HC Deb 18 March 1941 vol 370 cc110-33

Resolutions reported:

AIR ESTIMATES, 1941.

NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE.

1. "That such number of Officers and Air men, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942."

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942."

CIVIL AVIATION.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942."

AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1940.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

SCHEDULE.
— Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants Appropriations in Aid.
Vote. £ £
1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force. 10 16,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Garro Jones (Aberdeen, North)

This war is full of anomalies, and the apportionment of Parliamentary time is one of those anomalies. It might appear rather strange, at a time when a Debate of this nature depends perhaps to a great extent on the operations of the Admiralty and the Royal Air Force, that this House has apportioned its time voluntarily so as to leave only one hour and 25 minutes for a Debate on these two vitally important subjects. I do not put that forward in any sort of complaint, because I think it is well known that hon. Members on this side have been requested not to raise these matters of great difficulty and delicacy which are engaging the attention of the Admiralty and Royal Air Force at the present time. I think it is no small part of the glory of our democratic system that we are prepared voluntarily to submit ourselves to such restraint, which under other systems would have to be made compulsory. Therefore, if I rise to a matter of detail, I hope the House will not think it shows any lack of perspective on my part, but only because the question I wish to raise is one which I think can be properly dealt with at the present time, and upon which some useful statement might properly be made.

The subject upon which I should like to have a statement relates to the organisation and administration of the Observer Corps. This is a corps of greater importance than hon. Members of this House realise. Nor are its operations fully realised. From the small posts upon our headlands to the restricted central organisations which guide the operations of the Fighter Command, there is a most intricate and elaborate system of detection and report of the approach of enemy aircraft, which, in my belief, is unexcelled in any other branch of air tactics and strategy. The bulk of this work falls upon a large number of men called the Observer Corps, many of whom require most highly skilled training. These men have no uniform, they have no combatant or military status, they have no rank, military pension, or privilege of any kind, and in most cases they have no arms or equipment. They are not even recognised, or have not been recognised, by the Air Ministry as an official part of the Fighting service. In fact, it is well known that this large body of men who do this vital work are practically run and organised by a private journal. A statement printed in one of those journals the other day went so far as to say that, if enemy parachute troops or tank-carrying aircraft were to be seen approaching the posts of the Observer Corps, their combatant status would be such that they would either have the option of running away or of being shot as franc tireurs.

I think it is time that the position of the Observer Corps was cleared up. Questions have been put in the House about it, and questions have been postponed. Hon. Members have shown a considerable amount of patience in the matter. But, after all, there is a limit to the amount of patience, not of hon. Members— I have come to the conclusion that the patience of Members of the House is inexhaustible — but the patience of members of the Observer Corps has some limits, and it is time that some definite statement was made about their status. In my opinion, they ought to be taken under the wing of the Air Ministry. I know that nowadays many of the speeches made in the House are speeches which press the Government to do what they would be only too pleased to do if it were in their power to do it. I hope it will not be thought that my plea for this body of men falls within this category, because they cannot be deprived of uniform on account of shortage of uniforms if there is any true perspective shown by those who apportion these supplies. Take, for example, the enormous amount of khaki used for the uniforms of the A.T.S., who are doing very important work but not quite of the same importance as the members of the Observer Corps who are protecting this Island against air attack. So I wish to ask whether we can-not have a statement, first about the military, legal position of the Observer Corps, about which great uncertainty and dissatisfaction properly exist, whether they can be provided with uniforms, and whether it is intended to give them military rank, status and pensions and bring them under the control of the Air Ministry.

Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)

The first point that I wish to raise is in connection with the Air Training Corps, which has had such a splendid beginning. I have had representations made to me from one of the units formed in my constituency. The first is on the question of uniforms for cadets. Great enthusiasm has been aroused, and it would be a great pity if these uniforms were not made available at an early date. It is suggested that they may be ready in two months' time, but if they could be obtained more quickly than that, it would be a very good thing, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will consider the possibility of hastening delivery. Then there is the question of lowering the official age from 16 to 15. Boys under 16 who arc now going into training cannot get uniforms until they are 16, and that will have a discouraging effect on them. If anything could be done to lower the age, in view of the great interest of these youths who are coming in, I hope it will be done. Then within some; squadrons there is a shortage of instructors on certain classes of instruments, for instance, air frames, gyro compasses and auto pilots. It may be rather advanced training, but at some stage presumably it will be required, and the instructors available at present, who were engaged in the last war, are more used to wooden aircraft, and if something could be done to make available instructors from the new R.A.F. training stations, that would be helpful. Then there is the question of the selection boards for officers. There is anxiety that that matter should be put through as quickly as possible, so that officers when they go to camp at Easter will be able to have their uniforms.

I want to say a word about the National Pigeon Service, for which, I understand, the Air Ministry accepts responsibility. I cannot deal with the question of feeding, which is a matter for the Ministry of Food, but on that there is a feeling that if horse racing and dog racing are allowed to go on, there is a good claim for pigeon racing. Pigeon fanciers cannot understand the discrimination. A large number of pigeons have been enlisted and are performing useful service overseas, but they have nearly all been enlisted from the coastal regions. Is that necessary? It seems hard on the Midlands, such as the area which I represent, where they are very enthusiastic about pigeons. Their birds are accustomed in peace-time to fly regularly from Spain and France to this country, so that there is no question of their not being accustomed to flying overseas. I am afraid that the possibility of taking pigeons from inland districts has been overlooked, and I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to see whether something could be done to take some of them from those districts. I was alarmed and surprised to see in the Press the other day that 3,000 pigeons were coming from abroad. Is there any foundation for that statement? We have 1,500,000 pigeons in this country, worth about £3,000,000. There are 100,000 pigeon fanciers, and only about 10,000 are using their birds. It would be a foolish misuse of shipping space to bring these birds over to this country at a time when we have an enormous surplus here and when a great many birds under the Government feeding policy will have to be destroyed. There have been complaints of a failure to co-operate to the full with the governing unions of pigeon fanciers, and I would like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to see whether closer co-operation can be obtained. I do not see any representative of the Ministry of Aircraft Production present, but in view of the possibility that he may be here shortly, I will pass to another point.

I would call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to a statement that appeared in the "Times" the other day to the effect that the Renault and Citroen automobile works were working on a large scale for the Germans under authorisation from the Vichy Government. The Renault works were busy making engines, spare parts and automobiles. It would be intolerable if our enemy were to be enabled to get their supplies from French factories, and I suggest that we might give some sort of notice that on some day or night within a given week we intend to destroy those factories in French territory. It would give an opportunity for the Frenchmen in the factories to get out and prevent the factories being used any more for this purpose.

I would go on to say a word about some of the work already being done by the Royal Air Force on the targets in Germany. This is information which in one form or another has, I think, been made available, but I do not think much publicity has been given to it, and some of the facts are worth repeating and stressing. I understand it to be the fact that 90 per cent. of the synthetic oil capacity of Germany has been bombed and that it is in varying degrees of disintegration. Also, that 80 per cent. of the refinery capacity for the treatment of crude oil from their own wells or imported oil has been bombed, and that a large amount of it is out of action and much of it operating under very much reduced efficiency. The final destruction of the remaining portions will, no doubt, call for very much effort by the Royal Air Force but when it has been accomplished, as I believe it will be, it will be impossible for the enemy to import from Rumania or elsewhere sufficient oil to satisfy the needs of the Axis. That is really a remarkably satisfactory state of affairs, so far as it goes, and it holds out good hope for the future.

Then the Royal Air Force also take as their target£I do not know whether it has first or second priority£the aircraft industry, and are systematically bombing raw materials, casting, forging and fabricating plants, and aero-engine components assembly factories as well as ports, depots and aerodromes. I believe it is the fact that the Bomber Command have already substantially reduced the number of new aircraft which are coming out in replacement of those which we are shooting down. Also, power stations, gas works and communications are regularly bombed, and the output at some places is down by as much as one-third, I understand. Raw materials are not arriving in many factories and food has to be left rotting on sidings. That, again, is a good story of the work of the Royal Air Force. Finally, I would mention the Leipzig Fair. I daresay hon. Members may have noticed in some of the papers articles urging us to take advantage of the Leipzig Fair and to turn up there. I understand that neutral visitors did pay a very hasty visit to the exhibits. They rushed round and then retired to their shelters, where they spent the night. It had been arranged that there should be an international football match, which was to be the great attraction and entertainment, but in fact there was another entertainment, and that was a blazing factory which had been set on fire by R.A.F. bombers the night before and was still blazing merrily on the afternoon of the next day when this international football match was to have been played. I hope that the Royal Air Force will go on doing this kind of thing, giving the enemy hell by day and by night. In that way alone can victory and peace be obtained.

Finally, I would refer to a question concerning the Ministry of Aircraft Production. In the Debate a week ago a question was raised as to the present position of certain very important individuals at the Ministry. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was, as one would expect of him, extremely loyal and extremely discreet in everything he said about these persons and the reasons why some of them were not continuing their functions there.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production(Colonel Llewellin)

One of them.

Mr. Mander

According to his optimistic story, it was all really a misunderstanding, everyone was satisfied and there was really nothing wrong. Really, that will not do. It is quite well known that there is very great dissatisfaction with the chaotic state of affairs at the Ministry of Aircraft Production at the present time. There is a very remarkable personality in charge of the Department. He is capable of producing, and does produce, great results, by somewhat unusual methods. He is not only an isolationist in foreign policy but an isolationist in departmental policy. I gather that there is only one Department that matters or that is taken any notice of, and that is his own, which is no doubt very satisfactory, looked at from that point of view.

I do not know whether the situation has been cleared up or not, but I would ask the Minister to make it clear that Sir Henry Tizard has gone back to the Ministry under conditions which he considers satisfactory, and which give him the status and authority which will enable him to carry out investigations and do the work for the nation that he is so well qualified to do. It will be most satisfactory to hear that Sir Henry Tizard has been given a position of the kind that satisfies him. We know that Six John Salmond has gone; we have been told that. We understand that Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner has gone and also two other individuals. It really will not do for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that there is no dissatisfaction. There is dissatisfaction. People who are in touch with what is going on there know it quite well. It is in the national interest that that dissatisfaction should be put right, and that persons, high or low, working in the Ministry of Aircraft Production should feel that they are working under conditions that are congenial and that give them the opportunities and the status to which they are entitled.

Colonel Llewellin

I did not wish to intervene in this Debate, but I should like to say a word at this point. My hon. Friend raised particular cases, and I interrupted him by saying "One of them." Only one of the five gentlemen mentioned has resigned. Sir Henry Tizard was ill, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House generally will be glad to hear that he is to-day at one of our experimental stations and will be coming back to the Ministry to-morrow. Sir Henry Tizard has long been a member of the Minister's Council, which consists of the Minister, myself, the Permanent Secretary, Sir Henry Tizard, Mr. Hennessy and Mr. Westbrook. I do not know quite what we should be described as, but we are the chief advisers of the Minister who is responsible for the whole Department. Sir Henry Tizard is one of us, and we shall very much welcome his return to our company. With regard to the other three gentlemen named, I can assure my hon. Friend that I was in no way trying to pull wool across the eyes of my colleagues in the House the other day. As Chairman of the Air Supply Board, I sat at that board to-day, and, as it happened, all three gentlemen mentioned in the Debate last week were there, one as member of the Supply Board and the other two in attendance. They are still part of the Ministry. I will only just add that it is, in my view, preposterous for my hon. Friend to suggest that everything is wrong at the Ministry of Aircraft Production —

Mr. Mander

I did not say so.

Colonel Llewellin

— and that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. I know nobody other than my Noble Friend who could have achieved such a move in production in this country in the summer, and indeed since the summer, that would have enabled us to provide the Royal Air Force with enough planes to keep the enemy off last summer and since. I resent these attacks upon my Noble Friend.

Mr. Mander

I did not say that everything was wrong in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I said that there is something wrong and that there is grave dissatisfaction on a limited scale. There is no doubt about it.

Colonel Llewellin

I ask my hon. Friend and the House to realise that since my Noble Friend came into office as my chief in the Ministry of Aircraft Production he has got a move on in the aircraft industry which has been completely phenomenal. These minor squabbles must be put in that vast perspective behind the man who has been largely responsible for helping this country to defeat the enemy all last year and who, by the great reserves that we now have, will have helped considerably to reinforce the Royal Air Force to beat them in the coming year. Perhaps it would be well that the House should understand that under my Noble Friend's leadership during the shortest month we have had, the month of February, we have produced in this country more bombers and fighter machines than in any month in the previous history of this war.

Mr. Granville (Eye)

I do not wish to follow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on this question of what is happening in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I think the answer was given by the Secretary of State for Air himself in the Debate last week when he said that the Royal Air Force is stronger than ever it has been and is better able to deal with any attempt by the Luftwaffe to make further attacks upon This country. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in expressing the hope that we are not going to see these questions continually raised. No hon. Member has ever produced any facts to support these allegations. It sounds to me like back-door gossip from somewhere, and the fact is that anyone who knew anything at all of the aircraft industry in this country before the war knows what a tremendous debt this country owes to the Noble Lord the Minister of Aircraft Production in having, in abnormal conditions, in war-time, when the conditions are not ideal, produced enough machines to enable this country to retain mastery of the air. I hope that we shall hear no more of these suggestions that all is not well in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, because it is vital that the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft production should work in unity and hand in hand.

Mr. Mander

It all depends upon whether things are right or wrong.

Mr. Granville

Before the war broke out we had a certain number of front-line aircraft. Since then we fought the battle of Britain last September and sustained a certain number of losses, and yet the Royal Air Force is in a position to keep a maximum number of machines in the air with sufficient reinforcements of pilots from the Trainer Command and aircraft from the factories, and, if facts speak for themselves, I should have thought that that was the answer.

I wish briefly to refer to another point. I would like to raise the question of filming the achievements of the Royal Air Force, particularly the achievements of the operations of the Royal Air Force. I know that a certain amount of this has been done, but I take the opportunity of raising the question in the House on the Report stage because I want to press the Under-Secretary of State for Air either to give increased facilities or to make better arrangements to enable films to be taken of the actual fighting operations of the Royal Air Force so that we can show these films in the form of news-reels throughout the whole world. I know something of news-reels, because I was associated with the film industry for a number of years, and I know the great difficulties I am aware also that from the operational and Service points of view there are other difficulties. For instance, if a film cameraman is sent up with a bomber on a long raid to take a film of the actual operations, the question arises as to the number of crew that can be carried by the bomber and whether it is possible to make room for a cameraman. There are also difficulties associated with the sending of cameramen with one of our fighter squadrons on what is called a day fighter sweep over Flanders and the North of France—the sort of thing that the democratic public of the world would like to see—and I know too that there are great difficulties in filming the reconnaissance and patrol activities of the Coastal Command. But I feel that these are very largely technical problems, and it is certainly not for me to suggest here in open debate how they can be circumvented. It is, however, for mo to press the Air Ministry to weigh up the operational or technical difficulties as against the advantages of being able to show films of what the Royal Air Force is actually doing.

I went to a cinema last week and saw a news-reel of the raid on the Norwegian Lofoten Islands. This was one of the finest pictures that has ever been shown on the screens of this country. No matter what the feature picture was, the people in the cinema had obviously all come to see this picture, which was an actual picture of British troops landing and carrying out an attack. It showed the arrival of the British naval forces off the Norwegian Islands, the shelling and sinking of a Nazi cargo ship, it showed British soldiers complete with Tommy guns making prisoners of the Quislings, it showed the burning of the oil tanks, it showed our own queer invasion barges as used in the raid, and the embarkation of both Norwegian patriots and Quislings. Quite obviously this picture was an enormous success, and the people were only too glad to get an opportunity—as millions of people all over the world would be—of seeing the British Army in an offensive against the enemy. I therefore want to press my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air to do what he can. The two spot war news aces of this country to-day are the Royal Air Force and the Prime Minister. Everybody would like to hear and see more of the Prime Minister. All over the world, on the Continent and certainly in the United States of America, people are wanting to see and hear as well as read about the great activities of the Royal Air Force. I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to weigh up the technical difficulties put forward by his advisers alongside the enormous advantage of showing to vast numbers of people, and of putting permanently on record on celluloid, the great achievements of the Royal Air Force.

I do not suggest for a moment that it is the business of the Royal Air Force to make films of the kind that the Nazis have made, such as "Victory in the West" and "Baptism of Fire." which are mostly done by fake shots. I remember seeing on the screen actual shots of fighter aircraft in action—I believe the cameras were synchronised with the machine guns—and wherever those shots were shown they were an enormous success. Then there were those films of September and October last, taken by cameramen from an improvised wooden pier at Dover, of the actual air fighting over that town. It is for an extension of something like those that I would plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I think the Air Ministry is behindhand in this respect. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has seen those wonderful films which have been made by the Ministry of Information: "The Heart of Britain," or "Dai Jones," or the magnificent "Britain Can Take It," with the commentary by that great friend of this country, Quentin Reynolds, which had such an enormous success in America. Wherever these films have been shown they have been a success, particularly "Britain Can Take It." I am asking the Secretary of State to show, by such films, taken by the Royal Air Force in action, that Britain can not only take it, but can hand it out as well.

Last week the right hon. Gentleman made a very encouraging speech, in which he said that we are getting on the offensive. This is a total war. It is necessary not only to be on the offensive, but to show great neutral countries, like America, that we are doing so. In this war every camera is a gun. Every offensive raid should be accompanied by a camera, if possible. The Nazis stole much ground from us in radio propaganda. Do not let them steal the film propaganda. I appeal to the Secretary of State for Air to go into this question very carefully, and to see whether some way cannot be found to enable shots to be taken of the R.A.F. in action, so that they can be preserved, from a technical and operational and Air Force point of view, and shown to the world. I believe that in those records we have the finest propaganda, of those young men of the R.A.F. who, by their great courage, are defending our civilisation.

Mr. Creech Jones (Shipley)

I want to draw attention to what may be a small point, in the opinion of many hon. Members, but is, in my estimation, a matter of some importance. Members of the Fighting Services to-day are citizens in uniform, most anxious to learn their jobs, but still possessing many of their civilian interests. They are engaged in warfare involving frightful sacrifices, but designed for the very great purpose of securing the future of civilisation itself. I would like the Air Ministry to show more imagination and drive in the work they have started in connection with adult education among airmen. I would like to congratulate the Army Council on the excellent progress that they have made in recent months in this direction, and I would ask the Air Council to take a leaf out of their book. The Army Council appointed a Committee, which produced an excellent report, indicating how this work could be done in the light of the special difficulties and problems of the Army. What is done for the Army cannot necessarily be done for the Royal Air Force. There are special problems of training. Special technical training has to be done, and possibly there is much more educational work, but I suggest that there are large numbers of airmen who are not wholly, all their waking lives, engaged on learning their jobs, or in air operations, who are isolated, more remote from the common life, where possibly some intellectual distractions or, as they have sometimes been called, more mental comforts, would not be altogether out of place. I know that a start has been made, but there is some genuine apprehension in many quarters at the very slight progress that is being made, and it is suggested that because so much time has to be given to technical training, those in the Air Force who are responsible for educational work have all their time and work cut out in dealing with the technical training and the more limited educational processes.

I ask the Minister very seriously to consider whether some bigger move can be made and more imagination put into the job, so that greater facilities can be made available, particularly in those areas more remote from the towns, where this perfectly normal facility enjoyed by many thousands of the men who are now cut off and remote from their homes, in a life very different from that with which they are familiar, can be increasingly made available, and more money applied for this particular Service. I therefore urge that the special problems of the Air Force might be considered in the same way as has been the case in respect of the Army.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston (Thornbury)

I want to intervene only for a few minutes because of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Granville), who has said that the credit of beating the German air onslaught last October was due to the creation of the new Aircraft Ministry. I do not want to take any credit away from anybody, but we want to be fair to the Air Ministry. I think we must admit that the reason why we won that battle was the good design of our machines. Let us place on record the services of the late Minister for Air, Lord Swinton, who had the courage to go ahead with those types when they were only in the embryo stage. I say that because I do not want to cast any reflection upon anybody. It is far too serious for that. If there is any conflict between one Ministry and another, it is because they are very busy on their own jobs and are doing their best.

But let us look at the facts. In the past when you had one Air Ministry it was much easier, obviously, to marry the producer to the user, but now you have separated the two Ministries. We are up against difficulties which are inherent in the separation. When they are all under one house it must be very easy for whoever it is, the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, who is interested in the design and keeps in touch with the pilots, to go to his opposite number in the same Ministry on the production side. It is much more difficult when you separate the two Ministries, and there may be a tendency for one Ministry to concentrate upon, or be very anxious to produce, numbers, and a danger of quality being so neglected as not to be quite as important as it was. I have been told that in the last war there were only two occasions on which our morale was not at its highest. It was when our machines were not so much better than the German machines, as we would have liked them to be. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to assure us that there is ample machinery by which pilots can go to their senior officers and ask for this or that modification and to say whether the modifications, if asked for, are carried out. I think that is most important. I believe that in the last war pilots were encouraged to go to factories to see planes made and to tell designers of any modification they thought necessary. I have heard it said that that is now discouraged, and I hope it is not true.

Mr. Granville

I said that we should pay a tribute to the Air Minister when I spoke in a Debate last week, but surely the men responsible for encouraging that type of design and for the technical research were the designers in the fighter factories—men like Mr. Mitchell, of Vickers Supermarine, Mr. Camm, of Hawkers, and Mr. Feddon, of Bristol.

Sir D. Gunston

Those designers were encouraged by the Air Ministry.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

Quite literally, I want to say only a few words in this Debate. I am in a position to speak about two subjects with a little familiarity. One of them concerns the Minister of Aircraft Production, with whom I was in journalism for 13 years, and the other concerns the aircraft industry, in which I was associated with him for some months. In the case: of Lord Beaverbrook, I put it to the House that you have to accept this extraordinary man, with all the attendant difficulties as one who undoubtedly possesses to a marked degree—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)

I know the Debate has gone rather wide but I would remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the Air Estimates and not the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Mander

I think it was ruled last Tuesday that for certain purposes the Ministry of Aircraft Production could come within the scope of the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It was only then ruled in order to meet the Amendment before the Chair. I do not think it can be in Order now.

Mr. Baxter

With great respect to you, Sir, the question of the resignations to which I was coming was raised and answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I bow to your Ruling, of course, but I would like to say of Lord Beaverbrook that at any given moment you can prove him wrong, but in the end he has a terrific habit of being right. I beg the House not to exaggerate the importance of the Departmental difficulties which arc bound to occur whatever Minister is in charge. Finally, may I say how glad I was that the hon. and gallant Baronet raised the question of the early planning of this industry? I am afraid that the public and some members of the Press have the feeling that the aircraft industry was somehow or other miraculously produced last September and that by a fortnight's intensive leadership we produced enough machines to hold and defeat the Luftwaffe. Of course, the truth is that this industry was superbly planned. The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Menzies, has said that he was utterly aghast at the thoroughness with which the aircraft industry had been planned. Now that it is the fashion to publish silly adolescent books like "Guilty Men," written by two of the most gifted adolescents in English journalism—both great friends of mine—Lord Swinton, among other men who did great groundwork, is a man to whom the public to-day pays no tribute; but without him all the drive and energy of the Minister to whom I may not refer in this Debate would have been without any consequence. I want to leave those random thoughts with the House in the hope that, in passing criticism, we shall remember that one idea, that Lord Beaverbrook at any given moment may be wrong, but in the end he will be right.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Denbigh)

I had intended to raise one aspect of the administration of the Royal Air Force, and particularly to refer to one case, but as it might not be appropriate to raise that matter in public, I would prefer to take it up privately with my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State. With regard to the medical service, I would like to make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend. The medical service of the Royal Air Force is about the best in the world. The standard of the medical examination in the Royal Air Force is first-class and is as nearly a perfect examination as any human being can go through. It must be very rare that a person can get through that examination and afterwards show any blemish. However, if men go into the Royal Air Force as physically fit as any human being can be—and we know this must be-so, because of the magnificent services they have rendered, in spite of hardships and inconveniences of various sorts—and then are taken ill afterwards, the medical board that examines them must be as generous as possible. I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to see that discretion is exercised in favour of these men if it is possible to do so. Some men in the Royal Air Force "crock up." While I recognise that every scrutiny must be made to see whether the disability is one that might have been contracted in civil life, and not due to the hazards of their service, I have in mind some cases where I do not think discretion has been exercised quite as I would wish it to be.

I know of an officer who has come from a distant part of the Empire, having given up a post with high emoluments attached to it, in order to come into the Royal Air Force, and now he has contracted a disability which is not pensionable according to the judgment of the medical board which examined the case a few Weeks ago. I wish to submit that, just as in the Army and Navy, it must be assumed when a man passes a medical board he is 100 per cent. fit, and if any disability arises, in a few months, as has happened in one or two cases, the onus of saying that that disability was contracted prior to his examination must be on the medical board.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the hon. Member is discussing the Ministry of Pensions Vote and not that of the Air Ministry. This subject has nothing to do with the Air Ministry.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

I only raise it because the boards which examine these men are Royal Air Force boards and come under the administration of the Royal Air Force. However, it is quite enough for me that I have raised the matter, and no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend will take it into consideration.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour)

The Debate to which I have to reply has ranged fairly widely, and, indeed, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have had to check its progress on one or two occasions. It has ranged from random phrases making a character-sketch of Lord Beaverbrook, by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) down to the, question of bombing of the Leipzig Fair. In regard to the interchange which took place between the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, I will not venture to say anything about the great qualities of my Noble Friend, except that I would say this on behalf of the Air Ministry, and I say it with some knowledge of the subject, that we in my Department, and indeed the whole country, owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to ray Noble Friend for what he did in the early days of the battle in France and in the early summer months over here.

Extraordinary and unconventional steps were taken by him—steps which could not have been taken except by someone coming fresh from outside who had the imagination and unconventional direction of enterprise which he peculiarly possesses. I cannot allow these remarks to pass without expressing what I know to be a fact, that the Royal Air Force and the country owe him something for those weeks which I do not know how we shall be able to repay.

The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) spoke of the restraint which hon. Members had shown during Service Estimates in not raising matters which it would not be in the public interest to mention on the Floor of this House. As far as the Air Ministry is concerned, I echo gratitude for the restraint which has been shown by hon. Members in bringing forward such matters, not publicly, but privately to me. The hon. Member raised one point in connection with the Observer Corps. He asked that their status should be cleared up in case invasion took place. Doubts have been expressed regarding the status of the Observer Corps, but I can give the opinion of the Judge-Advocate-General on this particular point. It is to the effect that members of the Observer Corps who bore arms would be entitled to the rights and privileges of Armed Forces under international law during such times as they fulfilled certain conditions.

The first was that they were commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; the second that they wore a fixed distinctive sign, recognisable at a distance; the third that they carried arms openly; and the fourth that they conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The Judge-Advocate-General has given it as his opinion that the Observer Corps fulfils these conditions. I hope this statement will clear up, once and for all, the question as to status.

Mr. Garro Jones

I do not wish to press the hon. and gallant Gentleman in detail, but his remarks were qualified as applying only to those members of the Observer Corps who bore arms. One of my points was that the great majority of members of the Observer Corps do not bear arms. In those circumstances, how are they to be protected, and what are they to do in case of the drastic emergency to which I referred?

Captain Balfour

It would, of course, be expedient for the Observer Corps to put on the uniform, or alternatively the brassard with which they are issued, if a state of grave emergency arises, in order that they can avoid running risks which they might run if they were identified by the enemy as persons who had performed belligerent acts and were not wearing distinctive uniform.

Mr. Garro Jones

Why is it that while the Air Cadet Corps, and even the Pigeon Corps, are recognised by the Air Ministry this vitally important branch of our air defence is not run and administered by the Air Ministry and taken over and accorded military status?

Captain Balfour

There are very good reasons why that is not so, but I am not going to give them this afternoon. The Observer Corps is a civilian corps, as indeed are other Civil Defence Services. As I said in this House a week ago, my right hon. Friend has had this and other matters concerning the Observer Corps under review during the past few weeks and will, no doubt, in a short while be able to give the House some information as to the results of that review. There are certain matters arising out of this question which still remain to be settled. Directly they are settled, my right hon. Friend intends to give the House some of the results of his review, but until that happens, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that I should not be pressed beyond making this statement.

The hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander) asked me a question concerning the Air Training Corps and the question of uniforms. I can give him some information on that point. There is a target programme of 220,000 sets of uniform, which provides a margin of 20,000 over and above the number of young boys we hope to clothe. We have no fewer than 12 sizes in jackets and 20 sizes in trousers, so that we are aiming at a wide range of sizes of young men. Delivery is promised to commence in the last week in April and to be completed by the end of June. With the expanding Air Force— not to mention the Navy and Army— we cannot supply all the things we should like all at the same time, and the needs of the Fighting Services, with new recruits coming in, must really come first, though we are giving a quota to the Air Training Corps of such material as is available. Manufacturers are working at high pressure. Some of them have been bombed out, and they have lost key men, but I do not think the information I have given the hon. Member will be unsatisfactory to him or to those who have made representations to him. The question of entry into the Corps at the age of 15 has been carefully considered, and we have come to the conclusion that we should not allow boys to rank for grant from public funds under the age of 16. Boys, in certain limited numbers, provided the units are able to absorb them, can join below 16, but 16 is the age at which they will rank for grant from public funds. That was carefully considered when the scheme was brought into being, and 1 can assure my hon. Friend that, if we started at 15, somebody would say 14, and if we started at 14 somebody would say 13

With regard to the question of the pigeon service, it is a fact that the responsibility for carrier pigeons used for Government service is vested in the Air Ministry, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we co-operate closely with the National Pigeon Service and governing unions among pigeon fanciers. I cannot claim to be a great expert on pigeons or as to the merits of the Wolverhampton pigeons as against coastal pigeons, but I am sure that we consider pigeons from all sources provided they are suitable. A limited increase in the membership of the National Pigeon Service has been authorised in order to bring the membership up to a total of not more than 400,000 pigeons. Food coupons in accordance with that number will be issued.

Mr. Mander

Can that increase come from the Midlands—from Wolverhampton for example?

Captain Balfour

I can only say "let the best pigeon win." The hon. Gentleman envisaged a ferry service of pigeons flying across the Atlantic to oust the good British pigeon. I can give him an assurance that there is no intention to import any pigeons from the United States or anywhere else.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) appealed for greater facilities for the filming of Royal Air Force operations and asked for greater opportunities for film camera people to go on operational flights. This is not a new question. The Air Ministry do not approach it in any negative frame of mind, but there are certain basic principles that must govern the consideration of this problem. The first is that a decision whether a cameraman shall be allowed to go on an operational flight must be left to the Commanders in Chief who put into operation the Air staff policy laid down by the Air Ministry. In medium-size aircraft there is only a limited number of positions of vantage view. You could, of course, sandwich a film man somewhere in the fuselage, but he would see nothing. The only place where he could see anything from is where the few men are posted in the aircraft, each one of whom is doing a definite job as part of the crew. If one of these members of the crew was taken out and a cameraman put in his place, it must reduce the offensive or defensive power of the aircraft so far as that particular point is concerned. Not only that, but to-day we do not have merely a pilot, an observer, a wireless operator and an air gunner; we have a crew consisting of men doing these functions, trained together, who know each other, have worked and played together, and who know each others' characteristics. They are an interwoven unit of four or five human beings working as one entity. If you removed one man of that crew and put in his place a cameraman, you would not only take away part of the offensive or defensive power of the aircraft, but you would destroy a large part of the efficiency of the whole crew.

Mr. Granville

Before the hon. and gallant Member leaves that point, may I remind him, because I think his attention was drawn elsewhere at the time it was mentioned, that some shots were made of aerial fights, and I understand the cameras were synchronised with the machine guns? They were a great success, but I think they could be improved upon.

Captain Balfour

While we are trying to do that so far as we can, frankly we have a tremendous fighting job before us, and our first purpose must be to knock out Germany. I have seen those camera shots, which were taken with a camera synchronised with the machine gun, but before the pilot went into battle and in order to use that camera he had to remember to switch on the film. We gave these cameras to certain experienced pilots, but I should hesitate to expect the average pilot to remember to do one extra unnecessary operation when starting to go into battle if by so doing it would in any way complicate the efficiency of the mental processes he has to go through in order to carry out his duties with maximum advantage. Nevertheless, we are constantly alive to improving the opportunities which exist and the chances for taking operational photographs, but only within the limits of our determination not to impair the fighting efficiency of the aircraft or endanger the safety of the crews who are flying in them.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) asked whether we could show more initiative and drive in the matter of adult education in the Royal Air Force. I think he must be a little behind the times, because I have been in personal contact with Sir Walter Moberley, the Master of Balliol and Dr. Yeaxlee, and at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have recently carried out a review of adult education in the Royal Air Force. The first thing I had to ascertain was whether there was a demand for adult education as apart from technical education. I am convinced there is. The second point was to find out how we can best satisfy that demand within the limits of Service life. We have taken and are taking various steps. We have appointed education officers arid are appointing additional ones, and they are co-operating with the regional committees of the Adult Education Association. Subject only to beating Germany, which is the first purpose of the Royal Air Force, we shall do everything we can to encourage adult education.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) asked me whether I could give an assurance that there was machinery through which the views of pilots are made known to those who are responsible for the design and production and modification of aircraft. I will not at this hour go into any detail, except to say that there are two distinct channels which allow the views of those who fly the aircraft to become known to the designers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) paid a tribute, which we are glad to receive, to the Royal Air Force medical services. He asked me if I would use discretion over the question of attributability to war service. I shall not embark upon that question, because I think it comes more within the province of the Ministry of Pensions. He knows that it is a difficult subject, but we do try to deal with these cases in a sympathetic manner, with a view to seeing that each man gets a fair deal and his full rights within the Regulations. But it must be remembered that the Regulations are the boundaries laid down by Parliament, and we have to administer within those boundaries.

I have endeavoured to answer the questions put to me this afternoon, and I would conclude by a reference to what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said regarding what we were doing about the bombing of Germany. He gave some figures about targets in Germany, and said the question of the final destruction of the German war effort would come when we had destroyed their aircraft industry and their oil industry. He also spoke about the incident of the fair at Leipzig, but I would remind him that this concerned the fair last year and not this year. He said that when this destruction of oil and industry was done it would be impossible for Germany to make war. When that is done we shall have won the war.

He spoke also about giving the enemy further doses of our bombing medicine. I too look forward to being able to give the enemy an increase in quantity and stronger doses month by month as the war goes on. In the expanding bomber Force lies our greatest hope for victory against the enemy, and as we can expand our bomber Force so are we able to think more and more in terms of offence, instead of so much in terms of defence, and the sooner shall we be able to bring to reality that final victory of which we are all completely confident.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force; and that Captain Margesson, Mr. Alexander, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Sir Edward Grigg and Captain Balfour do prepare and bring it in.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL BILL).

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed—[Bill 15].

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.