HC Deb 11 March 1942 vol 378 cc1162-71

3. "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, 1942, 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, &c, of the Air Force. 10 50,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

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

Mrs. Rathbone (Bodmin)

There is a brief point I wish to raise about an anomaly in pay in the Royal Air Force. First of all, I should like, if I may, to take this, the first chance I have had of speaking about Royal Air Force matters in the House of Commons, to thank the Air Ministry for the promptness with which they have always dealt with the many cases I have brought to their attention. Naturally, during the past years of war I have had a good deal to do with the Royal Air Force, and I have always found them most helpful, sympathetic and cooperative. In raising this anomaly in pay, I should like to say that it would really seem platitudinous to argue about money matters concerning members of the Royal Air Force who are at all times so willing to give their services and not count the cost. But there is one point which wants looking into. The average officer who is training for operational work while doing training is allowed to live out with his family and is given a living-out allowance. He then passes from training to an operational station, where it is quite different. He has to live in the station. His family remain at home, and the wife, with his children, if that be the case, has to try to keep up a home ready for her husband when he comes off operational work, and is considerably less well off financially than when her husband was living at home. Admittedly it costs extra to have an officer living in the house, but the difference in the pay is considerably more. At the same time the officer has to pay certain mess fees while on an operational station. In other words, it has always seemed to me that a pilot officer going on operational work is in some sense placed in financial jeopardy, besides all the other jeopardies which he has to suffer. I shall be extremely sorry if I am not in my place when the Under-Secretary replies, but I have to address a meeting. This is a matter I have wanted to raise for some time.

In conclusion, I would say that we are all going through a period of depression in the country over the effects of the various disasters in the war. But it is always an encouraging thing to talk to a Royal Air Force pilot who is on active service, and to realise that he and his comrades are really whole-heartedly at work seven days in the week. If we could only run our lives on that same line, by giving all and not counting the cost, we should be well on the way to the reconsecration which must come if we are to win this war.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

I imagine, from the informal conversations I have had with you, Mr. Speaker, that I should be in Order in referring again to the policy of the Royal Air Force, or the Air Ministry, in regard to the question of bombing industrial targets in Germany, and in regard to the defence of aerodromes.

Mr. Speaker

Aerodromes have nothing to do with this Vote.

Sir T. Moore

Surely aerodromes have to be protected by the new Royal Air Force Regiment which was brought into being?

Mr. Speaker

Curiously enough, they are protected under another Vote.

Sir T. Moore

Naturally I accept your Ruling. But am I entitled to refer to the numbers of Royal Air Force personnel and the purposes to which they are used?

Mr. Speaker

The numbers of Royal Air Force personnel certainly come into this Vote.

Sir T. Moore

It would be very little use my discussing the numbers of the personnel if one could not indicate the justification for that discussion by asking or suggesting how they should best be employed. That is why I was hoping I might be permitted to refer for a second or two to certain discouraging words or discouraging speeches which were made last week in regard to the use of the Royal Air Force in bombing industrial and other targets in Germany. A number of hon. Members tried to convince my right hon. and gallant Friend that there was no longer any utility in bombing targets in Germany. It seemed to me that, no doubt unwittingly, they were serving as loud speakers for Goebbels. I paid a visit to Germany after the last war and came across a very intelligent German officer who had been in the intelligence service. We had many discussions about the effect of the war, and one thing that he repeatedly rubbed in, was that the Germans feared bombing more than anything else and were glad that the war had come to an end and that they could feel certain that they would not be bombed. I was relieved in my mind by the statement of the Secretary of State, when he made it clear, in categorical terms, that the policy of the Air Force was to continue bombing Germany relentlessly.

Mr. Speaker

That matter might be raised on the salary of the Secretary of State, but I do not think it is in Order on this Vote.

Sir T. Moore

Would not my remarks be in Order in relation to the pay of the Air Force—those who carry out the instructions of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker

The pay of the Air Force certainly comes under this Vote, but questions of policy would not be in Order.

Sir T. Moore

Would the use of the new Air Force Regiment for the defence of aerodromes come under it?

Mr. Speaker

I should say that that, generally, would be in Order.

Sir T. Moore

The more one studies the policy recently announced by the right hon. Gentleman, the more confusing it becomes. A short time ago I received a letter from an aerodrome defence officer who was bitterly disappointed because he could get little support, or encouragement, from the station commander in regard to the defence of his own aerodrome. He said the station commander was essentially preoccupied with flying and with the capacity of his pilots and machines. We all admire that regard for the pilots and machines, but surely experience has told us that neither pilot nor machine will be of much use if there is not an aerodrome. The right hon. Baronet, as a means of assuaging the anxieties of the House, said that all would now be well because we were instituting an R.A.F. Regiment for the defence of aerodromes.

I do not want to minimise the effect of that description of the duties of the R.A.F. Regiment, but it seems to me that it is quite unworkable, and I am sure I am not alone in that thought. If and when we have invasion, it will surely be preceded or accompanied by a series of almighty blitzes from the air, whether the invasion is seaborne or airborne. If so, surely the main portion of the R.A.F. Regiment will then be employed on the very job for which they are trained; that is, re-surfacing and re-equipping, filling-up bomb craters, and so on at the aerodrome. Therefore, although I willingly accept my right hon. Friend's assurance I cannot quite see that the R.A.F. Regiment, consisting largely of R.A.F. personnel drawn from the aerodrome, can be an effective instrument for the defence of the aerodrome. The further development of the command which my right hon. Friend envisaged renders the position still more obscure. It has to be under the command of the station commander, but at some unspecified and highly uncertain time during the invasion it comes under the operational command of the area Army commander. This is a sort of tortuous maze, and it is difficult to understand exactly what functions it can carry out, under whose control they can be carried out, and when control devolves from the station commander to the area Army commander; in other words, how the men composing this force are to carry out the defence of aerodromes when the invasion comes. That is the real problem with which I have been faced, and with which other Members have been concerned. I can speak for some with whom I have consulted, and we feel that there is only one real solution. That is, that the ground defence of an aerodrome, like the defence of a factory or any other war establishment, is the job of the Army, and that the military commander of the area must be responsible.

You, Sir, have rather restricted the scope of my argument, because I was going to refer to a subject which your predecessor in the Chair permitted the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) to develop. That is the question of co-operation between the Air forces and the land forces. The hon. and gallant Gentleman developed this subject at some length and endeavoured to persuade the Government and the House that the Army should have its own operational aircraft. We all agree on that, and we would extend the principle to the Navy as well. We all wonder why this obvious reorganisation does not take place. On many occasions doubts have been expressed whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had sufficient power over the Air Ministry and the senior Air.officers, and whether the latter were not afraid of an encroachment on their status and powers if they yielded now. This is the kind of rumour that is going round, and I feel that the Secretary of State should be made aware of it, because it is not good for the Air Force and the Air Ministry that these doubts should go round without being squashed. I know that my right hon. Friend said in the last Debate that there was no truth in them, but the rumour persists that owing to the vested interests created as a result of these comparatively junior officers being forced by the expansion of the Air Force into high positions, they may, even with the national existence at stake, be unwilling, by lack of judgment or of years, to forgo the power and position which they hold in the Air Ministry as sole controllers of this vast and growing force.

I should not have intervened on this question had I not realised that there is a feeling of frustration and of anxiety throughout the country as to the proper utilisation of all our Armed Forces, including the Air Force. I feel that the people of this country are saying: "We are being encouraged to give blood, sweat and tears, encouraged by the Ministry of Aircraft Production and other Ministries to work harder and longer, give up more of our time, give up our holidays, give up our travel, and how is all this blood, sweat and tears to be used? Is it going to be thrown on one side? Is it going to be yielded up at Singapore? Are we going to see our big ships going down because Japanese bombers could choose just where they wanted to launch their air attack?"

Mr. Speaker

Surely the hon. and gallant Member is going far away from this Vote.

Sir T. Moore

Perhaps I was carried away a little. I will finish my remarks by saying that the British people and the Empire are tired of inefficiency, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will try, with such powers as he has, to produce an organisation directed by people who are worthy of the men whom they direct.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)

I should like to have an assurance about the care taken to prevent accidents, particularly to young pilots, in the Air Force. I feel confident that every care is taken before young pilots are put into any position of responsibility, but my attention was drawn to this subject a week or two ago, though I need not mention the place I have in mind nor, indeed, the number of accidents which occurred in a comparatively short time, because to draw any useful conclusions one would have to know the number of pilots who were flying there and how often they flew. While we are all lost in admiration of the dexterity of these young pilots who do all manner of tricks in the sky, there must be a period of their career before they have acquired full confidence in themselves. Probably they have the skill but are just lacking in confidence. They have certainly sweated and spent agonising hours in preparing themselves for the tasks that lie ahead. It is at that final stage that I hope the greatest care will be taken to prevent accidents, because all that effort to which I have referred will have been wasted if there should be an accident. We have to take into account that sometimes climatic conditions here are entirely different from what some of these young men have been used to, visibility here is different, and great judgment has to be displayed in estimating distances both in taking off and in landing. I feel that before these young pilots are given full control of machines they ought to be accompanied in the air for a time. I should like to ask for an assurance that every care will be taken in this matter.

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

The hon. Lady the Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Rathbone), whose intervention in our Debate is welcome on all sides of the House, said it was the first time she had spoken on air matters in this House but I know that we shall all look forward to her contributions on that subject in future. She was kind enough to pay a tribute to the Air Ministry for its method of dealing with individual cases. I shall be happy to pass on that tribute to those members of our administrative staff who carry the burden of that work, which is very considerable. Very often the Executive are, quite rightly, subjected to criticism in this House, but it is all too rare for us to get a tribute and I know all members of our staff will be glad to receive it in this case.

The hon. Lady put a question on what she called an anomaly. If I may put it in a sentence she said that when a married officer lives out, he is in receipt of married allowance and lodging allowance, but when he lives in, he is in receipt of consolidated allowance, and that as it works out, he is less well off when he lives in than when he lives out. I think that is her case. The hon. Lady must be aware that there is, at present, in none of the operational commands any order that air crews must live in. Indeed, in the majority of cases, the air crews live out. There are times, however, when, under the stress of operations, air crews may be ordered to live in for certain periods. It is a very difficult problem and not one which can be dealt with in relation only to the Air Force. It is an inter-Service matter, affecting the Army and Navy as well. We have the problem under review and I hope that we shall be able to come to some arrangement by which, when air crews are ordered in, they will not lose by it. I cannot give any assurance except to say that this issue is very much alive and that it is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) may be assured that we shall go on bombing the Germans. About aerodrome defence, this rests with the Army, but we have, by agreement with the Army, formed the Royal Air Force Regiment to help in that task. I am not going into the details now of those questions which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, but I suggest that he should read the Debate on this matter, when he will find the subject will be clear to him. He made one fundamental error when he said that the Royal Air Force Regiment consisted of mechanics and airmen, and when he asked how they could do their work of tending the aircraft and at the same time defend the aerodromes. If he will read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and my attempt at answering questions, he will see that the Royal Air Force Regiment is composed of men who specialise upon aerodrome defence only, and that those men to whom he was referring are known as "backers-up," ordinary men on the aerodromes, who can be employed in backing-up the Royal Air Force Regiment, if their other duties so allow. I should be very happy at any time to enlighten him, to the best of my ability and the ability of my Department, if he will come along and see me.

I was very glad indeed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) raised the question of accidents, because one of the tragic aspects of the administration of a Service Department such as the Air Ministry, which my right hon. Friend and myself have to face, is that the air, even in peace-time, has always taken its toll of human life and that in war the toll is much greater. I can assure him that we regard accidents as incidents which must be investigated and sifted to the uttermost. We are always anxious about accidents; we can never be happy or complacent or satisfied so long as accidents, which might possibly be avoided, occur. We have a complete accidents branch; we sift out statistics of all accidents with a view to finding out whether a particular type of aeroplane is more prone to accidents than to others and whether a particular age group is inclined to be more prone to accidents than another; we study meteorological conditions and get a series of cross sections of all the circumstances attending accidents.

As regards the boys and young men who come from abroad, as the products of the great Commonwealth Joint Air Training plan, the point made about their coming to a new climate, is, I think, met by the fact that they go to one or two reception depots where they are given certain routine work and where, in future, they are to learn something about the fundamentals of the sister Services, the Army and the Navy, for a period of three or four weeks. This will allow them to become acclimatised. Before they are allowed to go up in the air again, they always go up in a dual control machine, with an instructor to see that they have not lost their skill, and to rub up their knowledge again. I think I have answered the Questions put by my hon. Friend and I trust that the House will accept our assurance that my right hon. Friend and I will keep a strict look-out on accidents at all times.

Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to deal with the matter I raised the other day—why the Royal Air Force is being trained on biplanes when all operational work is carried out on monoplanes? There was, at one time, I believe, a prototype of the Magister which appeared to be suitable for the purpose, and I shall be glad to have information on the point.

Captain Balfour

I will gladly answer that point. Biplanes are used to any extent in the training of pilots, only at the elementary stage, and at this stage the biplane has been found to be satisfactory and economical in use. It is our experience that pilots receiving their initial training on biplanes show no variation in skill, as compared with pilots who have received elementary training on monoplane types. I cannot agree that the biplane is inefficient or wasteful, or is not giving our young men a fair chance. On the other hand, the biplane has not got all the modern developments associated with the low-wing monoplane, and it is desirable to introduce our young men to these particular characteristics at the earliest possible stage. Therefore, as our supply of biplanes fades away, so are we bringing in a supply of elementary trainers of the low-wing monoplane type. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

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