for those with certain ideas to believe that they can advance those ideas so long as the other side is weak. For that reason I understand the argument that whilst we must explore the possibility of international peace and agreement, at the same time we must also build up our arms in this country. But I would point out that that is said by others as well.

Almost my final word is this. Although the appeal to strength has a certain validity within it, it has also a deception. Hitler had vast strength and he came to nothing. If we all believe in vast violent strength, it will only end in a consummation of destruction. I hope that both Mr. Trygve Lie and our own statesmen will issue a great moral challenge to the world. When I heard of the Schuman plan a few days ago, I felt that here was an imaginative challenge. It is fraught with difficulty and danger, but it is the beginning of the possibility of one way out. I want to go further and suggest that our statesmen and Mr. Trygve Lie will be able to penetrate through this cement wall and arouse from their deception many of those who today are obstructing the pathway of peace, if they can issue to the world not merely a platitudinous plea for peace between the nations but offer some constructive suggestions by which the energy of the nations can be absorbed into a common co-operative effort to meet our common need.

Why cannot we do more than we have done to adopt Lord Boyd Orr's food plan? Why cannot we propose the neutralisation not merely of Germany but of Africa and Asia also? Why cannot we say to America with her vast resources, "Give these great resources which you possess, in forms of capital investment, without strings, to the backward areas of the world so that they can develop economically and so remove one cause of envy, misery and, therefore, possible war"?

Much else one could say, but time is brief and others wish to speak I endorse entirely the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton. I hope all other hon. Members will do so as well. I trust that we shall all be prepared to make great sacrifices so that in the end our democratic idea, by its moral strength and example, shall triumph over dismal fear and wrong.

I should like to add my voice in support of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), on this extremely important matter. We are asked today to accept and express our appreciation of the action taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in approaching the people whom most of us feel constitute the stumbling block to world progress towards international peace. Therefore, this is a very important question. The situation is bound up very closely with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks).

The origin of the question of the distribution of food was the action taken by President Roosevelt when he called the Hot Springs Conference. The outstanding suggestion that was made there was that the whole of the information with regard to the production of food should be made public in a particular spot, as it were, and that the whole of the demand for food should also go to that same spot, so that the equalising of the production and distribution of food would be a very positive action in which all nations would necessarily have to take a part. That obviously would lead towards the establishment of peace, because the production effort would be directed towards the satisfaction of the needs of the whole world. The population of the world is very scattered, but that suggestion would bring together those people who are prepared to produce and those who need the food.

It is logical that we should now be debating a Motion calling for support of certain action taken in order that the peoples of the world may get together. If we do not get together, the fear held by many people who oppose scientific research is that there will be a war more devastating than anything known before. I was interested in the suggestion that scientific research is always directed toward destruction. That is not so. It is done in order to satisfy the person who is inquiring what will be the outcome of the next discovery. It is satisfaction of the human spirit which is at the basis of scientific research. The pity is that, unfortunately, war pays handsome profits. That is why the situation that we face today is so extremely important. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] War pays handsome profits to the people who produce the equipment used for war purposes.

We are trying to face the position of relinquishing some of the power, some of the opportunity, and even some of the domination that we have had in the world. This is most important. If the peoples of the world are to come together, we must sometimes say that we have made mistakes and that we are prepared to share the world with others. That is one of the problems and difficulties which must be overcome to establish peace. People must be big enough to say that they have made mistakes. When we are big enough to do that—and there have been peoples in the past who have been prepared to do it, and that is the reason for progress—it will be possible to come to a permanent agreement, accepting the fact that everybody has the same right to live.

I hope that the action taken by Mr. Trygve Lie, and the steps taken in other ways by the United Nations to get the different parts of the world together to understand each other, will succeed. I hope that the result will be greater cooperation. We can all appreciate the developments which take place in times of peace. There have been amazing achievements in scientific research and development. We must make every possible effort to avoid another cataclysm which would be much worse than anything experienced in the last war. It is something which might wipe out whole parts of the world physically and mentally, and in every other way. I hope that we shall endorse the step taken by my hon. Friend and say that we are glad to have efforts made to safeguard the people of the world, and that peace can be established through understanding and appreciation of our responsibility as an old and very great nation.

I think that the House has long appreciated the deep sincerity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)——

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the leave of the House to speak again. He has already spoken once on the same Question.

I apologise: I must ask the leave of the House. I am afraid that I regarded this is a separate Debate. I had not appreciated that it was the same one. I am sure that the House has long appreciated the sincerity with which my hon. Friend speaks in the cause of peace. Sometimes his views on the way in which peace can best be secured are not always widely shared by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House; but today I must say that the tone which inspired his speech would be acceptable to almost everybody here.

I was glad to find that he was not concerned to throw stones at anyone in particular and that he proved clearly that this is a world problem involving cooperation on all sides and not just unilateral action by us or by any other Power. I agree with him in many of the remarks he made. We must all share his anxiety at the tension which has undoubtedly been mounting in the last two or three years. We must all share his disappointment at the difficulties into which the United Nations has got and at the failure to achieve co-operation on a world scale.

We have appreciated very fully since the end of the war that world peace can be assured in future only by international co-operation which, to be fully successful, must be on a worldwide scale. That was, of course, the doctrine of San Francisco. But since about 1947 I suppose one might say that we have been compelled, with considerable reluctance, not to give up that idea of universality, but to adopt other measures which are less than universal because of the small progress that we may have been able to make upon the world scale.

Therefore, in the last two or three years we have been concentrating upon working with our friends, with those who are prepared to work with us. We hope that the circle of those who are prepared to work with us may be enlarged again. We are always ready to receive anybody who will work with us in co-operation. But we have to take things as they are. That is, in outline, the origin of such bodies as the Atlantic Pact organisation to which my hon. Friend referred. It is precisely because we were unable to achieve immediately universality that bodies like the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation, the Brussels Pact and the Atlantic Pact have been entered into.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend, because of his general views, feels very grave doubt whether any organisation which is largely directed to military defence—largely but not exclusively—can really have a pacific intention and really make a contribution to peace. He said at one stage in his speech that it was no use telling him that it was all for defence. We are well aware of the sort of dangers he has in mind. All of us have seen arms races in the past. We know the dangers which are involved and we know the larger danger, to which he referred, of growing military costs and the competition into which that inevitably gets with the standard of living of the people.

I ask him whether it is not correct that, historically, wars have just as often been caused because there was a preponderance of military strength on one side, and that side not the more pacific. Wars have just as often been caused by that as by the fact that two sides were frantically arming one against the other. My hon. Friend referred to 1939 and said—I think I have got his words right—"We could not send a single soldier to Poland." I think that has its moral. I think it is the case that circumstances arise in history from time to time when those whose pur- poses are genuinely pacific must be prepared to face the reality that there is a danger.

In that connection, I ask him to recall what it was that gave rise to the Brussels Pact and the Atlantic Pact. It was anxiety. It was not an aggressive spirit. It was fear of aggression from elsewhere. I believe that that fear was probably best expressed, certainly within my experience, on behalf of the nations of Western Europe by Mr. Spaak some two or three years ago in the United Nations, when he explained in the General Assembly the fear that was felt by nations like the one he represented. Nobody can seriously suggest that Belgium, for which Mr. Spaak was speaking, could be numbered among the nations which had any intention of starting, or any interest whatever in starting, another conflagration.

I hope my hon. Friend does not mind if I put this question to him. Suppose, as is not impossible, Russia makes aggression against Yugoslavia; would the Atlantic Powers take action in favour of Communist Yugoslavia against Communist Soviet Russia?

My hon. Friend has asked a somewhat leading and very hypothetical question. I think he will forgive me if I do not answer, but he may be answered in an indirect way by what I was about to say. If he looks at the most recent pronouncements of the Atlantic Council and in particular at the final communiqué, he will see that alongside the determination to provide the necessary defensive measures for the Atlantic area, there is a very solid requirement of loyalty to the United Nations Charter. It is, after all, enshrined in the Charter that collective defence and individual self-defence are both legitimate, and I think that it is within those principles that he will find the answer to the sort of question which he has put to me.

My hon. Friend has also referred to the visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Lie, to various capitals. There is not much I wish to say about that. As is well known, Mr. Lie has had a free exchange of views with statesmen wherever he has gone. His talks have been confidential, and we respect his confidence. My hon. Friend said that he had an impression that there was a certain suspicion in some quarters, I think he said in the United States, about Mr. Lie's visit. I cannot speak for the United States, but I can assure the House that there is no suspicion here. We recognise Mr. Lie's position as a very important international figure. He has a duty, as well as an opportunity perhaps, to resolve the difficulties which have been frustrating the United Nations and to find some basis of agreement. His position qualifies him better to accomplish that sort of task than perhaps any other single individual in the world. Therefore, we wish him well and welcome his efforts in that regard.

We have always maintained that the United Nations is the place in which the great problems arising between the nations of the world can best be discussed, including the problem of atomic energy, to which reference has been made. It is, after all, not we who have boycotted so many organs of the United Nations. It is not we who have sought to break off talks and negotiations there. It has been—I hesitate to call them the other side—principally the Soviet Union. If Mr. Lie's visit can in any way contribute to persuading them that their duty is to come back into those organs of the United Nations—and that seems to me the very least indication which they can give if their intention is what so many of their supporters claim it is—then we hope we can get on with the job.

I rise to divert the attention of the House from the important and the difficult problems which it has been considering for the past hour to the question of our interests in Latin-America. I suppose that when any hon. Member rises to address this House for the first time he must hope to speak upon a subject which he feels to be of real importance to those whom he represents. Few subjects could have a closer bearing upon the standard of life of the people of this country than that of our interests in Latin-America. After all, the Latin-American Continent is one of the great producers of food and raw materials and also one of the great markets open to us. I should like to remind the House that it is one of the few areas in the world today which has both great natural potential wealth and also a small population, and which, at the same time, is cut off from us by no political curtain of any kind.

It therefore seems fairly certain that as we face the problem of providing food and raw materials for the expanding human family during the latter half of the century, we shall have to look very largely to Latin-America. It is true that the days when great corporations could exercise almost extra-territorial rights in Latin-America are long since gone by. On the other hand, we now have a market for our manufactured goods which is about four times the size it was before the war. It is also true that the Latin-American peoples are now, rightly, very jealous of the interests of their own nationals. But it is also the fact that never before have they stood in such need of our technical skill.

I submit that the twin pillars of our policy towards Latin-America should accordingly be, first, to endeavour to fortify the position of those Republics as members of the free community of nations, and, second, to increase our trade and commerce with them. I believe that the Minister, with whom I have had some discussions about these matters, feels that some of the questions which I shall raise today ought to be addressed to other Departments, but the point of what I wish to say at the outset is that we have operating in Latin-America five or six Departments of State, and it is, after all, the function of the Foreign Office to coordinate and bring together their various activities and make sure that they amount to a foreign policy.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one instance of what I think is a failure to do this. The Minister will be aware that the Ministry of Food have recently been chartering Soviet vessels to trade for us in the Caribbean. I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of those transactions now, but I would suggest that the Caribbean is one of the politically explosive corners of the world today and that if we are to charter Soviet vessels to go there, political consequences must flow, one way or the other, from that action.

The point I wish to make to the Minister is that the Ministry of Food, when questioned in the House about matters of this kind, say that they should be guided by purely commercial considerations. In other words, they do not contemplate the political consequences of what they do. Is the Minister satisfied that his Department really has adequate control and influence over the actions of other Government Departments in the Latin-American area? Is his Department properly consulted, and is its advice regularly followed? I think it is most important that the Foreign Office should be consulted and its advice followed when other Government Departments, not necessarily the Ministry of Food, but others as well, contemplate action in such an important trading area as Latin-America.

If, on the home front, we could draw together the activities of different Government Departments, I submit to the Minister that in Latin-America itself our policy could perhaps be more effectively interpreted. I do not wish for a moment to criticise our representation there. On the contrary, I think that we are extremely ably represented at present. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is machinery for regular consultation between heads of mission in that area, and, if so, whether there is any effective link between them and political direction of our foreign affairs? I suggest that there should be a biennial conference of our heads of mission in Latin-America, preferably held on British soil, such as Trinidad or Jamaica, and that that conference should sit under the chairmanship of a Minister from this House.

I believe that such regular consultation would result in a much more vigorous and comprehensive approach to Latin-American matters, and would help to keep this House in touch with them. I warn the Minister that in this respect he will probably meet with the opposition of one or two heads of mission who would prefer to stay at home; as they will be the heads of mission who would particularly benefit by this type of conference, I recommend him to make it a three-line Whip. As I have served in His Majesty's Embassies and Legations under 15 heads of mission, I speak with a little experience in this matter.

I now turn to the balance of our diplomatic effort in the area. I do not know if the House is aware of the figures recently published about our foreign investments in Latin-America. I should like to point out what the estimates of them are. Our biggest investment of £170 million is in Brazil; our next biggest investment is £140 million in Mexico; a bad third is the Argentine, with £69 million; and then Chile, with £45 million.

I do not want to build too much on those figures, because I am quite sure that there are various interpretations which can be put upon them and many other factors to be taken into account. What I would like to ask the Minister is whether he and his Department do not think that the time has come for us to lay considerably more emphasis on our relations with Mexico. If I might say so without offence to any of my friends who have been First Secretary in Mexico, the Embassy there has really been staffed by a man and a boy for a very long time, and I would suggest that a greater concentration of the expense, and indeed of the manpower, which we have at our disposal in Mexico would pay us good dividends.

In that connection, I should like to welcome the announcement which the Minister made some time ago, that there are to be treaty negotiations with Mexico this summer. We ought to have had a trade treaty with Mexico long ago, and I urge the Minister to try to bring these negotiations to a conclusion as quickly as possible, because unless we proceed with the utmost despatch our foreign competitors will beat us to the trade.

There is one other way in which I think we ought to readjust our diplomatic effort in Latin-America. This is rather a difficult matter perhaps to mention in a maiden speech because it is controversial, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will say something about it. It is simply this: that I feel that our diplomatic effort at the present time, instead of being concentrated upon measures designed to facilitate our trade, is being dissipated in the Government's food purchasing negotiations. I know that that is a controversial matter, so I will do no more than express that view.

I now pass to the structure of our trade treaties. I think we must all agree that, in the absence of any other arrangement, and in the present condition of world trade, bilateral trade treaties are better than nothing at all; but the tangle of bilateral treaties which now unites the countries of Europe with those of Latin-America is really on the point of breakdown—a number of treaties have broken down altogether, and many others are extremely disappointing. The Minister may be aware that European countries such as France and Sweden are experimenting with triangular trade with Latin-America, using Western Germany as the third party, and I should like to ask him, particularly in view of the fact that the United States are becoming very restive at our bilateral trading propensities, whether the possibility of our reestablishing some of the great triangular trades of pre-war days is being examined.

In that connection, I think that we ought to enlist the help, and indeed the advice, of the United States. The Minister may know that 12 American ambassadors to Latin-American States, who met in Havana in January, passed a declaration to the effect that it was in the interests of the United States that there should be increased trade between Europe and Latin-America. To those who served at the Washington Embassy during the Lend-Lease period, that is an extraordinary and most welcome revolution in American thinking, and I beg that we take full advantage of this helpful frame of mind in the United States towards our Latin-American trade.

I now pass to some of the obstacles which stand in the way of trade, and which I cannot but think sound diplomacy and good policy could do something more to remove. I believe that I might incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I were to refer at length to the Amendment to the Finance Bill tabled by the Chancellor. I am not quite sure on that point, but at least I may say that the indication that the Government are prepared to do something to alleviate the burden of double taxation will be very welcome to all of us on this side of the House who have the interests of our firms in Latin-America much at heart.

I would urge the Minister, while the Chancellor is in a yielding frame of mind, to go a step further and to press him to do something to postpone the payment of taxes on profits which are "frozen" in the countries of origin. I would respectfully suggest that, if he can use any persuasion with the Chancellor he should point out that now is the time when we must do everything possible to enable our commercial concerns in Latin-America to compete with foreign firms on even terms; and that they cannot do that if the cost and the risk of trading in Latin-America, which is always high, is disproportionate to the yield.

In this same range of problems I should like to ask the Minister another question, and that is whether any consideration has been given to an important model treaty which the United States have been negotiating with Uruguay. This treaty is apparently to be the prototype for nine other treaties which the United States will seek to negotiate with other countries, and it deals with the controversial and important matters of the withdrawal of earnings, expropriation and compensation. This is a very ambitious diplomatic project, and its particular merit, if it succeeds, is that it will put the treatment of these matters upon a standard footing. I would commend that attempt to the Minister, and ask whether he thinks we might not with profit study it and perhaps adopt a similar approach ourselves.

I pass now, very briefly, to another topic—our disagreements with certain Latin-American Republics on the subject of our Colonies. I cannot go into that in detail, but I want to give the Minister forewarning about Guatemala. I feel very strongly that we cannot allow the quarrel with Guatemala about British Honduras to continue indefinitely on its present basis. I am advised that it would be inappropriate to debate this matter at length at present because there are to be elections in Guatemala in the autumn. I do not myself believe that those elections will materially affect the position, but I do say that when they are over, we shall have to raise the matter from this side of the House, and I would suggest to the Minister that we cannot leave a Colony which is, as British Honduras is, subject to great economic difficulties, and which is also the recipient of very large amounts of money from the British taxpayer, indefinitely open to this threat to its sovereignty.

I come now to my last point, which relates to our resident British communities in Latin-America. The Minister of State was kind enough to write me a lengthy letter on this subject, in which I suspect that some of my friends from diplomatic missions in Latin-America may perhaps have had a hand. While appreciating the interest which he took in this matter when I raised it, I should like to say that it is not enough for us to adopt a passive attitude and to say that our resident communities are managing to survive. We ought to adopt a policy of giving them active help and encouragement. The changing pattern of trade, the blight of exchange control, domestic legislation in certain Latin-American countries and penal taxation here at home have made it almost impossible for a private person to settle in Latin-America and trade or enter into business, and very difficult for firms to send out personnel to recruit their staffs.

I would therefore ask the Minister, in this respect, to use his influence, first with the Treasury, to try to bring about a more sympathetic attitude in this matter, and, second, with the Governments in Latin-America to endeavour to help there. I am well aware that Latin-American Governments are, very rightly, jealous of the position of their own citizens. But it has been my observation that whenever our own people go to Latin-America and are prepared to respect the laws and manners of the people among whom they live, they are invariably made welcome; the local resident Englishman, or Scotsman, becomes the most respected member of the community. They are also a priceless asset to us in this country. I would make a special request to the Minister to look at this matter again to see if we can do something more to help.

If I may sum up my rather long requests, they are these: first, that the Foreign Office should exercise proper control and direction, if they can, over certain actions of other Government Departments, and make sure that they do not run contrary to our diplomatic interests; second, that there should be closer consultation between our missions in Latin-America and better contact with this House; third, that something should be done to redress the balance of our diplomatic effort so as to give more prominence to Mexico; fourth, speedy con- clusion to the negotiations and, if possible, a Mexican treaty; fifth, the concentration of our diplomatic efforts on measures intended to help trade rather than to promote Government trading; sixth, the exploration of the possibility of re-opening some of the triangular trading circuits; seventh, that we should enlist the help of the American Government in that matter; eighth, to go a little further along the road of double taxation relief; ninth, to go also along the road of relieving the burden of taxation on frozen profits; tenth, I hope that the new American system of trade treaties as embodied in the financial prototype will be studied; eleventh, I warn the Under-Secretary of State that if he is still on those benches in the autumn I shall have something to say to him about Guatemala; and, finally, I want him to take some positive action about our British resident colonies.

I apologise for detaining the House for a few minutes longer than is usual in a maiden speech. My only excuse is a conviction that we should approach the problems of Latin-America with vigour and in a constructive spirit, for by so doing we can make a real contribution to the standard of living of our people and strengthen appreciably the ties which bind the Latin-American family of nations to the remainder of the free world.

It is a very pleasant duty to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Peter Smithers) on his first speech in this House, and I do so with the greater pleasure because we both served in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve during the war. I cannot claim, as with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett), that we were torpedoed together, but we are at least a small task force, trying to draw attention to this very vital matter, which affects us not only on the political and diplomatic level, but most intimately and deeply on the commercial level. It has been to me, as I have listened to my hon. Friend, a most enlightening thing to realise what knowledge and what breadth of experience he can bring to this very difficult problem of relations between these inter-related countries, which counts so little to the ordinary man in the street in this country, and yet which ought to count for so much, because so much of his well-being and trade depends on our success in maintaining friendly relations and close commercial associations with those countries. I congratulate my hon. Friend on one of the most erudite maiden speeches that I have had the pleasure of listening to in this House.

Let us now leave the diplomatic level and come down to hard facts and talk about the commercial relations between this country and Latin-America. I am sorry that there is no one on the Government Front Bench from the Board of Trade, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who I know has already been asked a lot of questions, would be kind enough to pass one or two more which I wish to put to him about trading relations. The main point I want to make is that trade between our country and almost all central and other American countries ought to be complementary. They want to sell things to us, and we have many things to sell to them. That should be one of our most prosperous export markets for this country's manufactures.

I have some interest in this matter because my company is an exporter to many of the countries in South America. Since the war we have been making big efforts to get back into the happy trading relations we enjoyed before the war, but often we are considerably hampered by the activities of His Majesty's Government. Let us look into this for a moment. It is my view that the duty of His Majesty's Government in our trade relations with those countries should be that of the big brother—that they should be there if they are required, but I do not think they should step into the arena and start exchanging blows all round without full consultation with those on the spot. That is one of the things which has been hampering many of our trading arrangements in South America.

Let us deal with the Argentine. It is very difficult to argue that their State trading has not been encouraged, if not actually sponsored, fostered and initiated, by the fact that we have gone to them and dealt with them on the basis of State purchases of meat and other commodities. In my view it is a question of State buying leading to State selling and encouraging State selling, whereas our whole object should have been to continue those intimate and long-standing—they are almost personal—relationships which existed in those countries between the British senior traders out there and their opposite numbers in the Argentine and other countries. Much of that relationship has now been destroyed, and, therefore, our trading position has been greatly weakened. It is because of the efforts of the Government that our position has been so very weakened.

Let me turn for a moment to a question that has already been mentioned—the growth of competition from other countries in these markets. Almost anybody, in my opinion, could have done business in Latin-America in the last few years. There were numerous shortages of capital and other goods. Out there they had fairly good years and there were surpluses of meat and other goods which could be exported. The position has now changed. They have had some bad years out there, and their internal consumption is growing as their standard of living rises, that standard of living having risen as a result of their purchases of capital goods from countries such as ours. Therefore, the whole pattern of trading is beginning to change and becoming more difficult.

I would ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Board of Trade my request for an assurance that in the current Argentine negotiations, or in any other trade negotiations that may take place, the opinions of the people on the spot will receive most careful consideration before any negotiations are concluded, and that they will be taken into consultation at every stage where their specialised knowledge and contacts with the people on the other side of the table can be used. It is essential that friendly and practical relationships shall continue in the more difficult trading conditions that we have to face in the years to come in those countries.

I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage, but I would raise one other point. Again, it is not entirely within the purview of the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will pass it on to his colleagues, because it is a matter of great importance. It particularly applies to the Argentine, where a great many British firms have done what they were told to do by the British Government, that is, to push capital goods into the South American countries and thus swell our export figures. It is very nice, but those companies now cannot get any payment at all for the capital goods which have been sent out, and if we are to increase our export figures in this way, while it may look very nice on paper and pleasing to the President of the Board of Trade, it does not please the unfortunate companies, who have debts of literally millions, in the Argentine, and who have little hope of seeing those debts repaid.

Perhaps this matter falls a little more within the purview of the hon. Gentleman than may appear, and I would ask him, therefore, whether, in the conduct of future negotiations, it could be made a prime factor that the debts owing to firms in this country should receive a definite promise of settlement. I would mention one figure from the Argentine, in respect of railway locomotives and rolling stock, of £3 million owing to this country. That is a lot of money. In trade negotiations with these countries some firm attempt might be made to see that the money will be paid.

I will not ask the hon. Gentleman any more questions, except for an assurance that in all negotiations he will see that the men on the spot, the representatives and agents of British firms in places like the Argentine, Brazil, Chile, also the local British chambers of commerce and all the other businessmen, many of whom spend their working lives in those countries, shall have a chance to express their views to Government missions and to brief them with information about the local position, when negotiations are going on. Finally, firms who loyally obey the instructions of the Government and try to trade, very often at cut prices which show very little profit, should not be penalised by having their capital locked up in debts which they see very little opportunity of having repaid.

I take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Peter Smithers) on a maiden speech of the very highest quality both in matter and manner. It is very rare for a maiden speaker to be able to make in his maiden speech a real contribution of high value that could probably not be made by any other Member. That should ensure to my hon. Friend that most valuable thing that any hon. Member can acquire, a hearing from both sides of the House from those who desire to enrich their store of knowledge and hear a contribution which must help the work of the House as well as the object which hon. Members have in view.

I support very much what my hon. Friend said about trade with Latin-America. I usually speak about the other end of the world, but I do a great deal of export trade with Latin-America, and I can vouch for the accuracy of the picture which he has drawn. Latin-American countries have been the greatest cause of providing us with frustrated, unrequited, and very often just unpaid-for exports that one can find anywhere in the world. Those who follow these things factually must know, when they see trade figures, that those figures are thrown into a great deal of doubt, and that while exports may have been made, they frequently have not been paid for, or even more frequently have been paid for only after a great deal of delay, and very often we have had nothing in return.

This country did more to develop Latin-American countries than any other. For more than 50 years, enterprises such as railway and engineering projects, stemmed from the imagination and financial strength of this country. It is incumbent upon the Government that in their policy that fact should not be forgotten. Under the various systems of exchange control, which is the villain of the piece in trade with Latin-America, it too often happens that the importer into that country, possibly advised by his Government, sees in the delay that arises an opportunity to repudiate his contracts. When markets are dropping off and other goods are becoming available at lower prices, there is a temptation to get out of contracts. There is very considerable delay and difficulty about our trade with Latin-America, but an increase of such trade would very materially assist in raising the standards of living both here and there.

One of the great obstacles is the large cost of consular services provided by the consuls of those countries. Those services seem to be carried out with only the least desire to foster trade and with more desire to find some technical fault for which a fine can be imposed, than in the case of any other series of countries. I have made known to the hon. Gentleman's Department one or two instances of this kind. It would be very well if he were to circularise the various Embassies concerned, pointing out that the cost and delay imposed upon traders through the working of the consular services might well be a matter for protest.

The question of dual taxation has been touched upon. It is coming up for discussion in certain of its forms after the Recess. There is no greater irritant, and at the same time no greater means of stopping trade flowing between countries and of stopping mutual confidence and development, than dual taxation. The responsible director of any firm, thinking in terms of the risk he is taking for his shareholders, will find frequently that owing to the incidence of dual taxation he is taking a five-to-one debt on behalf of his shareholders which would be much better carried out at Epsom tomorrow than in the ordinary daily trade of a merchant. If he pays 40, 50 or 60 per cent. here, and then 30 or 40 per cent. upon the transaction in the country concerned, the residue for the shareholder, who is taking the commercial risk, is very small. Moreover, he knows that inevitably and invariably he is allowed to take 100 per cent. of the loss.

We are now entering a different era of trade in which competition is getting greater. I would like to point out that the old and well-established connection that Germany had with Latin-America is just beginning to make itself felt. In regard to the Far East, four and a half years ago I warned the House of what might happen about Japanese competition. Now, anybody who is in trade with Latin-American countries knows that German competition, missions and men, are being built up again and that the process of knitting up all the connections that were severed during the war is going on apace.

The Minister himself, during Question Time recently, appeared to me to take rather lightheartedly this question of German competition and to cry it down with the idea that until it really became critical it was not worth watching or doing anything about it. If he will examine the position in Latin-America he will find that German competition is growing. Men are going out; and so is literature, beauti- fully got up. Deliveries that Germany can give of a great many things are being supplied in competition with what little trade remains to us.

I support both of my hon. Friends very much in their main thesis. If we can get the series of curtains that have been let down against our trade in Latin-America raised, if by strong diplomatic representation and by contact with the trading community both in the countries concerned and here, it becomes known that our policy without hesitation is that we intend to protect and encourage our trading community and not let it be pushed around, one of the great missing links in our foreign trade will have been repaired and reformed. If we could get trade going in Latin-America proportionate to what it was before the war, our exports from this country would be on a very much more certain basis than they are at present.

I want briefly to raise two points in addition to those which were so eloquently put by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Peter Smithers) in his maiden speech and by other hon. Members. The first is the inconveniences to British travellers in Latin-America on account of the present visa system. There are 20 countries in Latin-America and all of them have different and sometimes quite oppressive requirements in regard to both transit visas and visas for tourists to visit the country.

I have been in South America on several occasions and I can remember being asked to supply a dozen photographs and certificates that I was not suffering from trachoma and other strange diseases, and that I had not been in gaol. It is a fairly easy thing to produce a certificate that one has been in gaol but it is more difficult to certify that one has not been. I wonder whether some reciprocal arrangements can be made between us and the different Latin-American countries in order to ease these restrictions in connection with visas.

The second point I want to make is what I might describe as the promotion of cultural relations between Great Britain and Latin-America. The British Council seems to be withdrawing gradually from Latin-America except for the Argentine Republic, Uruguay and Brazil. They have withdrawn from Paraguay and Ecuador and do not seem to be doing very much in the other parts of Latin-America, including Mexico. There is a tremendous appreciation of British culture among the Latin-American peoples, and everything ought to be done, particularly at this time, to foster and increase those cultural interests.

The hon. Member for Winchester referred to British investments in Latin-America. We still have very considerable investments there. Although our investments in the railways to the extent of about £200 million have recently been liquidated, we still have something in the region of £630 million invested in Latin-America, and that represents a very considerable interest on the part of Great Britain and British capital, and it is an interest which the Minister ought constantly to bear in mind.

I most sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Peter Smithers), who initiated the Debate, on his extremely able maiden speech. I congratulate him on having the patience and good sense to wait until he was able to raise a subject in which he is really interested and with which he is so well acquainted. The speech which he has contributed today will certainly be remembered by those of us who were present—I regret that there was not a fuller House to listen to him—and I can assure him that those who were here will do their best to see that in future a larger number of hon. Members are present when he speaks. The hon. Gentleman has raised a very large number of questions and I will endeavour to answer as many as I can. I thank him for the extreme courtesy which he displayed in informing my Department in advance of many of the questions which he was proposing to bring to the attention of the House.

His first question was whether the Foreign Office considered that it had adequate control over the activities of other Departments in connection with Latin-America. The answer is that the Foreign Office is, of course, ultimately responsible under the Cabinet for our relations with other Governments and for furthering the interests of British subjects and protecting their interests also, and that there is considerable machinery for co-ordinating the activities of other Departments with the Foreign Office. There are committees at high levels and inter-departmental committees, and we are well satisfied that our interests in Latin-America are fully and satisfactorily co-ordinated through such committees; but when it comes to the Foreign Office itself I know that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the matters are centred in His Majesty's ambassador in each capital city and that it is His Majesty's ambassador who is responsible to the Foreign Office which is finally responsible for the activities even of other Departments and other missions which have to be there. Therefore, in that respect we are satisfied that the co-ordination and responsibility is as it should be.

The hon. Member also asked me whether there was machinery for regular consultation between the missions in the different countries and whether there was a sufficient link in their political direction. Again, the Foreign Office is responsible for keeping our missions informed as regards political directives, and the ambassadors are, of course, responsible direct to the Foreign Office, and it would not be practicable, or it would be a departure from normal procedure, to delegate that responsibility as between the different missions linking together in the field.

I know that the hon. Gentleman did not entirely suggest that, but he also suggested that there might be a biennial conference between the various ambassadors, ministers and so on. He made the rather novel suggestion that Ministers from this House should go and preside over such meetings. He then suggested that there should be a three-line whip for the ambassadors. I wonder what he thinks would happen if there were three-line whips for the Ministers while they were away? I am not sure that this is not a manoeuvre to get some Ministers out of the way during the present situation in Parliament.

Taking this seriously, there are considerable difficulties in the way of having such meetings. One must not overlook the very vast distances in Latin-America, nor the necessity for our representatives abroad to come back to this country. In some ways it is more important that they should return to this country to learn what is happening here and to obtain a knowledge of political developments and policies, and so on, rather than meet out there on the spot. There are a great number of differences and different problems as between one Latin-American country and another, as the hon. Member is well aware, but we are certainly interested in the comments which he has made in this respect, and I assure him that we take them seriously and will examine them with great care.

The hon. Member for Winchester then dealt with Mexico, in which he expressed a certain interest. He wanted more emphasis placed on our relations with that country. He suggested, rather unkindly I think, that the mission there was practically confined to an office boy and another person. I have looked this up and I find that we have in our mission there an ambassador, a first secretary who is head of the chancery, a commercial counsellor who deals with the commerce in which the hon. Member is so interested, and a commercial secretary as well as other staff, including a labour attaché, which gives eight members in the reasonably high grades. Considering the size of the country and our interests there, I think that Mexico is pretty well served in the representation there of His Majesty's Government. It is true, as the hon. Member stated, that a Mexican trade mission is coming to this country. We are anxious to receive this delegation and to discuss with them the furtherance of trade with Mexico. I can assure the hon. Member we will do all in our power to make the visit of that delegation here a success.

On the matter of international trade generally with these Latin-American countries, the hon. Member suggested that we should develop triangular trade. I suggest to him that there is a large amount of it carried on at present between the Latin-American states, ourselves, and the United States of America. That is so because a certain number of these countries are what we term the "American account" countries, where sterling is convertible into dollars, and vice versa, and in those countries there is free trade and multilateral trade. Then there is another group of countries where trade is carried on which have transfer- able sterling and, in those cases, triangular trade can be developed within the transferability of sterling. So I think the hon. Member under-estimates the extent to which there is triangular and even multilateral trade in that area.

What is of great benefit to this country is the fact that we have succeeded in carrying on our trade with these Latin-American countries in sterling. Arising out of remarks made by some other hon. Members who have contributed usefully to this Debate, I suggest that the trade with those countries is on a somewhat greater scale than they indicated and that there is considerable trade between us and the Latin-American countries. I will give one or two figures to indicate this.

In the four years 1946 to 1949, we have received from the major supplying countries in this area no less than 1,786,000 tons of meat, 1,280,000 tons of animal feedingstuffs and a considerable quantity of hides, and £55 million of cotton. That represents a considerable volume of goods and money. Against that we have exported to these countries a considerable amount of capital goods and heavy equipment which, as was mentioned by one hon. Member, are in particular demand in the Latin-American countries. In the same years, to the Argentine we have exported over £86 million of such heavy goods, to Brazil over £44 million and to other countries £58 million, making something like £189 million of capital goods and heavy equipment during those four years.

So I suggest that if one takes into account all the difficulties with which we are faced in those countries: the extent to which they have sterling available for purchasing; the extent to which there is local protection inside the countries, by which I mean partly the development of their industries which is going on to a great extent; the fall in the production of certain goods such as meat and grain, and the increased internal consumption of such goods; and the industrial development of those countries—if we take into account such difficulties, we have reason to congratulate ourselves on the success with which we have continued to maintain the Latin-American market.

The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned also the model treaty which has been under consideration by the United States. In connection with Latin-America we cannot compare ourselves with the United States, as the hon. Gentleman is so well aware. For instance, the United States is today a large investor of capital whereas we are not. We have examined and are still examining this model treaty, many of the conditions of which are already covered by our agreements. We are not sure whether the Americans are convinced as yet that they can have a standard form for all countries, since there are bound to be certain differences in view of the differences in those countries. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that we will study the model treaty further with great care.

Then there is the question of taxation, raised by more than one hon. Member. One way of dealing with it is by allowing taxation in the foreign countries to be offset against payment of British Income Tax, and that is being provided for and will be debated shortly in this House. It would be out of order to refer to coming legislation. There was the other point raised about not insisting on payment of taxes where the funds are frozen overseas; that is to say, in countries such as the Argentine, where taxation is due in this country and remittance of funds is not permitted, the Treasury should not press for payment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury takes a lenient view in such cases.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Member shakes his head. Comparatively speaking, we think it does. Where there are serious cases of hardship the Treasury is lenient. Where it is a large company with considerable assets in this country, we do not see any reason why they should not use those assets in this country to offset the funds frozen overseas and which they are using for purposes of furthering investment in this country.

The hon. Member used the word "assets"; would he explain what he means by that? The assets of those companies are trading capital. They are being asked to pay out the capital they use for their trade in order to pay tax which is frozen at the other end. That is not leniency.

When I referred to assets I referred to the liquid assets or they may be the capital assets, or one thing or another. The simple point is that they have funds available with which to pay off their debts to the Treasury which have been incurred through taxation.

While we are talking about blocked accounts, will the hon. Gentleman say whether something more cannot be done to assist those companies which have large sums owing to them from South American countries and which are so difficult to recover at the moment?

I can assure the hon. Member that that is kept constantly in mind when negotiations are going on for trade agreements and otherwise with the countries concerned. Large sums are involved and it is often difficult to reach agreement on these matters. However, His Majesty's Government are well aware of the claim of British subjects in this respect.

Before I sit down, I must deal with the point about our resident communities in these Latin-American countries. I do not see what His Majesty's Government can do in this respect. It is unfortunate that there has to be exchange restriction and that we cannot give any priority of treatment to the Latin-American countries. In other words, all countries must be treated similarly as regards the remittance of funds, the export of capital, or in other respects, and we do not feel that there has been any case made out which justifies the Treasury departing from this exchange control in respect of any one or all of the Latin-American countries. It is unfortunate that exchange control must continue, but it arose from the war, for reasons well known to hon. Members.

My point is that these resident communities in Latin-America, as indeed elsewhere, are a great capital asset, in one sense of the term, to us in this country. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will bring home to the Treasury how valuable they are to us and that there is a strong argument for making it possible to recruit them. They are wasting away by death and other causes, and it is recruitment that is the difficulty.

If the resident communities are such a great asset to us, I do not see why it should be necessary to remit sums to them. An asset is generally something which pays dividends and is not in receipt of subsidies. Apart from that, the question of recruitment is not for His Majesty's Government. Quite clearly, there are ways and means whereby people going abroad on legitimate business, and to take up residence there in connection with British concerns, are given facilities for removing from this country, travelling and obtaining necessary currency and so on. If the hon. Member for Winchester, who has had communications with my Department on this, has any specific cases, we are always willing to consider them and make representations to the Treasury if we consider that that is justified.

In conclusion, I wish to express appreciation for the way in which the hon. Member for Winchester raised the matter, for the courtesy he showed in drawing attention ahead of time to the points he was raising, and once more to congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. The Government are well aware of the importance of the Latin-American market both as a provider of the world's needs, including food, and in particular as a potential supplier of increasing quantities of foodstuffs. We are well aware of the complementary nature, referred to by one hon. Member, of their market and ours, and I can assure the hon. Member that all the points raised this morning will be seriously considered by the Government.

I desire this afternoon to raise the matter of the annual review of farm prices and the economic position of agriculture generally with a view to asking the Minister of Agriculture whether it is not possible for him to publish in one form or another a greater amount of information relating to agriculture, on which those engaged in the industry and those concerned about the industry, whether as producers or as consumers, will be able to form sound opinions.

Since the passing of the 1947 Agriculture Act, the House and the Government have assumed a great deal of responsi- bility for the guidance of this industry, for what crops it shall grow, what stock it shall produce, and the prices that shall be paid. In those circumstances, this House should be entitled to a report, periodically, of the development of the industry and, among other things, the costs of production in this country, so that the information gathered for the purposes of the annual review of farm prices shall be made available—as much of it as possible—to the Members of this House and, through this House, to the whole country.

In peace-time, in a democratic country the greater the amount of information that can be made available the better it is for the country as a whole. It may be necessary that certain negotiations should be conducted behind closed doors. It may be that every item of information cannot be made available to the general public but, in a matter such as this, I am sure it would be wiser on the part of the Government to give too much rather than too little information.

This is not now a matter for the farmers and the Government. The farm workers are directly interested in the prices at which the crops they produce are sold. We cannot carry on a system of guaranteed wages to farm workers without a system of guaranteed prices. I think, therefore, that the farm workers are entitled to more information than is now available and so, also, is the country as a whole. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he can, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, either as a supplement to the Economic Survey, or, following the example of the Scottish Department of Agriculture, by producing an annual report to the House, or by a periodical White Paper, collate information—which may already have been given in answer to questions in the House, or in statements made by the Minister, in the House or at Press conferences—in such a way that ordinary reasonable people will be able to see the work of this Parliament or the previous Parliament in respect of the agricultural industry and gauge the progress that has been made and its effect.

I have noticed that the recent figures published in relation to the number of regular workers engaged in the industry show a decline. Such a trend, if continued, would lead to very serious problems. I think it absolutely essential that agriculture should be able to produce as large a share as possible of the food our country needs. That being so, I have been of opinion for some time that the Ministry should give to the House, some form of report or review, taking into consideration the economic conditions of agricuture, so that the House can form a sounder opinion.

I think this has been made absolutely essential since the speech made in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) on 16th May. I am sorry he is not here in his place today. I have had conversations with him during this week, and I took steps to try to inform him that I would refer to that speech today. Since that speech, I think it is imperative that fuller information should be given, because of the circumstances of his speech. After all, he made the speech after he had been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food during the period of the negotiations relating to this year's review of prices. That being so, he spoke from information that had obviously been obtained arising out of these negotiations. In that speech he challenged the whole principle of guaranteed prices for British farm produce and he made out his case——

No.

—to his own satisfaction——

Hear, hear.

There were hon. Members who said it was a good speech. It was obviously carefully prepared and well delivered, but I think it was based, as most people who know anything about agriculture believe, on quite false figures. Some said it was a courageous speech. I thought courage was necessary in dealing with the truth, rather-than in culling from statistics a few facts with which to bolster up a particular point of view.

The hon. Gentleman called in question the whole principle of guaranteed prices, and he criticised on several grounds the recent review of farm prices. He said that it cost the taxpayer too much, that the farmers' representatives got the better of the argument with the Government's representatives in this annual review of prices, that it led to inefficiency, and, as he described it, "feather bedding." He said that higher prices for home production led to demands for higher prices from foreign suppliers of food and feedingstuffs, and that a continuance of the system of guaranteed prices would lead to national ruin. This system he described as the Achilles heel of our national economy, and, in recent years, according to the hon. Gentleman, increasing mechanisation in agriculture has not led to lower costs and, therefore, cheaper production, but to higher profits for the producer and higher prices for the housewife.

Those are the six points which emerged in his speech, in which he condemned the system of guaranteed prices. With regard to the first point, it must be clear to everyone who knows anything about agriculture that, in recent years, we have been paying for the past neglect of this industry. There was a lot of headway to be made up before our land could be made fully productive. The hon. Gentleman has confused the subsidies paid to keep the cost of food to the British housewife well below the level of world prices with the subsidies paid to assist the development of British agriculture.

The State has had to tell the farmers, in some cases, what to grow, and, therefore, it must provide the means of enabling the farmers to produce these crops and sell them. The increased prices announced in 1947 had, as their purpose, the provision of sufficient money not only to pay for the crops, but also to enable farmers to develop their land and increase their stock so that in later years there could be a progressive development in output. Therefore, it meant that more money had to be put into the industry than was necessary for the annual turnover.

With regard to the second point, the basic costs of production are agreed in the negotiations between the representatives of the farmers and of the Ministries of Agriculture and Food. The information upon which the facts are based is supplied by departments of universities which are concerned to provide the facts relating to costs of production. It has been accepted that this year the estimated increased costs of production are divided as between the farmers, who have to bear two-thirds of the increased cost, and prices or subsidies, which have to supply one-third. This shows how the industry is now able to take up a greater share of the increased cost of producing food in this country, and it therefore indicates its greater efficiency.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury has been quite unable to distinguish between a feather bed and what is, I think, one of the foundation stones of the national prosperity. British agriculture is an essential part of our national economy, and if it is prosperous the people who are dependent on it are in a better position to buy the goods produced in the other industries of the country. Therefore, it is one of the foundation industries which are fundamental to our national well-being. The greater production of our own agriculture will not in any way assist foreign countries in negotiating prices for the food which we buy from them; on the contrary, the greater our production here the stronger our bargaining power in dealing with countries which have food to sell to us.

The British housewife, in recent years, has been getting food more cheaply than the housewives of any other nation with a similar standard of living to our own, and I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman's argument that the cost of food in this country has risen is at all acceptable; on the contrary, our prices of food in this country have been lower than the prices in other countries. Now, increasing quantities of food, as well as a greater variety, are becoming available, so that the housewife, if she so desires, can go from shop to shop or stall to stall and make her choice. That is how we want it, and how everybody would like it to be.

If we look at the principal items of our production in this country, we can, for instance, take the case of milk. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the price of surplus milk before the war as being 5d. a gallon, and he said that it could be produced today at 9½d. a gallon. When milk was cheap, there was poverty, and many people could not have even cheap milk. Today, nearly twice the amount of milk is being consumed in this country as in 1938, which is the year the hon. Gentleman quoted. As for it being produced today at 9½d. per gallon, that is an utterly ridiculous price. It is far better that the producer should be paid a fair price and that we should have these national arrangements to encourage and enable people to consume more milk than ever before.

Next, the hon. Gentleman mentioned potatoes and also spoke of wheat. Nearly the whole of the time since the end of the war—and it is certainly true at present—the British farmer has been paid a lower price for wheat than that which has ruled in the market in the United States, the very home of mechanised agriculture.

Therefore, it cannot be argued that the Government are paying a higher price for wheat, that they are encouraging inefficiency, or that they are "feather-bedding" the agricultural industry in any way. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend from a letter with regard to potatoes were quite fantastic. Having seen the letter, I would say that it was not written by a genuine farmer. It probably came from a man, perhaps an elderly man, with a grudge against the agricultural industry. I believe that my hon. Friend left out two sentences of the letter. Of course, I can only repeat them from memory, but they said something like this:

"We farmers do not care anything about the country, but only about what we can get out of it."

Had my hon. Friend read that portion of the letter, he could not possibly have ended his speech as he did "Who dies if England lives, and who lives if England dies?" That letter was not typical of the farming community, nor of the spirit of that community. Therefore, I do not think it can be accepted as in any way a genuine contribution regarding the cost of production of potatoes, or, for that matter, of any other product.

To avoid misunderstanding, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us in what way the Ministry can make more information available to the House and the country so that reasonable people may not be misled by gross misrepresentations of the position with regard to agriculture. The National Farmers' Union, who are parties to the negotiations, must, of course, make some kind of a report to their members, and, in fact, have done so. I think that we in this House are entitled to expect a report on the annual review of farm prices which goes further than just giving the prices arrived at. I hope it will not be argued that it would be impossible for the Ministry of Agriculture to draw up for the guidance of the House a report on the economic conditions of the industry which will enable us to give adequate consideration to every aspect of agriculture. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able to indicate to the House this afternoon what steps can be taken to avoid further misunderstanding about the annual review of prices.

I have listened with interest to the views put forward by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). I will deal only with the fresh point raised in his speech. Regarding his request for an annual report on the agricultural price review, I think that, in principle, we are entirely with him. It is obviously desirable, both from the producers' point of view and from that of the consumers, that the fullest information should be given so that, as far as possible, everyone may know what has happened. The producers would then be satisfied that they are getting a fair return, and the consumers that they were getting good value.

But when we consider how that is to be done, we realise that there are tremendous difficulties. This price review system has grown up over the course of the last 10 years. Like Topsy, it just grew. It started with the control of prices in 1940 in order to prevent prices from rising in a time of scarcity, and then there was some sort of review from time to time—sometimes not yearly—until 1944. In 1944 my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) announced that a system had been devised for carrying out this annual price review, and it began in 1945. Since then the system has been gradually evolving, but all through those years the main concern was, of course, to see that although farmers received an adequate price, it was not excessive. The public are naturally very interested now to see that prices do not go too high, in fact, some hon. Members opposite think they ought to be reduced.

I mention these historical facts because I wish to draw attention to the main feature of this review. It has grown up quite empirically and has served its purpose admirably, though it is not exact enough to be called a science. The commodity prices, of course, come out of it and are fixed, and everyone knows what they are. The livestock prices are fixed for the current year from 1st April and the cereal prices run from the harvest in the following year so that the farmer may know what to plant that year in order to harvest it the next. Minimum prices for livestock and livestock products are fixed four years ahead in order to give stability to the industry, but there is no exact system for costing each commodity. In fact, the global total for the profitability of the industry has first to be worked out; it is really the foundation stone of the whole system. It is worked out by a very complicated, intricate method which it would be quite impossible to publish. Indeed, many of the people in touch with the system really do not understand it all. It requires economists to work out this very complicated method.

The broad approach is to take the picture of the national farms. There are so many million acres of grain in the country, so many livestock, so much milk and eggs, and so on. A picture is then built up of the profit and loss account of the farming industry for the whole nation. That is done by using figures available to the Government, many of them from confidential or semi-confidential sources which possibly could not be published. Then—and this is a very important point—they have to estimate what will be the application of those figures in the coming year. On the income side, they have to estimate what is going to happen to this harvest. They know the acreage, but they do not know what the weather will be, and therefore their figures can only be estimates; that is all they can be for the coming year. They have the guidance of what has actually happened in past years, but the figures for the coming year upon which they are going to negotiate can only be estimates.

There is then a system of checking these figures against the farm surveys. On the Government side, they have figures that come from the universities, their circles of farms, and on the farming side figures that come from the N.F.U. farm survey of about 5,000 farms. They then proceed to raise this sample to the national size which, again, is quite a complicated thing to do, in order to check that result against the picture they have from the Department's net income calculation. In practice, surprisingly, that comes out remarkably well and provides a very good check. That is how the global total is fixed. Obviously, it is quite complicated and it takes economists on both sides about three weeks to do it.

When they have reached that stage, the negotiations themselves start. Figures are brought in for the increased cost of producing the product of the industry and, on the other hand, what increased profitability may be expected. The Government can then declare what their target figures are in acreage, livestock and so on for the year, and on which product to put emphasis in order to encourage the production of that particular product. Negotiations then commence as to the extent to which the industry is to be recouped for extra cost by way of wages, feedingstuffs, transport and so on, and to what extent the industry has increased its profitability.

I have indicated, in broad outline, how the total global figure is arrived at and then broken down to its various commodities. Additions and substractions are then made on commodity prices to give the emphasis desired in the national interest. It is clear that what this system of fixing prices does very well is to determine the trends of profitability. If we look back over past years, we will see that it has served its purpose extremely well. But to say that, in any particular year, the figures used are absolutely accurate for what is going to happen in any year is quite wrong. No system in the world can do that. It will be seen, therefore, how easy it would be to give a totally wrong impression. I am not going into any more detail because it would only confuse the matter further. However, I think I have made it plain how difficult it is going to be to give a really adequate picture of the negotiations in a particular year.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply is going to find some way of publishing something which will show the public what has happened. It seems to me possible to give pictures of the past years accurately, and that would be a great reassurance to the public of what is actually happening. But even there, there are many pitfalls, because if critics who are not disposed to be fair-minded tear some particular piece of information out of its proper context, they may give a totally false impression.

For instance, the total profit of the industry last year was £283 million on a gross output of something like £850 million. It would be easy to say that that shows a very high profit margin. In fact, of course, it is not the whole story. The rest of the story is that there is a very large volume of inter-farm sales and the real output in the industry, including inter-farm sales, would be at least 50 per cent. higher than £850 million. Therefore, though this figure remains the same, the profit margin would not be very much more than half the percentage margin that £283 million gives on £850 million.

I give that as just one example of the many snags that there would be in putting out the story of these negotiations. It would serve neither the farming interest nor the consumer interest if publication of this kind gives a false impression. We all hope, on this side of the House, that it will be possible to publish some kind of picture which will give the public in general, and this House in particular, a clear idea of just what happens.

The farming community has a good story to tell. They are anxious to serve the national interest in producing what the nation wants, and at a reasonable figure. But it is really going to be impossible to give the actual cost for any particular commodity at any particular time. Take, for instance, wheat. It is most essential in the public interest to increase the acreage of wheat. Therefore, a price incentive is put on it of £5 a ton in order to extend the acreage and get wheat grown on land otherwise not productive to grow it without making a loss. Quite obviously, on marginal land the profit margin would be small, but on good wheat land it would be big, and it would be quite easy to find an instance where a big profit was made. In looking at any particular commodity one must have proper regard to volume as well as price.

It is clear that it is going to be very difficult for the experts who provide this report to make it sufficiently comprehensive to cover the whole picture and make it still comprehensible to the people who wish to understand it. I am not going to take up any more time, because the Minister wishes to answer; but we hope it will be possible to give that information, because we feel this price review is the foundation stone of the agricultural industry. We feel that it really is serving a useful purpose and is bound to be looked at more and more closely in the coming years if and when prices in world markets fall. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the public should have full confidence in it. We hope that the Minister will find a way of publishing something which will give a balanced picture, which is fair to the producing interest and the consumer interest and maintains and develops confidence in the system.

I feel at this moment rather like Burke, I believe it was, who was once on the hustings and had to follow a fellow candidate. When his time came to speak I understand that he addressed his constituents, "Ladies and gentlemen, ditto," and sat down. What he had the courage to do, I, probably, have not the courage to do, but, nevertheless, I feel rather as he must have felt at that moment. There is, of course, not very much between us in the speeches that have been made. Nevertheless, it might be useful if I took occasion to put on the record, as it were, some considerations that enter into the price review and comment upon the suggestions that have been made.

I do not propose to spend any time dealing with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), whom my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) quoted at some length. There have been hon. Members of this House who have given 10 or a dozen figures in the course of a speech and who have distinguished themselves by getting nine wrong. The distinction that the hon. Member for Wednesbury will carry into history is that he managed to get the whole 10 or dozen wrong; and it will be a long time before anyone catches up with him in that record.

I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, that if all the available information were put into one large tome we should then be sure that when the hon. Member for Wednesbury made a speech he would get at least one figure right. Once, when I discussed with an hon. Member why he had not obtained the facts from me before speaking, he said, "Facts have an awkward way of interfering with speeches." I had a feeling, when I listened to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, that that was what he felt, and that he would have taken great care to avoid reading any tomes that would have brought out any facts which interfered with his speech. I do not think we in the farming industry can ever expect to be wholly free of people who still cling to memories of the Manchester School. This is a very old business, and I do not think that we should want to be wholly free from it, so long as we can put up a case in defence of ourselves when the attack comes. It is probably just as well that it should be stated or even overstated from time to time, and then we can put ourselves right.

All the figures which were quoted today have been answered specifically by my right hon. Friend and by others concerned with the industry, and I think very little purpose would be gained by going over them again. I agree with the hon. Members for Norfolk, South-West and Guildford (Mr. Nugent) that at a time when all taxpayers are probably accepting a greater measure of responsibility for this great industry it is very necessary that they should understand the basis on which their responsibilities are worked out and the reasons for them, and that they should feel satisfied, from the knowledge available to them, that they are not being asked to do something which is wrong.

I do not think that there is any lack of available material. The present Minister of Agriculture and others who have from time to time been associated with him have made speech after speech in this House. We have had many Debates, and speeches have been made in the country, in which all the arguments both for the system and for the various component figures which are taken into account in the price review have been deployed and repeated. I think the information is there. It has been said that the Government would be wiser to give too much information rather than too little. I want, if I can, to dispose of any suggestion that we weigh it out and see on which side of the narrow dividing line we ought to take our stand.

Much of this defence of the price review system and of the prices which are then fixed consists of arguments and not figures at all. It is a matter of policy, and if one accepts a policy one is led on to accept certain figures. All that can be given which is of value, and which, it must be understood will not produce great tomes which nobody will read, has at one stage or another been given.

I should like to say a word about the way in which the price review is conducted. Here is a perfect example of how much information can be available and yet not known even by hon. Members to whom it is made available. In the first, second and third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts for the Session 1948–49, presented to this House, there is, on page 327, what I think is probably a classic statement of the way in which the price review is conducted, the way in which figures are arrived at, what they mean and so on, by the Permanent Secretary to the Department who was called before the Committee. To hon. Members who are interested, I would commend the information in that book, the examination of Sir Donald Vandepeer, the answers he gave to the Committee, and some extra information that was sent to the Committee and which appears in appendices.

The fact that the evidence was given on the Ministry of Food Vote ought to be additional evidence to my hon. Friend that no matter how much is said or printed, it would not have affected the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury. The evidence was given on the Vote of the Department with which he was for a time associated.

It would have made a great difference to the way in which the speech was received had those facts been generally known.

Well, there they were. We are asked that more information should be given. It is no use giving it unless hon. Members will read it. The information was certainly available and was printed. If it was not known, it is a commentary on the fact that we all have so much to read that it is very difficult to select the right things to read at the right time.

To what year is the hon. Gentleman referring?

1948–49.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the Committee report with which some of us are familiar, but I think he will agree that it deals much more with the machinery aspect of the matter than with the picture of the economic situation of the industry at any given time. What I personally feel—I am not entitled to speak on behalf of anybody else—is that it should be possible to devise some means not only of explaining the machinery but of giving a general background picture of the economic state of the industry as a whole, year by year.

We are very glad to learn that the hon. Member agrees with the other two hon. Members who have spoken. That is, roughly, the point that they have been making, and which I myself am trying, stage by stage and point by point, to stress. However, I thought I had a point which I should use, and I used it; it did go a bit further than the machinery aspect. There was a good deal of explanation of the meaning of the figure.

The first thing I ought to say about the conduct of the price review is that it is absolute nonsense to talk about the N.F.U. being the arbiters and fixing the price. They do nothing of the sort. The responsibility for fixing the level of farm prices is laid by the Agriculture Act on the Government, and the Government exercise that responsibility. The discussions between the interested parties proceed on a basis which I shall try to set cut in a moment, so that they are clearly available and on record for hon. Members who may wish to make speeches on this subject in the future. In the light of the discussions which take place and the figures which are available, recommendations are made to Ministers. The Ministers, exercising their own free and unfettered responsibility, as the custodians of the citizens' interests and not of any particular interest, decide how to deal with those responsibilities, whether to accept those recommendations, whether to modify them in the light of special national considerations, and so on.

As a rule, and certainly in practice up to now, when the Government announce their decisions, they set out the chief considerations that have been present in their minds and which have led them to make their decisions. For example, in the announcement of 23rd March, which dealt with the last price review, they indicated that the chief considerations were the impact of cost changes, the aggregate level of farm incomes, the agricultural production targets, the policy of restraint applied to personal incomes and the national economic position.

I list those considerations to show that the reasons for the prices being what they are were given quite clearly to the people. The argument is that the Government ought to report to the people what they are doing, and, in fact, they did so. My other reason for giving those considerations is to show that more than one thing is taken into account. It is not merely a question of drawing up a list of figures showing costs of production of this, that or the other crop, even if that could adequately be done in a country whose farming varies so enormously as ours does, as regards the holding situation, the quality of the land, and so on. It is not just that which determines the level of prices. There are other considerations, such as the production target and the level of income which is necessary to finance the expansion.

If we published a list of figures by themselves we might obscure these other more important factors which lead to a particular price level being fixed. Therefore, it seems to me to be right—although it need not always be so—that, at the moment, as a matter of practice, when the Government announce a price they do so on their own responsibility and give a general idea of the considerations which led them to their decision. Of course, those considerations will vary from price review to price review. That is another problem. The August, 1947, price review took into account a different set of circumstances. Prices were fixed with a whole lot of different considerations in mind. Although that is probably the great virtue of the system, I did not like the description of the system as something which, like Topsy, "just grew." After all, for five years we have had a Government which believes in planning, and things do not "just grow" in those circumstances.

However, it is a great virtue of the system that it is flexible enough to deal with a wide area of varying circumstances and conditions and that, over the last five years, when the industry has had to accommodate itself to very considerable varying circumstances in the national economic conditions, we have had the great chance to test this flexibility to the full. We have had to accommodate ourselves to our own internal changes in the industry, which perhaps have been greater in the past five years than in any other five year period. Certainly, the changes have been greater in the last ten years than in any other period of ten years. We have also had to accommodate ourselves to changes in the food and agricultural situation abroad, and they have been very considerable and violent.

It is almost impossible to give a standard description of a price review either in general terms or by reference to its statistical basis. The statistical basis, as well as the general considerations, may vary considerably from one review to another, according to the changes with which we are attempting to deal. The common feature of the price reviews is that there is a mixture of statistical study—drawing together as much data as we can—and negotiation between the interested parties. The function of the statistics is to ascertain the upper and lower limits within which negotiation should take place.

As I think has now been made quite clear—and I hope that it will be clear even to distinguished journals like the "Economist" and others, as well as to hon. Gentlemen in this House who occasionally favour us with speeches on this subject—the data is not prepared by one or other of the interested parties and used as a blanket to drop over the head of the other one, but is data furnished by independent and impartial agricultural economists employed by the universities. Figures are then studied and digested by the statisticians of the Agricultural Department and of the Farmers' Union, before the review begins.

We usually manage to begin the reviews in the situation in which the statisticians have agreed on their analysis and presentation. It is not ever thus. There have been occasions when the issue has had to be fought out on the Floor of the House, before we had the sort of Government which we have had for the last five years. Now, a rather better supply of material is available. We now manage to get this independently furnished and subsequently agreed statistical basis, and it is on that basis that the work is done.

I should like to mention the seven stages. We cannot pretend that this is not a somewhat complex and complicated arrangement, although there is nothing more complex, complicated or confidential about this arrangement than there is about almost any wage negotiation in which I have ever taken part. For ten years before I came to this House I used to negotiate wages. Those negotiations were complex and complicated, and nothing would have confused or frustrated me or my battalions more than to have had some widespread and un-selective publication of matters discussed in the negotiation. The same considerations apply here.

The review begins by the Government communicating to the representatives of the farmers the production targets which we hope to reach. That gives us the chance to discuss the prices to be fixed against the background and in relation to the output we hope to achieve. Thus, we can measure the degree of attraction which the prices will offer.

Secondly, consideration is given to the statistics to which I have referred—the statistics of aggregate farm incomes—and to the distribution of those incomes among sizes and types of farms. That is most important. I think that probably it is the one great point which the hon. Member for Wednesbury completely missed, and which he probably did not realise existed—the difference in the distribution of incomes between sizes and types of farms. Consideration is also given to a comparison of the income of farmers with those of others in the rural communities—sand and ballast merchants, for example—and to a comparison of the prices of like domestic and imported produce. Perhaps I ought to mention especially the examination of the figures and of the aggregate net incomes, because they give the sort of evidence which shows whether a general level of farm prices is too high or too low.

The third stage is to study all the changes, if there have been any, in regard to farm costs since the last review. When we have got this stage over, we are able to proceed to a general conclusion about the general level of farm prices, whether they need to go up or down and, roughly, by what amount they need to move either way.

The fifth stage is to take the global total which is arrived at, and to subdivide it among the various commodities by reference, first, to the individual commodity production target; second, the cost change for that commodty; and, third, profitability data for farming types in this connection. During this sub-division, the actual global total becomes more precise and definite.

The sixth stage is that, at that point, the results of the review so far are reported to the Government. The Government are then able to take, as I emphasise that they do take—and they alone do it—the final decisions in the form in which they are then published in the Press announcements. That having been done, the seventh and final stage is the preparation by the commodity interests of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Food and other parties concerned, of the detailed price schedules incorporating the grades and the seasonal differences.

If one sees it done in that way, one gets a better picture of how much has to come into review; how little the actual statistics, important as they are, finally determine the ultimate picture; how easy it would be to give a completely incorrect and misleading picture merely by publishing one set of the data that is relevant without being able to publish the other; how hopelessly inaccurate it is to suggest that the negotiators, much less one side of the negotiators, fix the ultimate price; and how right it is to emphasise as much as we can that the Government do this. The Government accept their responsibility, and justify themselves to the people by their policy on agriculture which is announced and defended at intervals in this House.

I now turn to the question, which very properly has been raised, of why we cannot bring together in one convenient form or in some convenient place, as much of this picture as we can, so that it is easier for hon. Members and others to con- sider the position without having to dive into one volume for certain information and into another for other information. I have the greatest sympathy with the aim of that exercise: there is a good deal to be said for it.

First, I would draw attention to the amount of information which is, in fact, already published. The Government's production targets, which are our first stage, are published, as we all know, at various times in various ways, in particular in the agriculture section of the Economic Survey which appears almost concurrently with the price review. Second, there are the figures for the aggregate net incomes and the total wage bill, which is another part of the figures taken into account. They are published in the Budget White Paper which, again, is published at about the same time. The comparison of the prices of home-produced food and imported food have been given on several occasions by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, and they are on record in recent issues of HANSARD.

Fourthly, the distribution of farm incomes by sizes and types, and this other and statistical evidence which is considered, is published by the universities which collect the data. We have in preparation at the Department a collected version which is used for a slightly different purpose in connection with the farm management analysis. So most of these figures are published and available. There are also the agricultural statistics booklets, particularly the output section, which are rather in arrear at the moment but which are being published, and which it is our hope to bring up to date and thereafter keep on an annual basis.

Therefore, very nearly all the information that can be made available is, in fact, available. The great danger of issuing a special price review White Paper is that of presenting in a misleading context what is often already available, since that would take on the appearance of being the whole of the reasons for the price review and would complicate and probably completely hide those other perhaps more important considerations that have to be taken into account.

In that connection the Scottish report would not do what has been claimed by my hon. Friend. It is a general report which may have a lot to be said for it, and we will consider it. My right hon. Friend hopes to consider doing something of the same sort, although that is not quite what my hon. Friend was asking for. I hope that in the light of what we now know about how this is done, and about the amount of evidence that is published, my hon. Friend may feel that his point has been met. The Minister will, however, consider, in the light of the expression of views, how much more we can properly do in this field without getting into those difficulties; whether we cannot, by an annual report or in some other form, bring out all these matters together in some convenient form. I will get into touch with hon. Gentlemen and let them know what we are able to do in that respect.

I desire to raise the question of the retired pay of officers of the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force, and particularly to stress the sense of grievance felt by those officers who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1919 and the corresponding Admiralty and Air Force instruments, and who have not been given the full benefit of those provisions.

I am very sorry to see that the Treasury is not in any way represented on the Government Front Bench and that the Under-Secretaries of the three Service Departments are apparently to reply to this Debate, which concerns all these Departments equally and in no respect differently. As those who were in the House at the time of the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947 will remember, the matter was then dealt with entirely by the Treasury and not by the Service Departments. Indeed I have some reason to think that the Under-Secretary of State for War is not unsympathetic, at all events, to our point of view, and I dare say the same applies to the representatives of the other two Services. But I greatly regret that the Treasury is taking no notice of this Debate.

I should, in the first place, in dealing with this matter, disclaim any personal interest. My retired pay was granted under a special Warrant applicable only to general officers, and I am consequently not affected by the Warrant of 1919, which deals with the retired pay of practically all officers of the three Services, who retired up to the end of the last war and before the introduction of new scales of retired pay. The new rates of retired pay prescribed by the Royal Warrant and the corresponding instruments of 1919 laid it down, in the following words:

"The rates will be subject after five years to revision either upwards or downwards according as the cost of living rises or falls. After 1st July, 1924, a further revision may take place every three years."

These words constituted, in my submission, a promise, and they were certainly taken as a promise by all the officers concerned, though I believe I am right in saying the Treasury claim the word "may" in "may take place," gives them the option of disregarding the definite sentence which precedes it, and which states:

"The rates will be subject … to revision. …"

Are we to understand that only the "gentleman in Whitehall," who is quoted with approval by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, knows what is meant by apparently plain English? At least, that is what it looks like. I suggest that this quibble is quite unworthy of a Government Department.

Now, as regards what actually happens, from 1919 to 1922 the cost of living rose but as that period was less than five years and the Warrant said "after five years," the rise was not taken into account. Thereafter the cost of living fell steadily for a number of years, and from 1924 onwards retired pay was reduced accordingly until in 1933 it had been reduced to as much as 11 per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. There was no question of any doubt or option as to the action of the Government so long as the cost of living was falling. The words "will be subject … to revision …" were taken absolutely literally and were acted upon.

In 1934, however, there was a slight rise in the cost of living figure, and further rises appeared probable. The Government then decided to, as they expressed it, "consolidate and stabilise" the rates of retired pay. In 1935, retired pay was stabilised at 9½ per cent. below the rates of 1919—that is at the end of the First World War. This was a wholly one-sided and, I suggest, not very creditable arrangement, to which the agreement of those affected was neither asked nor given.

Then, by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, Section 2, which was applicable only to officers—the cost of living having, I may say, meanwhile risen very steeply—an increase of 10 per cent. was granted on pensions not exceeding £400 a year; that is to say, these lower pensions got the whole reduction back plus ½ per cent.: no question of rising with the cost of living; they just got back what had been taken away. By the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, further increases were granted on pensions between £600 a year and £750 a year, on which an increase of 5 per cent. was given, leaving them still short by 4½ per cent. of the basic rates of 1919. On all higher pensions no increase at all was granted, and all such pensions remain to this day at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919.

What is the general position after that? The cost of living is well above that of 1919. Nominally, I think, taken in terms of pounds, it is some 13 or 14 per cent. above that of 1919. But the value of money is enormously less than it was in 1919, prices are very greatly above those of 1919, and consequently salaries, wages and even Service rates of pay and retired pay have risen, as have also some other forms of pensions, though they have not risen, in my opinion, sufficiently. Last but not least, I would mention that the hon. Members of this House have voted themselves a very substantial increase of salary, on account of the rise in the cost of living, that they never had promised in writing beforehand.

Only the lowest rates of Service pensions now get even the 1919 rates. They get no increase on account of the rise in the cost of living—not a penny—whilst in the higher pensions there is not only no increase but an actual and considerable reduction as compared with the 1919 rates; and this in spite of the provisions of the Royal Warrant and of the other Instruments which I will quote again, and which say that:

"The rates will be subject to revision either upwards or downwards according as the cost of living rises or falls."

This failure to implement the provisions of the Royal Warrant and of the other Instruments is regarded as a breach of faith by the officers affected, and I respectfully submit that it is in fact a breach of faith, and a gross breach of faith. Its effect, too, is to hit hardest those senior officers who have served the longest and have borne by far the heaviest responsibilities. And let it not be forgotten that, whatever view the Treasury may take as to its liability to make payments, it does not omit to collect every 6d. of tax and to reduce these pensions accordingly. The effect of that is that pensions of £700, or £1,000, or £1,200, or whatever they may nominally be, are, after deduction of tax, worth very much smaller amounts.

I would further submit that in these days, when regular officers of good quality are so badly wanted, it is worth while for the Government to have a good reputation as an employer. At present many old officers are discouraging their own sons and other young men from entering the Services because they say that their own experience is that they do not get just treatment and that promises made to them are not kept. It is a very bad thing when the Services begin to get that sort of reputation. The actual cost to the Exchequer of implementing the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1919, and of making these not very large increases, would be comparatively trifling—trifling when compared with our enormous national expenditure today.

Another argument against doing this may be used by the Treasury. They may say that, if they do justice to Service pensioners claims will be made by others—for instance, civil servants. I quite agree that these claims might be considerable, and might very well be justified, but I submit that the strongest claims are those of officers who have served all over the world, who have faced dangers, endured hardships, often have never known a settled home during their service, whose conditions have been less safe and less comfortable than those of any civilians, and, lastly, who have been given—I repeat it again—a definite promise in writing that they should have certain treatment by the Government. I trust that the Government may see fit at long last to do them justice, and to make good their promise, not only as to the fall of retired pay when the cost of living falls—they have kept that part of the promise—but also that a rise should take place when the cost of living rises, as is laid down in the Royal Warrant of 1919.

I would add one word in regard to the officers who retired before 1919. These have had no promises made to them such as were made to those who retired under the 1919 Warrant, but their pensions are very much smaller. They were granted when the pound was worth a pound, and they are equally affected by the high cost of living. They are far from young in the majority of cases now, and there are not many of them. Some small concession in their retired pay would be a welcome and generous gesture on the part of the Government. They do not claim it, but I think they might very well be considered.

Officers in the services are a comparatively small body. They have no organisation, no trade unions, no means of making their voice heard about their conditions and pay, such as civilians would have, but because of that, I do not think there is any reason why they should be treated with complete lack of consideration by the Government. They do not muster many votes, but they have given faithful service over many years to the Government. The time is long overdue when they should be reasonably and properly treated as regards their pensions, and when the promises made in the Royal Warrant of 1919 should be carried out.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that Service officers are among the lowest paid classes in relation to what they do, and are the first to suffer when there is a rise in the cost of living. They have no chance, during their service, of putting by for a rainy day. They can just make ends meet as they mount the ladder of promotion. I remember very well that when I joined up I was told, "Do not bother about the tailor. You will be able to pay him when you become a colonel." The days when tailors could wait until a cadet became a colonel have long passed. We are paid a miserable pittance today but we have to try to pay the tailor as well. I have no need to tell the House what is the price of a suit now.

If one could save during one's working days in the Army the pension would be a reward for past services, and one would have something to live on. What Army officers and Service officers generally have been forced to do for a number of years is to take on odd jobs as secretaries of golf clubs, tennis clubs, sailing clubs, and so on. That is not good enough. There are not enough of sailing clubs, tennis clubs, and golf clubs for them all now to get a job. They have suffered at every cut. The 1919 officers have suffered the worst of the lot. There was a time when officers joined the Army and expected to live, not on their pay, but on their private income. I had to live on my pay, but it was very difficult. More recently the pay has gone up and things are a bit better, but the cost of living has risen step by step with the pay, and the present-day officer is little better off than he was before.

Old pensioners of the period before 1919 are really in a pitiful condition. If a visit is paid to some of the Service clubs officers will be seen who have not any private income but who are living on their pensions. One cannot help feeling sorry for them. How can they pay 25 guineas for a suit, which is the price today? It is pathetic to see these poor people struggling along with no one to speak on their behalf. They have no union or society to speak for them; nevertheless, they have a problem, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will say something favourable to the Army pensioner, and the Service pensioner generally.

I do not want to go over the ground covered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), but I would like to stress one or two points. I left the Army with my eyes wide open, and I must say that they opened a little wider when I heard about my money yesterday. I got about 4d. more than I expected. It took me a long time to get that. I have raised at Question time the subject of these pensioners, and the Prime Minister has answered me on behalf of the Secretary of State for War. The officer should be in a position to know what his pension will be when he retires. Hon. Members may say, "He can find out," but it is not as easy as that. Pensions, in these days, are extremely complicated. A large number of rankers count their service in the ranks at only half while the rest of their service is counted as full.

I have raised the case of the officer who had done 17½ years' service. He had his pension assessed and he was told that he was two days short of 18 years. There was an asterisk saying that that meant 17 years' pension, according to the Regulations. I hope that the Minister will bring that case to the notice of the Treasury and that he will try to humanise the payment of pensions. Surely an officer who has served for more than 17½ years, who has 17 years and 363 days to his credit, should at least be allowed pension for an extra year. That man will be the worst advertisement for the Army. The Government want men to join the Army and to become officers, but if men are to be treated in that way they will go to the hotels and pubs saying, "Don't put your son into the Army. This is what they did to me." We can put up placards saying, "Join the Army and see the world," but one man like that, will undo all the work we do by all our placards.

I would like to say a word for the widows, not only of officers but of other ranks as well. Some people tell me that there is not a means test, but I say that there still is a means test. The widow of an Army or Navy man is not entitled to a pension unless she proves that she has no other adequate means of support. That is wrong. Her husband has served his country. Most people think that the officer's widow automatically gets a pension. In any case she gets a miserable pittance, but she does not get that unless she proves that it is her only means of support, and that her private income is not sufficient to keep her. The Army officer is badly paid and he gets a very poor pension. He is finally faced with the possibility of leaving behind a widow who will get very little money, and then only if she can prove that she has nothing in the bank beyond a small pittance.

These widows should have the right to a pension. Their husbands have given their lives to the service of our country. We have no other trade and nothing else to fall back upon. We are sometimes told, "When you leave the Army you go to work." We do, but there are not enough golf clubs to employ us all, and the House of Commons is not big enough for all retired officers to get into. Thank goodness there was one vacancy ! I beg the Under-Secretary to humanise the system of pensions. He should not stick to the letter of the law and say, "You have done only 364 days." He should forget the leap years and everything else and not refuse to give an officer the full amount which he has honestly and justly earned.

I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) and to emphasise that this is a matter which affects all three Services. We are very glad to see the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on the Government Front Bench, but I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is a pity that the Debate will not be answered by the Minister of Defence or one of the Treasury Ministers. The fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War will reply seems to imply that this matter affects only the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend has set out the arguments very fully and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some very good news to the effect that these grievances—there is no doubt that these ex-officers really feel that they have a grievance—will be settled once and for all.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) laid great emphasis on what he contended was a broken pledge with regard to the 1919 Warrant and its subsequent interpretation. I realise that the question whether or not there was a broken pledge is not the whole of this matter, but since the hon. and gallant Gentleman was at such pains to suggest that there was an explicit broken pledge, I must say that I cannot share that view and cannot see that it is supported by the words used. What was said was that the rates "will be adjusted after five years." It is perfectly clear that the word "will" applies to "after five years." It then goes on to say that after 1st July, 1924—that is, after the five years are over—further adjustments "may take place." It is really not a question of quibbling or inviting the gentleman who lives in Whitehall to interpret plain English. Everyone knows the difference in meaning between "will" and "may"

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go on to explain how it was that the Treasury and the Governments of the day interpreted it as a pledge, or, at any rate, as an obligation, so long as the cost of living was falling and continued to reduce the retired pay of officers during that time, and only when the cost of living began to rise did it occur to them that they might make a play on words and cease adjusting these pensions.

I must again reject the suggestion about a play on words. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and I have argued this before. If he cannot follow the difference between the words "will" and "may," we must leave the matter there.

I will come to the second matter which he mentioned just now. The review took place after the five years, as was laid down. Then, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, certain other reductions, partly, though not wholly, in step with the fall in the cost of living, took place. Every one of those reductions was a cause of dissatisfaction, although the reductions in the rates were not as great as the reductions in the cost of living. One of the morals I draw from that is that it is extremely difficult to work any system of pensions or incomes that fluctuates with the cost of living. It gives rise always to arguments and dissatisfaction.

What were the figures which were arrived at in 1935 when the rates were stabilised? They were stabilised at a figure of 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level. What was the cost of living in those two years? In 1919 the figure was 207—that is, on the 1914 basis of 100—and in 1935 the figure was 143; that is to say, the cost of living had fallen by about one-third between 1919 and 1935 and the rates were stabilised at just over 90 per cent. of their 1919 level. We must not suppose, therefore, as was rather suggested, that the Treasury have been diligently seeking every penny it could snatch. In fact, when the rates were stabilised in 1935, it resulted in a substantially better position for the officers concerned than they had had in 1919. So it was not a question of cutting down the pension as far as could possibly be justified in response to the fall in the cost of living over that period.

Pursuing the story from 1935 on through the war, in 1945 the new code of pensions came into operation and officers retiring after 19th December, 1945, are not really in argument as far as we are now concerned. We should also remember that a considerable number of officers who had retired were re-employed during the war, and for them a special assessment of pension was ultimately made which has left them somewhat better off than if the 1919 settlement had been rigidly adhered to.

Further we must notice the working of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 and 1947, particularly their effect on these officers. It was as follows. If a man's retired pay was £400 a year or less, in effect he was put back where he would have been if the 1919 settlement had been literally operated. If his rate was between £400 and £600, about three-quarters of the 9½ per cent. cut on the 1919 figure was restored to him. If his rate was between £600 and £750, about half of that cut was restored and, finally, in the higher levels none of the cut was restored with the exception of some special arrangements made in respect of some general officers.

So again it cannot be suggested that the Government have ignored this problem. The number of officers whose difficulties have been met, either through the fact that they were re-employed during the war or through the working of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, is considerable. It is quite true we are left with a small residue, mainly consisting of general officers and ranks immediately below, who are somewhat worse off than they would have been if the 1919 arrangement had continued indefinitely. And it should be noted, although I do not suggest that any of those men will find it easy to make ends meet, that we are not dealing here with a problem of real poverty. No figures of pension have been given—because no doubt hon. Members were assuming that these are matters of common knowledge—but perhaps I should draw attention to the position. With regard to the officers of whom we are speaking and who retired before 19th December, 1945, a major is drawing a pension of £440, a lieutenant-colonel £583, a colonel £760, a major-general, due to a special arrangement, £950.

So I would argue, first, that the suggestion that there has been any breach of pledge has not been made out, and that it was quite clear that, although alterations might take place, there was no definite pledge that alterations would take place. As to the point that they were made in one direction and not in another I have already pointed out that the reductions made when the cost of living was falling were much less than the fall in the cost of living and that, when the cost of living has been rising, the situation has been dealt with by the Pensions (Increase) Acts, at any rate in part.

If we were really dealing with an undoubted broken pledge, then I think we ought to proceed to put the matter right, irrespective of any other group of people; but since we are not and since the matter is to be urged, if urged at all, on the ground of the difficulty some of these officers meet in living at a reasonable standard, we are obliged to look at the consequential changes that would occur elsewhere if we made any substantial alteration in their position. Indeed, I think the real nature of the case was brought out strikingly, but perhaps unconsciously, by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). He went rather wider than the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield and drew my attention to certain other things which a Government with unlimited supplies of money would no doubt be glad to do in pensions administration.

For example, he drew our attention to the fact—and I would agree with him that it is a fact of which the public are often unaware—that an officer's widow is not entitled to a grant of pension as of right, although I think it is fair to point out that the scale of need as applied is a reasonably generous one. It really cannot be compared with the Means Test which used to be operated against unemployed persons. The whole order of figures is different. That is one thing which a Government with unlimited supplies of money might put right.

Another example he quoted was of a man who has the really bad luck to complete 17 years and 363 days' service, rather than 18 years. I ask him to consider this. Suppose we say it should be the rule that a man who falls short of the complete year by, say, only five days, should count as though he had done the complete year. Then we would be asked about the hard case of a man who falls short by six days and fails to get into the Regulation. There is no solution of that problem.

I agree that if one gives way on 363 days one might have to give way on 360 or even 350 days, but the Royal Warrant should be made to act so that the officer could get what he has earned and if it was nearer 18 years than 17 years, he should get that. That is the fault in the Royal Warrant into which I ask the hon. Gentleman to look and which I ask him to rectify.

I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that that is a somewhat different proposition from the one he put forward, although I agree it is an important point and worth looking into. When the present Government came into power we found that not only were there a great many hardships and difficulties which were a direct result of the war, both in this field and in many others, but there was a long legacy of injustices and hardships suffered by many people, all of which were clamouring to be rectified. The whole country has been faced with a whole list of injustices queueing up to be remedied and hardships queueing up to be alleviated. That is why I say that if a pledge had been broken, we would have had to put it right without regard to the claims of others on which money should be spent, but since that is not so, we are obliged to weigh this claim, with which I have some sympathy, with other desirable objects, such as those suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, on which money would need to be spent.

I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what has been said in this Debate. All I suggest for the present is that we have not been guilty of a breach of faith and that, although there are difficulties for the officers and their families whom we have been discussing, there is nothing which could really be called acute poverty or hardship.

I rise for the purpose of raising the matter of trade union recognition by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, in the not unlimited time at my disposal, I shall try to deal with the important issues that are involved as quickly and succinctly as possible. I raise this matter not out of any hostility to the B.B.C., having enjoyed many a peaceful nap while listening to their weekend programmes, and I am not ungrateful to them for the contributions which they make to my all too infrequent moments of relaxation.

This problem has been outstanding for many years. In the sentences which I now propose to quote, the issue involved is presented in language which I am only too willing to adopt:

"I do not regard the present attitude of the Corporation towards staff representation as at all satisfactory. While it is stated that no inquiry is made as to whether or not an employee belongs to a trade union, it is my clear impression that trade unionism is not encouraged and that the general tendency is towards autocracy and paternalism, I consider that the staff should be given full opportunities for ventilating any grievances collectively, that the B.B.C. should definitely recognise the right of every employee to join an appropriate union and that a proper system of consultation and collective agreement should be instituted."

I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will find it possible to associate himself wholeheartedly with the sentences I have quoted, because they are what the present Prime Minister said by way of reservation to the Ullswater Committee's Report in 1936. It is interesting to note that, however relevant these sentences were to the position 14 years ago, they are perhaps even more relevant and more applicable today.

It may be argued that this is going too far back. If that is so, I would enlist in further support of the point I am trying to make what was said by no less a person than the Lord President of the Council in this House on 16th July, 1946 What he said then will be within the recollection of almost every hon. Member present in the House at the moment. We were discussing the British Broadcasting Corporation's Royal Charter, and the Lord President, in what I beg leave to say was a cogent, thoughtful argument, made these remarks:

"The other change in the Charter of an important character that we propose to insert is a requirement, with which I think the Committee will generaly agree, as to consultation with the staff."

The Lord President then went on to say:

"… the Government want to see the creation, within any large organisation—and this is a large and complicated organisation—whether public or private, of machinery that will assure to the humblest employee not only the settlement of his wages and service conditions by equal negotiation, with provision for arbitration in the event of disagreement, but also the feeling, which is important, that he will be given a picture of his part in the present prospective affairs of the undertaking, and that his views about the efficiency of the organisation will be considered by the management with the respect that they deserve. Only so in our view will the employee be able to make his full contribution to the successful conduct of the organisation. Only so can the management draw in full on the wide experience of the staff of all grades in their daily work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 1088–89.]

I hope that with those sentiments the Assistant Postmaster-General will find it possible to identify himself today. I am not going to quote at great length what was said by other hon. Members on that occasion, but it so happens that another hon. Member, in the discussion on the same day, used these words:

"… this addition to the Charter will make a considerable change. The Corporation has been one of the few bodies in the country which actually could and did dictate to its employees through what organisations they should be represented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 1115.]

That hon. Member is now the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I could quote what was said by another hon. Member on that occasion, and who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I mention these things so as to allay any anxieties which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General may feel on this subject. If he adopts the line which I am advocating this afternoon, he will find himself in the very good company of many of his distinguished colleagues.

My charge against the B.B.C. is that, in the light of what I have said and of the quotations I have given to the House, they have expressly flouted the wish of Parliament. The relevant document in this connection is, of course, the Royal Charter itself, which the House accepted. Clause 8 of which makes it quite clear that it is the duty of the B.B.C. to seek consultation with any appropriate organisation. The exact words are:

"It shall be the duty of the Corporation, except in so far as the Corporation is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purposes of this sub-clause, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Corporation to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between the Corporation and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the … maintenance of machinery for …"—

and then sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) follow. Sub-paragraph (a) refers to the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions, and sub-paragraph (b) relates to the discussion of such matters as the safety, the health and the welfare of persons employed.

The extent to which the Government are specifically interested in this aspect of the B.B.C.'s activities is reinforced by the later provision that all such agreements or variations thereof must be transmitted to the Postmaster-General and to the Minister of Labour.

I feel that the terms of that Clause have been interpreted in the most niggardly and restrictive fashion possible. In my view, the conditions have changed considerably since the Ullswater Report of 1936. The B.B.C. have for too long been trying to shelter behind that Report. In any event, the authorities responsible for the administration of the B.B.C. have incorrectly interpreted the intentions of this particular paragraph of the Ullswater Report. Paragraph 38 makes it clear that representation may take one of two forms—external trade unions or one or more internal associations. The Report says:

"It is difficult to foresee any comprehensive solution on the lines of the first alternative, namely, the intervention of external trade unions."

It may have been difficult to foresee a solution on those lines 14 years ago, but it is by no means so difficult to visualise a solution on those lines now.

As I have said, conditions have changed considerably since 1936 and that cogent argument proves quite conclusively that the present system, as it operates in the B.B.C., is unsatisfactory. Despite the privileges conferred upon the Staff Association of the B.B.C., this particular Staff Association has failed to win even the nominal adherence of the majority of the employees. According to the latest information I have been able to obtain, this Staff Association has recruited to its ranks less than half the Corporation staff. In other words, more than 8,000 employees out of a total of about 14,000 prefer no representation at all to representation through the Staff Association.

Whatever our views may be, it must be admitted that that represents a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, which ought not to be allowed to continue a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. What are the consequences of this unsatisfactory state of affairs? The B.B.C. is not only disregarding the will of Parliament and what I think is the intention of the Royal Charter that at present operates——

I should like to correct my hon. and gallant Friend. Parliament has never expressed, in form, its will as to whether the B.B.C. should recognise trade unions or not. Opinion, has been expressed, but never a decision.

I think it is true to say that if Parliament expresses an opinion, it is an opinion which ought not to be lightly disregarded, even by such a powerful corporation as the British Broadcasting Corporation. I shall be quite content if this House, on this or some other occasion, expresses an opinion on this matter. By raising this matter this afternoon. I have made some contribution, perhaps, towards providing the House with an opportunity of expressing, once again, an opinion on this quite important problem. The present situation is inimical to friendly relations between members of the staff, one with the other. It is inimical to the friendly relations that ought to exist between the staff and the Corporation itself.

I recall an unhappy occasion when the Staff Association had to institute proceedings for libel against a well-known trade union, which was trying to organise some of the industrial or manual workers employed by the B.B.C. Fortunately, that action was settled out of court, but it cannot be a good thing that organisations should be at daggers drawn, one with the other, when it is possible, as experience in other organisations has shown, for both the staff union and the so-called external trade unions to work quite well together.

As a matter of fact, in the London County Council, which employs an even larger number of people than the B.B.C., I am informed there is a staff association and that there are also quite a number of other unions appropriate to the particular grades of employees. Employees join whichever union they consider to be the most suitable, and everything proceeds in a happy atmosphere. The relationships between the different unions, the employees and the employing authority, are as satisfactory as it is reasonable to expect.

It so happens that, quite by a coincidence, I picked up in the Vote Office the other day a White Paper which sets out the proposed action by His Majesty's Government on certain conventions and recommendations adopted at the 32nd session, 1949, of the International Labour Conference. One of the conventions which His Majesty's Government propose to ratify concerns the application of the principle of the right to organise and collective bargaining. The convention sets out certain principles designed to provide guarantees with the object of protecting the right to organise in trade unions and to promote the development and utilisation of the machinery of voluntary negotiation. That is the official policy of the Government in the most solemn form as contained in this I.L.O. convention which His Majesty's Government the other day, in a White Paper, signified their intention of ratifying.

In my submission, it is not only necessary to defend trade union principles but to preserve and extend them. It is nearly three years since the Trades Union Congress tried to negotiate a settlement of these matters with the B.B.C. Those negotiations have proved abortive. There are many other instances that could be quoted, but I will quote only two. One is the case of the National Union of Journalists, which has 200 members in what I believe is called the Radio Branch of the N.U.J. Every kind of obstacle has been put in the way of these men and women who are trying to carry out their craft, profession or calling or however they describe it. Every kind of obstacle has been put in the way of clarifying and establishing on a satisfactory basis the relationship between this section of the employees of the B.B.C. and the governing body. I am informed that the only way in which the Radio Branch of the N.U.J. can communicate with the B.B.C. is by getting the head office of the N.U.J. to write officially on their behalf. It strikes me as odd that the Radio Branch of the N.U.J. should not be considered fit and proper to write a letter or make representations on their own behalf.

I should like to quote, by way of another example, the situation in which the Council of Equity, the actors' organisation, find themselves. They have published with their annual report a document that they have submitted to the Beveridge Committee on the subject of trade union recognition. They complain that they cannot perform their functions unless the B.B.C. follows the normal processes of collective bargaining and behaves in the same manner as any other employer. They complain that reasonable facilities for organising and maintaining contact with their members is not afforded by the B.B.C., and that they are being frustrated in a variety of ways.

The position boils down to this. The B.B.C. is virtually saying, "Join the Staff Association or your voice will not be heard." Now, as a result of recent Questions which I have put to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, I am informed that the whole problem of negotiation between the B.B.C. and the T.U.C. has been referred to the Beveridge Committee. That, in my view, is a piece of evasive action which does not commend itself to me, because it is a matter which should have been settled long since. It is for this House to express an opinion and, indeed, to decide by what general principles these great public monopolies shall be guided. We grant them great privileges. We abstain to the utmost possible extent, by a self-denying ordinance, from any undue interference with their day-to-day administration.

I have no desire to penetrate into the dim conclave of the Governors of the B.B.C., whatever may be the duties of those important persons. I have no desire to violate the sanctuary in which the Director-General of the B.B.C. sits, in awful and majestic seclusion, deciding upon all these important matters. But what I say is that the conduct of the B.B.C., and indeed, the conduct of all these other great corporations, must conform to what has now become the generally accepted code of industrial relations.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will find it possible, although the matter is being discussed by the Beveridge Committee, to express some opinion on the matter. It is only by the free expression of opinion, from whatever quarter it may come, that we shall achieve an amicable solution to what is a most important problem.

I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) for having raised this matter. I am sure, too, that we shall get a sympathetic reply from the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of his past trade union experience. But it seems to me a great shame that we always have to bring forward these matters in the House, and that the reasonable negotiations of the trade unionists themselves, through their own organisations, should not have more influence on the management of the B.B.C. Surely the management must know what is the overwhelming opinion of their staff. They must realise that if they continue to thwart and frustrate their right and justified intentions, it is bound to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction which will be an expression of bad staff management and result in inefficiency in the organisation.

Therefore, if the management are really keen to have high standards of management, which will be reflected in good staff morale and efficiency, and so on, they should take a great deal more notice of the representations rightly and properly made to them through trade union channels. It is a pity that so frequently all these matters have to be raised in the House. It is a generally accepted principle of good management that if there is anything continuously good or bad in any organisation it is always due to those at the top.

Perhaps because in some cases I have been willing to look at these matters very carefully and closely, I have had many criticisms brought to me during the last few years. That indicates to me that there is something seriously wrong with the present organisation, which is reflected in the failure to take more notice of the trade union represen- tations which have been continuously made to the management. Perhaps at this moment I ought to declare my interest in this matter. When I found that complaints were continually coming to me, naturally I thought in terms of what the solution might be and, at the same time, realised that there was need for a very much more effective democratic representation than there is now in the B.B.C.'s own organisation. As a member of the Association of Supervisory Staffs Executives and Technicians I felt that it would be of help to the B.B.C. if a branch was formed to represent to the management the opinion of the executives and technicians. I knew, of course, that many other unions were also interested, but it seemed that a certain section of the B.B.C. staff was not able to make representation through a recognised trade union channel.

Therefore, during the last few years, as chairman of that B.B.C. branch, I have been able to obtain first-hand evidence of the sort of things which are worrying the staff now. I think that the instances which I shall be able to give to the Assistant Postmaster-General this afternoon will convey to him the inadequacy of the Staff Association effectively to handle the job of looking after the staff interests, seeing that the staff are not victimised, and ensuring that there is a really happy atmosphere among the staff of the B.B.C.

As my hon. Friend has already said, the Staff Association was set up after certain representations were made to the B.B.C. in the Report of the Ullswater Committee in 1936. In that Report it was suggested that the representation could be either in the form of an internal staff association or by the trade unions. The trade union opinion of this is perhaps summed up quite effectively in the November issue of a magazine called "Labour," issued by the T.U.C. In an article entitled "Crazy Corner at the B.B.C." it is stated:

"The trouble began when the Ullswater Commission suggested there should be a staff association for B.B.C. employees.

Haughtily, the idea was brushed aside. 'Inappropriate' was the word the Governors used; they employed too many people on too many kinds of work for such a body to be effective."

It was an extraordinary thing that the Ullswater Committee put forward this recommendation as to the desirability of a staff association having taken no evidence whatever from the staff of the B.B.C. It had consulted with what might be termed the "boss" class, but failed to take into account the opinion of those who worked at lower levels inside the B.B.C.

I can quote quite a number of examples of the failure of the Staff Association. Without, for obvious reasons, disclosing the name, I will give in brief outline an example, which is not isolated, of a man who claimed redress of grievance against victimisation and prejudicial treatment. He first put his case to the Staff Association, but did not receive any satisfaction. He began his case in 1945, and that case has still not been settled. A period of five years for a man to get a case cleared seems to me to be quite appalling if we imagine the attitude of this man to his job in those five years and his feelings due to the delay, frustration, sense of insecurity and sense of suspicion which is automatically engendered by these delays, and to wondering what is happening all that time. It automatically rouses a great deal of ill-feeling because the effect of such a case applies not only to the individual. The case is known to quite a range of the staff in the Corporation. It amounts to little less than mental torture which members of the staff can go through when they realise that this is the sort of way in which staff grievances are handled.

If it is thought that that sort of expression is a little over-emphasised, perhaps I could quote what another hon. Member of this House said in a previous Parliament. I refer to the speech of the late Mr. Lees-Smith, the then Member for Keighley, in a House of Commons Debate, in 1936. He said:

"I have spoken of the question of staff associations because it leads to the subject on which I wish mainly to direct the attention of the House, the continual complaints we receive of terrorism, favouritism and intrigue as the means by which internal administration of the Corporation is carried on. I have had, since I spoke on the subject in the Debate nine or 10 months ago, a most unusual experience. Ever since then, if I talk to any employee of the Corporation, I am made to feel like a conspirator. I have friends in the Corporation whom I have known for years and, if I talk to them, they look round to see if they are being followed. They warn me I must not telephone to them, because the tele- phone will be tapped, and I would not telephone to a friend in the Corporation now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1936; Vol. 318, c. 2729.]

I find that the same sort of situation applies today. I may have been somewhat critical of the B.B.C. in the past, and I find that if I speak to members of the staff on the telephone I have to refrain from mentioning my name to avoid the fear in their minds that the telephone will be tapped and they will be known to have spoken to me. It has had adverse effects. I had a case reported to me, not of a member of the staff, admittedly, but the same principle applies——

He was admittedly not a member of the staff of the Corporation, but it shows how these evil influences can spread to outside, where an artist, because it was known he had got into communication with me, was thereafter severely penalised, and was out of a job for 17 months. Strangely enough, he used the B.B.C.'s own telephone system to speak to me at the House only recently, and that had precisely the reverse effect inasmuch as he obtained three contracts almost immediately.

A lot of people will ring up the hon. Gentleman now.

That indicates that at least the telephone system is not above suspicion.

Again to indicate that this is no exaggeration, may I quote an earlier Debate in which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, after referring to the "dictatorship," which he considered was a term applicable to the B.B.C. organisation at that time, went on to say that it was a grave scandal, and something of which this House should immediately take notice. He was referring particularly, at that moment, to the way in which a certain person on the staff was treated, namely, R. S. Lambert, who was editor of "The Listener" from October, 1928, to 1938. I think it would be appropriate to describe this remark of the Chancellor's as more than a cryptic comment.

If I may, I should now like to give a very brief résumé of the case to which I refer, which has now been placed before the Director-General. It has always been said of staff grievances that there is a right of appeal to the Director-General. Well, if it takes five years for an appeal to become effective, I do not wonder that not many of the staff make use of this particular system. Hon. Members will quite understand that after a while a man gets very fed-up with the way he is being treated, and he probably resigns—which, of course, may be the real intention of the system. This man writes as follows in his statement of his case to the Director-General:

"To date, April, 1950, all attempts to clear one's name and obtain redress are inadequately met, and it does reveal how low are the administrative standards within the Engineering Division."

This case all started from one very simple trouble that he met with, on the secret dossier which is kept of his employment. An adverse report was made, but he was not informed of it. The result was that his promotion was blocked, and every time he applied for a better job he was turned down. Rightly, he brought this matter to the attention of the Director-General. The information that I heard just recently—having made my representations to the Director-General because I felt the system which was being used was so ineffective—was that the papers had been returned to the man through the open system of handing them back through various members of the staff.

I believe it to be a matter of common courtesy that when a Member of this House places before the director-general of any nationalised undertaking certain matters affecting a member of his staff, the papers should be treated with due concern and great discretion, and not handed back in such a way that all the facts of the case may be known to everybody. I do not believe that Sir William Haley, himself, for example, were he in this man's position, would like to have this kind of private information, on which he was making representations to the Director-General, paraded before the rest of the staff. The same applies to Sir Norman Bottomley, who is in charge of the administration of the B.B.C.

This is not an isolated case. Other cases could be quoted, but it would obviously be inappropriate to go over that now. I suggest that this shows that the staff association is not an effective way of dealing with these matters affecting staff in the B.B.C. I believe it to be absolutely vital to have an independent outside form of representation. I know it is suggested that the Staff Association is, in fact, independent, and I believe it does function in offices away from the B.B.C.'s own offices, but it has such close association and is manifestly tied in such a way that it cannot be really independent. The system functions, in fact, by members of the managerial staff sitting in listening to the complaints, and if a complaint is put forward by a junior member of the staff to others who are senior members, they naturally feel that they incur a very grave risk of victimisation.

I should like to suggest to the Assistant Postmaster-General that he gives consideration to this matter right away. I know he may say, in his reply, that it would be appropriate to let the matter be dealt with by the Beveridge Committee. No doubt it is a matter that they should reasonably consider, but if he uses the argument that it should be left until the Beveridge Report is available and their recommendations are accepted by the B.B.C., it may be, at least, a further two years before these essential remedies are put into effect. I would ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider this as a matter of real urgency.

What we find in many cases is that individual unions are making their own representations to the management. The Musicians' Union, and the British Actors' Equity, referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton, make their representations. This sort of piecemeal representation only tends to increase the suspicion among other trade unions that they are not being given equal facilities for making their case. It is an important matter that we should give the opportunity to all unions right away to come into negotiations in the proper, recognised manner, and in such a way that the whole atmosphere of the B.B.C. may be turned from the present close, fetid, suspicious atmosphere into something more healthy.

Would my hon. Friend consider that the more appropriate remedy at this moment would be that a democratic atmosphere should be created in the B.B.C. and also applied possibly to some if not all our other nationalised undertakings? There should be a far more democratic form of control, and if the various trade unions are going to put forward their cases they should put them forward collectively. At Margate recently the Postmaster-General, speaking to the Conference of the Post Office Workers, made the point that the enormous number of trade unions inside the Post Office made negotiations extremely difficult.

I suggest that this problem would be overcome if there were formed a National Council for Broadcasting, on which would be represented most of the interests not only of those employed within the B.B.C. but representatives of the consumers or the public, also. Then it would be an open forum, because it would certainly have to sit in public, where criticisms and suggestions for improvement in the B.B.C. could be made by members of the public, members of the various artists' federations and any other interested persons, all of whom would be assured of a hearing and of their suggestions being given reasonable consideration. Some such an open forum requires to be formed, for in that way we would get a democratic influence effectively manifesting itself throughout the whole of the B.B.C. organisation, and also in some of the other nationalised undertakings if they adopted this principle as well.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) have made the case in such great detail that there is very little for me to add. I might, however, in the very short time that I have, be permitted to make three general points. The first is that the situation has changed very radically since the Ullswater Committee's Report. In the time that has elapsed since then, the whole of our national understanding of and attitude towards the relations between employers and employees have undergone a drastic change. It is, therefore, nonsensical for anybody, whether it be a public corporation or an individual, to rest the defects of the present system of approaching staff relations on something which was said by a Committee, however eminent, 15 years ago.

At the time when the Ullswater Committee examined this matter, the B.B.C. was the only great public corporation. It was both in the matter of staff relations and in many other matters pioneering a path. There was much that we did not then know and which we hoped the B.B.C. would help us to find out about the relationship between workers and employers who were publicly employed, but not directly by the Government or by a municipality. Since that time we have set up a large number—a number, anyhow—of public corporations, some of them very much larger, however we measure size, than the B.B.C. and employing many more people than the B.B.C. In the case of any of these new public corporations we have not been at all timid in telling them from this House, in the Acts of Parliament under which they were set up, what they ought to do about their relations with their employees.

As a result of that, in every one of these comparatively new public corporations, there has been set up a system of relationships between the corporations and the trade unions representing workers in the industries concerned which have in every case some most excellent features. It is no exaggeration to say that, with all the difficulties of size and the other initial difficulties that were bound to accompany great new ventures like the Electricity Authority, and the National Coal Board, some of the progress which has been made in industrial relations, in trade union negotiation and in joint consultation in those industries has been very much greater than even the most optimistic of us could possibly have hoped. Now, the B.B.C., far from pioneering a new path, is dragging its reluctant footsteps behind many other organisations whose difficulties were at least as great as its own and who are managing to overcome those difficulties very successfully.

The second of the three points I wish to make is that it seems scarcely appropriate to refer this question of the rela- tionships between the B.B.C. and its employees to the Beveridge Committee. I do not doubt that since the Postmaster-General has made such a reference the matter must technically fall within the terms of reference of that committee, but I think we should all agree that the intention behind the setting-up of that committee was that it should consider the relationship of the B.B.C. with its consumers, the listeners and the viewers. If that is so, it is not too much to say, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton said, that this reference to the Beveridge Committee can be no more than an evasive and delaying action.

On what grounds should we require an expert committee under so distinguished a chairman to consider a matter which has already been settled in all the other public corporations? On what grounds should we require that expert committee to decide whether a public corporation should behave in respect of its servants at least as well as the great majority of employers in private industry? Why should we ask such a committee to decide a question which is now taken as read in every quarter except within the B.B.C. itself? There may be employees of the B.B.C., is desirable a public service and a great propaganda organ the neutrality of which is rightly carefully guarded, but the answer is that that consideration does not apply any more to the B.B.C. than it does to direct Government service itself.

The same political and neo-political neutrality which is desirable among employees of the B.B.C., is desirable among the employees of the Government, and it has never been held to be a barrier to the organisation of trade unions in Government service. The Post Office has done as much as any other Department to maintain most excellent relations and effective joint consultation with the trade union representatives representing the workers in its employment.

The third point is that it is surely time for the B.B.C., through the Governors and the Director-General, to realise that the measure which is being urged on them from these benches today is not simply a measure of social justice but, from the point of view of expediency, is very much a measure in their own interest. At the moment the B.B.C. is behaving like a Canute trying to sweep back the Atlantic. It is behaving as many private employers did half a century ago in resisting the inevitable march of their workers towards combination in bona fide trade unions. It is just that half century behind the times. Its opposition will be swept away just as the general opposition of any industry to trade unions in its day was swept away.

Since they will have to give way in the end and they must know that they will have to give way—my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, with his great knowledge and experience of trade unions knows that they will have to give way in the end—it will obviously make for a better change-over and better relations if they give way quickly and with good grace.

I recommend those in charge of the B.B.C. to study the example of the British Overseas Airways Corporation Staff Association. In B.O.A.C. there was a staff association very similar, and with terms of reference very similar, to that of the B.B.C. Staff Association. It was an extremely worthy copy as far as it went and within its own terms of reference. However, it suffered from the inevitable defects that must be suffered by a company union, defects which as we now recognise in this country, make it impossible for such an organisation, however well run and with whatever good intentions, really to look after the interests of its members. There was a short sharp guerrilla offensive with B.O.A.C. They were much wiser than the B.B.C. They gave way quickly and gracefully, and in so doing created excellent staff relations in the Corporation. It is an example from one public corporation to another which I warmly commend to the Governors of the B.B.C., and I hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to draw the attention of the Governors of the B.B.C. to that excellent example.

When any question affecting the B.B.C. is before the House, we can always count on having a good discussion, and this afternoon's Debate has certainly been no exception. This is the third occasion within a comparatively short space of time that this question has been discussed, and I can almost see looming on the horizon Standing Order No. 20 which deals with tedious repetition. How- ever, I will endeavour to answer the points which have been raised and deal with one or two other matters, including the outstanding question of trade union recognition.

I always think that in answering any question affecting the B.B.C. it is just as well that we should make clear what are the powers of the Postmaster-General in relation to the B.B.C. Frankly, they certainly do not include conditions of service or questions whether the employees of the B.B.C. belong to a staff association or a trade union. The only powers which my right hon. Friend has with regard to the B.B.C. are, generally speaking, of a technical character. My right hon. Friend has power over the frequencies of transmission, the hours of broadcasting, the cost of licences, the collection of revenue, and interference with wireless reception, but he has no power as far as the question before us this afternoon is concerned.

This Debate has raised the general principle of the desirability of direct Government intervention in trade union negotiations. That was in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and also in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper). Now, neither the Trades Union Congress, nor industry, nor the Government view with favour an attempt in the House of Commons to deal with what are, after all, intimate negotiations between industry and the workers employed in it. Parliament has limited its action to the laying down of arbitration machinery in the case of disputes affecting certain industries, but has been reluctant to have anything to do with general interference in management.

The history of this question goes back a long time. It is largely the case that, since 1935 or even before, the B.B.C. have not recognised trade unions for the purposes of negotiation. I do not think it is true to say that they have not consulted with trade unions, because quite recently there has been consultation with the National Union of Journalists on a certain question to which reference has been made today. It has always been the fact, however, that the B.B.C. have negotiated solely with the staff association and that they have only followed and implemented the outside awards on wages and conditions as they affect members of the ordinary trade unions. Naturally this has given rise to a considerable amount of feeling in the trade union world, and, indeed, in Parliament.

I expressed the hope in 1948, when we were discussing a similar question on the B.B.C. report and accounts, that the pourparlers that were taking place between the T.U.C. and the B.B.C. at that time would be fruitful and that this outstanding problem of trade union recognition would be settled. However, negotiations went on right up to the beginning of this year and I understand that no solution was reached. As I said in 1948, I think the attitude of the B.B.C. has been based on the assumption that it is impossible to deal with a large number of trade unions, and there are bound to be a large number of trade unions in an organisation such as that. But many of our large industrial concerns, such as the I.C.I. and the socialised industries, have all found it possible to negotiate with appropriate trade unions and, let us be perfectly frank, in most cases the relationships are quite amiable. Therefore, I cannot see the difficulty in that direction.

Today we have the Beveridge Committee; the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Beveridge is going into the affairs of the B.B.C. and will consider this matter. I think that within the terms of reference—and I do not want in the short time available to read out the terms of reference of the Beveridge Committee—it will be generally agreed that there is power to deal with this question of trade union recognition in precisely the same way as the Ullswater Committee dealt with it in 1935. The Trades Union Congress and, I believe, the B.B.C. staff association, have already given evidence before the Beveridge Committee on this question. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to interfere before the Report of the Beveridge Committee on this outstanding problem. I do not see anything that precludes the T.U.C—despite the fact that the Beveridge Committee is sitting at the moment—from going ahead with negotiations with the B.B.C. on this question. If I may express a personal hope, it is that they will do so and that this contentious matter will be finally solved.

I have no quarrel with the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton. He put the case cogently and fairly in a manner with which we are thoroughly acquainted. He has quoted at some length extracts from speeches of the Lord President of the Council and of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I hasten to assure him that I do not dissociate myself from those remarks at all, any more than I do from my own comments in the Debate in 1948.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West, rather extended the scope of the discussion. He dealt with cases of the ineffectiveness of the B.B.C. in regard to its internal organisation, but that is something to which I am not called upon to reply. I was somewhat amazed by his account of the tapping of telephones and secret dossiers and I almost thought he was reading out the script for a "Dick Barton" programme. It is news to me that that sort of thing goes on. While it was entertaining to the House, it was hardly relevant to the point we are discussing. The one point he made which is of paramount importance is that when dealing with a large staff, the question of disciplinary machinery is important. As far as my right hon. Friend's Department is concerned, we can say that our disciplinary machinery works effectively and it is one of the concomitants of effective trade union recognition that out of it does come good disciplinary machinery to deal with the problems my hon. Friend indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) gave us an account of the staff relationships of the B.O.A.C. and how they solved the problem. I think there is something to be learned from B.O.A.C. and I hope the B.B.C. will pay attention to what has been said.

Finally, I reiterate the statement with which I began. There is nothing, as I see it, to preclude the T.U.C. from going on with negotiations with the B.B.C. at present, but, as far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, it is very questionable whether he has power to interfere under the terms of the Charter and, in any case, he prefers to await the Report of the Beveridge Committee dealing with the B.B.C. in general. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton is wrong when he says that the B.B.C. have flouted the will of Parliament. That does not happen to be so. Parliament has never laid down that the B.B.C. must recognise trade unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress What it has done on many occasions is to express concern that they have not put themselves in line with most large-scale employers in this country.