HC Deb 16 April 1946 vol 421 cc2531-63

AIR ESTIMATES, 1946

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, '' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

3.48 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Duģdale (Richmond)

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: This House deplores the continued failure of His Majesty's Government to specify the period for which men are now being called up for the Royal Air Force, thus causing needless uncertainty and difficulty to both employers and employees and also to young men on the threshold of their careers, and urges upon His Majesty's Government the need for making an immediate statement of policy. I feel that it is such a long time now since I had the honour of trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask for the indulgence which the House usually affords to those hon. Members who are addressing it for the first time, but my political life has followed a course which has made it, up to now, inappropriate for me to take part in these Debates. Those days are now over, and I am happy indeed, through the fortune of the Ballot, to be able to move this Amendment on the Air Estimates.

I have no personal experience of the Air Force, but as a member of a sister Service, I have always admired the work and exploits of that great Service in all its fields of operations. Today I am dealing with the calling up of young men into the Air Force arid the other Services. I believe that we are discussing this afternoon the most important age group in the country, that between 18 and 21, or 22. Young people in the late 'teens and the early twenties appear to me to demand the greatest possible attention from all hon. Members of this House and from the Government. Each year, according to my research, I understand that there are, approximately, 300,000 people who reach the age of 18. No doubt the Air Force will be responsible for the future careers of a goodly proportion of that number. However small or great that proportion may be, I am certain that the Under-Secretary will agree that their well being should be carefully considered.

It is eight months since hostilities against Japan ended in victory for the Allies. Yet the Government still keep the nation waiting to hear for what period of service men are now to be called up in the Armed Forces. I believe that in moving this Amendment in the terms which I have read to the House, I am expressing the anxiety of hon. Members in all parts of the House and that of hundreds of thousands of parents, of wives, of industry as a whole, of universities, and, indeed, of the young men concerned. The whole nation is waiting on a Government whose Election pledge was that the affairs of the nation would be planned. We in this House, and the nation as a whole, are entitled to know what those plans are, and to know quickly in regard to this particular Service. If I might digress for a moment, I would say that there is very often misrepresentation in regard to the word "planning." It appears to be suggested that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are the only architects of "planning" and that hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House do not want to plan anything. That is very far from the truth. The view which hon. Members on this side of the House take is that we do not want to plan for planning's sake but we do want to plan when it is necessary. If there is one problem today which requires urgent and immediate planning, it is the problem of our young men. Since the present Government came into office there have been interesting discussions in this House both as regards the older members of the community—on the question of old age pensions, and so on—and as regards the younger section. The country is engaged in putting into operation the great Education Act which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). That is a very important Act for the young people of this country; yet we. have this age group of the 18's to 20'S being left, literally and completely, in the air as to their future.

I would refer for my argument to a statement made by the Prime Minister during the Debate of 4th March, because the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, I think, is not reassuring. During that Debate he used the following words: The reason why we cannot come to a decision vet is that it all depends on so many uncertain, indeed, unknown, factors."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. [...]6.] Six weeks have gone by and yesterday, in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in regard to the voluntary service scheme, the Prime Minister said: We have to consider the length of term in relation to the general scheme of voluntary service I am not prepared to make a statement at once. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1946; Vol. 124, c. 2366.] I hope to come back to that point before I sit down, but, in my view, those statements by the head of the Government are just not good enough. If we are to take the words of the Prime Minister literally, then, I believe, we should have to wait for Armageddon itself, before we could solve the problem of conditions of service for our young men. It is also true that the longer the delay in making decisions, the greater and more widespread becomes the resulting chaos in our national life.

May we examine for a short time this afternoon the position of the men who are now being called up, and who are actually joining the Royal Air Force? As long as the war was in progress, and we were fighting a common enemy, there was no question in the minds of the personnel of the Air Force, or, indeed, of the other Services, about the length of their engagement. When we were engaged in a life and death struggle, and when the fate of civilisation itself depended upon our efforts and those of our Allies, the only thought of the personnel of the Royal Air Force was how soon they could get into action against the common enemy. Those days have passed. After six bitter years of war we are now a free people once more, made so by the efforts of ourselves and our Allies. We have now a new series of problems to solve, and in solving them I think it will be agreed that the first and most important thing to do, is to re-equip our Services, and the Air Force in particular, with fresh men in order that they may relieve those who have borne the brunt of the struggle. But in doing that there are other weighty considerations to be borne in mind.

The country is trying to effect a change from war conditions to those of peace. It is true to say that service in the Royal Air Force must be fitted into the general plan for peacetime employment, but so long as there is no indication of the period of national service, it is impossible for our young men to plan their futures. It is the duty of the Government of the day to make it possible for these young men to plan their futures. Many hon. Members were in this age group at the end of the first world war. If we cast our minds back, we must remember the difficulty and the anguish of mind which many of us experienced when we had to make up our minds which direction our lives should follow. We had not at that time however this overriding difficulty of not knowing what the country wanted and expected of us in the most critical years immediately following that war. Many of my hon. Friends in that age group at that time arranged very different kinds of lives for themselves, but all will agree that that difficult time would have been made a thousands times more difficult, if they had not known w hat were the Government's plans.

I wish to say a few words on the question of national service. Yesterday the Financial Secretary to the War Office, talking of this subject in the Debate on the Army Estimates, implied that much as he disliked it, he accepted the necessity for compulsory service at present. That was the first time we heard such a statement made from the Government benches. I believe that statement reflects opinion throughout the country, and that people expect compulsory service to apply from the age of 18. Therefore, the real problem is to decide the exact period of that service. I would like to give a few examples, from different sections of the age group of 18, of what is happening today. Let me refer first to apprentices in industry. I believe it is of the greatest importance that the system of apprenticeship should be encouraged by all of us. Yet those who, today, are undergoing apprenticeship do not know when they will be able to practise their trades. In many trades, depending on the age at which apprenticeship commences, apprenticeship will not be completed at the date of call-up. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider very carefully the problem of apprentices, and to say whether it is possible within the Air Force, which is a very technical Service, to help forward those people who are apprentices in certain industries, while they are in the Service, so that they can benefit during their period of service and prepare for their return to civil life. I throw that out as an idea. I know the difficulties in connection with this proposal, but I believe it is worth examining.

I turn to a different section of the community, in dealing with education. I will not say much in this regard because my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden is present and he is an expert in this matter. In general terms, for students at present the uncertainty is complete. They do not even know if they will be called up, and if they are called up they do not know the terms of service. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Let me turn from the question of students to that of the universities. It is impossible for them to make provision for their intake, and to organise their teaching staffs, when they do not know the conditions governing young men today. understand that the Government have given to the universities an assurance that before the new academic year in the autumn, a decision will be made on the question of the faculties in which postponement of compulsory service will be granted, but that does not clarify the position. The universities are still anxious about the way in which they should advance in the interests of the young people. I believe that this uncertainty is having a bad effect on many boys at school. If they knew where they were, they could work for university scholarships, whereas many of them are wondering if it is worth while doing so, and instead of working for scholarships are sitting back and, not doing as much work as they would do if they knew what the future held in store for them. School teachers have a very great problem in regard to the work which they have to do under the Education Act of 1945. This uncertainty as to the future must be a hindrance to them in the work of preparation for the raising of the school leaving age. I leave the field of education at that point, but I am certain that the Under-Secretary will agree there is much food for thought in that sphere of our national life.

In commerce and industry the same uncertainty exists. How can any firm be expected to offer a permanent career to a young man who will shortly be leaving it for an unspecified period of service in the Forces? It is impossible for industries to plan their future. Every good industry, it will be agreed, wants a representative of each age group among its ranks. We do not want one industry to consist entirely of old workers, because the day will come when they will be too old to work and conduct their business, and the industry will cease. Everyone who is planning industry on modern productive lines wants representatives of every age group so that the young men can come forward, the best of them can gain promotion, and the whole unit can go forward to greater efficiency and production of whatever the commodity may be. That is impossible until a decision is made on this question. This is a time when every ounce of effort is required to keep the wheels of production moving, both for export trade and our home consumption.

With those instances, I will leave the subject of the effects on our young people. I hope and expect that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), who is seconding this Amendment, will carry on the story in regard to the effect that this uncertainty has within the Royal Air Force itself. I leave that side of the problem to him, because he is specially informed on these matters, and I know it will interest the House to hear his views as to the effect on various branches of the Service.

I pass to some of the reasons which have been given from time to time in amplification of and following on the statement of the Prime Minister on 4th March why a decision must be delayed. It is said: "We do not know our future commitments; we do not know the size of our contribution to the United Nations; we do not know what the atomic age has in store for us." Surely, it will be years before any solution will be found to those problems. Even when a solution, or partial solution, or partial answer is found to them, I am perfectly confident there will be many different points of view in regard to each and every one. It would be the height of folly to delay a decision on that account. There is one reason which I would like to argue more closely, because I believe the Government attach special importance to it, and it is my profound belief that they have got it the wrong way round. That is the statement that we do not know what will be the extent of voluntary enlistment. I believe that here the Government are putting the cart before the horse. I will try to explain, in as few words as I can, why I take that view. It was referred to in general terms during the Debate yesterday, but I do not think the point I want to try to bring forward for the study of the Under-Secretary was mentioned.

My belief is that if we settle a national service and get a foundation on which to work, we are much more likely to improve the voluntary recruitment. I believe so for this reason. Nobody knows yet the period of national service. If it is to be a year or 18 months, it is obvious to all who have had Service experience that that would be too short a period in which to ask men to go on foreign service, because they would not have had time to learn their job. It would be quite improper for any Government or any Service to send untrained men on foreign service. If that supposition is correct, it would be bound to follow—and in fact it does follow—that the regular Air Force would spend a very large proportion of their service overseas, and a large proportion of that overseas service would probably be East of Suez. I submit that that state of affairs is not conducive to getting a large number of volunteers. If, on the other hand, the decision is taken that the service required in the national interest is, say, two or two and a half years, then the Service would be able to plan accordingly; and the Air staff would be able to say there would be so long for recruit training in this country, that the recruits would go overseas for a period of further training, and then return to civilian life. Under that method, if it were known that that was the decision of the Government, we would get a large increase in volunteer recruitment for the regular Air Force. I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with this point in his reply, because I believe it is the crux of the whole question. I am under the impression—I may be wrong—that the Government are putting too much store on the opposite point of view, namely, wait-upon the result of a voluntary scheme, before they decide on the period of service.

In conclusion, on this important consideration for our young men, I ask the Government—and particularly the Air Ministry—not to treat this problem as one affecting the Air staff or any of the other great general staffs of our Services. It is natural that the Air staff should like a neat and tidy scheme, all dressed up, with all the problems solved. With all the problems we have to face, that is an improbability. A decision can come only from the Minister of Defence in consultation with his Cabinet colleagues. He should give a directive to the Service Ministries as to the result of those deliberations, and, having been given that directive, it should he the duty of the Service Departments to prepare a scheme in response to it. On many occasions during the past six months we have been told that this is the first time the Socialist Party has been responsible for our Government and has at the same time been in power. With power goes responsibility, I ask the Government to realise the extent of that responsibility in this very human problem affecting, as it does, the young men of Britain who are, we must agree, the most precious raw material in the world. My final words are these: Act now and take a decision quickly. Every day that goes by is making everything more difficult for all sections of the community. The whole country demands a speedy decision on this matter, and I think they are entitled to have it.

4.9 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

I beg to second the Amendment

I am very pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Air back in his seat today, after his recent illness to reply on this very important subject. With respect, I would say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) presented his case most ably and in a very fair manner. There is no doubt that the delay of the Government in announcing the terms of service is causing great distress throughout the whole country. I shall refer to points which affect the men who are in the Royal Air Force. The Service is steadily losing really good men who, in their heart of hearts, would like to stay in the Service and serve their country. The Halton apprentices—who, in my opinion, and I think in the opinions of other hon. Members, have been the backbone of the Royal Air Force—enter Halton at 15 years of age, and carry out an intensive course of training lasting some three years. The Halton apprentices proved during the war that they were the core of the maintenance side of the Service. These men also proved themselves in other directions. One apprentice became an Air Vice-Marshal at the age of 38, which I call good democracy. Nevertheless, these men are steadily drifting back into industry, because they do not understand or realise what is in store for them if they remain in the Service.

I will now refer to the question of N.C.Os. Many N.C.Os. have attained acting rank, some paid and some unpaid. Are these men to retain their rank in continuing their service? Perhaps the tinder-Secretary would give me an answer later to that question. The N.C.Os. see less prospect of being commissioned. Naturally the number of commissions will be less than it was during the war, but the Air Ministry should give some indication of the chances of N.C.Os. attaining commissioned rank. I hope the Air Ministry will have a really sound policy to ensure the future of the N.C.O. pilots, to whom I referred in the Debate on the Air Estimates who fought alongside commissioned officers in battle, and who proved themselves. We all know that the Royal Air Force is steadily becoming more technical. There are jet turbines, and aircraft are advancing in the kind of technical equipment they carry, such as radar. Therefore, we must have the best maintenance crews available to look after the aircraft and to ensure safety in flight. Unless we keep a big nucleus of men who were in the Service during the war it is going to take a great deal of time to achieve the necessary efficiency.

I consider that the warrant officers have had a very raw deal in the Service. The rank of warrant officer is a most unfortunate one. He carries great responsibility, and gets very little reward. His pension is minute He can give the major part of his adult life to the Service, at the end of which time he gets a pension of something in the region of 3os. a week, which is not enough. As an example, take a warrant officer in 1o39. The war came along and he eventually found himself serving as a wing-commander, in charge of the maintenance of aircraft on a large station.

Mr. Speaker

I understand the hon. and gallant Member is referring to conditions inside the Service at the present moment. The Amendment, of course, only mentions the period for which men are now being called up, and asks for a statement of policy in that regard. It says that the failure to specify the period of the call-up is causing uncertainty and difficulty to employers and employees. The conditions of service inside the Royal Air Force are not under consideration, and they would be outside the scope of the Amendment.

Air Commodore Harvey

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was doing my best to show what effect the failure to give decisions in this matter is having on the men who perhaps desire to remain in the Service, making a Service career. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond has already dealt with the points to which you referred. If I may make this point, I will do so as briefly as possible. Some of the young officers who are being demobilised are being offered permanent commissions. The Permanent Commissions Board has been sitting for over 12 months. A great number of officers have been accepted for permanent commissions, but those who are leaving the Service are told that if they return to civilian employment, and then find they would like to be given a permanent commission, they may still be accepted. Surely it is quite wrong from the point of view of the individual, and very unfair on the employer, that a man should return to civilian life for four to six months and then assume a Service career.

Likewise I think young men going into the Service want to know what is offered at the cadet college at Cranwell, when the cadet college is to be opened, but nothing has been said about the conditions of Service except that cadets will be drawn from the ranks. I ask the Air Ministry to make up their mind on this point. Every day it becomes more serious, and I believe that in delaying their decisions the Government are doing a great disservice to all concerned. The Chiefs of Staff want their plans tidied up, so that they can build up an efficient Service. By delay we shall go backwards.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Cove (Aberavon)

I am glad the opportunity has been given me to support, not the Amendment as it is worded, but some of the remarks made by the mover of the Amendment. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety right through the ranks of our young men, who do not know what their future immediately is to be; and this uncertainty is spread throughout the field of secondary education. It is affecting the schools and the pupils in the schools, and I hope, therefore, the Government will be able to make a pronouncement in the near future. I rose mainly to make this further appeal to the Government. If there are to be any special categories at all as far as the provision of further training in the technical schools and colleges and the universities is concerned, I profoundly hope that the Government will not restrict those privileges and facilities merely to science students. There has been an overemphasis—necessarily an over-emphasis owing to the necessities of the war—on what might be broadly termed, and I say it without any taint of derogation at all, technical education, on the expansion of technical knowledge and technical skill. There is no doubt about that.

But now that we are in peace time, surely, it is essential that those pupils who have an aptitude for what is broadly termed the arts should have an equal opportunity of going to the universities with those who have an aptitude for scientific studies. Therefore, I make my plea to the Government not to exclude those pupils who have this broad general aptitude for the study of the arts. After all, we can narrow our education too much, and so not produce the volatile, quick nation we desire in the future. Too narrow specialisation, particularly at too early an age, and even at any age, is not good for the general wellbeing of the future of Britain. I make the special plea that, in any consideration given for facilities to enter the universities in the future, such facilities shall apply at least equally to all types of students—equally to art students and students of literary subjects, as to science students. I do not want to argue the case at any great length, but I would say in conclusion that if this nation relies merely on a narrow development of technical skill alone, it will not be able to face the great problems of the future. A broad, general, liberalising education is profoundly essential for the mass of our people and for the prosperity of our nation. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry, in considering the future of these young men, will not only make a speedy pronouncement, but will realise that a broad, general education is essential, not only for individuals, but for the health and wellbeing of Britain herself.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

There is no matter upon which the Government have needed more pressing than on this question of making up their mind about the length of service which they require from our young men, and I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) in the excellent initiative he has taken in introducing this subject this afternoon. His view is one to which we on this side of the House attach the utmost importance, and it is one which, I believe, all educationists—witness the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove)—deliberately try to support in view of the great uncertainty which prevails. I, therefore, trust that, as a result of the short Debate on this Amendment before we come to the more general question of the Estimates, the Government will give us some satisfaction. If they cannot give us some satisfaction, and satisfaction to the mothers and fathers, to the universities and to the apprentices in industry, and to the whole generation of our young men, I think they will profoundly disappoint the country as a whole. If they cannot give an answer today I hope they will do so, before we rise for the Easter Recess.

The Government have been repeatedly pressed on this matter. They were pressed in the Debate on the Defence White Paper on 4th and 5th March. It is now over a month since that Debate. We hoped that after that Debate that they would come out with some statement. I trust, therefore, they will not leave this important matter any further. The Government usually say that the delay arises from two main considerations. The first is the need for defining our commitments, and the second would appear to be the need they appear to feel for defining the ratio of voluntary service as against compulsory service. Let me examine these two excuses of the Government for not coming to any decision on the matter. On the question of defining commitments, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and through him the Prime Minister, what was the meaning of the Prime Minister's words in his speech on the Defence White Paper on 4th March. On 4th March the Prime Minister said as reported in column 44 of HANSARD of that date: I hope that the Armed Forces will be susceptible of further reduction, but I have a very full knowledge of what our obligations are The very full knowledge of what our obligations are is set out in the Defence White Paper in a detailed list of our commitments in various parts of the world. The Prime Minister appears to revise his opinion later, because in column 46 we find these words: As I have already shown, we cannot tell the extent of our commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 44 and 46.] What is the meaning of this volte face on the part of the Prime Minister in the course of ten minutes in one speech? Do the Government know or do they not know the extent of our commitments? If the Government cannot come to some idea of their commitments why should the Prime Minister make a statement of the sort I have quoted? The Government in this matter have acted in a most dilatory manner. They are unable to make up their minds, and it is high time they came to a conclusion and told us what are the reasons holding them up.

Now I come to the second excuse given by the Government—and one can understand the difficulties of reaching a decision —which is even less convincing than the first. This was dealt with in a fair manner by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond. The Government appear to want to test the value and possibilities of a scheme for volunteers as against the need for clearly defining the length of compulsory military service. In my view, my hon. and gallant Friend is profoundly right on this matter. We shall never get clarity about volunteering until we have some clarity about the length of compulsory service. In this matter, as in that of defining commitments, the Government are chasing their own tail. Therefore. I hope the Government will throw aside this excuse and tell us what, in fact, are the reasons why they have to hold up young men in the present uncertainty so many months after the end of the recent war, totally differently from what was done after the end of the previous war. Let us look at one or two statistics. We have been told in the course of these many Debates on demobilisation that the total forces—and I am coming to the Air portion in a few minutes—at the end of December, 1946, are to amount to some 1,200,000, of whom 100,000 will be in training. We have been told that Regulars, that is, as opposed to conscripts, will amount at that date to approximately only 250,000. Thus, the Government are depending for well over three-quarters of our Armed Forces at that date on conscription, and they are, therefore, appearing to rely indefinitely upon compulsory service. This information was given us by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the same Debate on defence on 5th March.

Now we come to the position of 'he Royal Air Force. The Under-Secretary of State told us in the Debate on 12th March that the total numbers he expected to be in the Royal Air Force at approximately the date I mentioned would be about 305,000 persons, men and women. We were told yesterday-15th April—by the Prime Minister that of these it was hoped, as a result of this recruiting campaign, some 60,000 would be volunteers. We are beginning to get some idea of the proportion of the volunteers who will stay in voluntarily as Regulars.

They would be approximately 60,000 —on a certain contract of service, as opposed to 305,000 men and women altogether. I want to ask whether these figures are correct. Do the Government imagine that the results of their recruiting campaign will be to give them figures of this sort; and if so, are they aware of how many can be secured by voluntary enlistment altogether? Whether the Government think these figures are correct or not they must decide the voluntary and compulsory proportions of the Royal Air Force, because unless they do we are going to be perpetually held up, and it is going to be extremely unfair to the young men joining the Royal Air Force.

I appeal to the Government to decide this question by stages. The first stage, I suggest, would be to come to some clear decision about those in whom we have some educational interest. This is the educational side. I will deal with the apprenticeship side in a minute. I am informed by the universities and schools that there is an immediate need for a decision for the October term in 1946, that is, this year. The universities and schools are quite at sea. They do not know what the policy is going to be. Are scholars to be deferred, or not? We on this side of the House have parents asking us whether this Government are seriously educational or not, and whether they are in earnest about the provisions of the Education Act, which provided new State scholarships and help for our young men to proceed up the educational ladder. Are the Government in earnest about those provisions or not? On this matter the Government do not appear to me to be educationally minded at all. I do not know which sections of the Government are in predominance at the moment. I have studied the observations of "Lindo" and others who are good at making astrological forecasts. There are people in the Government and on those benches opposite interested in education, but those stars are not in the ascendant at the present time. The tough boys are on top; those who believe in the moral improvement of our young men and the educational improvement of our young men are completely submerged. They are the submerged tenth, and it is our business on this side of the House to cause them to rear their heads again and to come to the surface with the aid of allies such as the hon. Member for Aberavon who has come to our aid this afternoon.

I want to pursue this matter a little further. The hon. Member was quite right when he asked whether there is to be exemption in the Government's policy for the arts. The position in the universities can only be described as chronic, and it is a position which has been allowed to deteriorate. Today, in the view of the Government, the dentistry as compared with the humanist has an importance ratio of 100 to one. I am the first to agree that the professions are very important to this country. I believe that dentists, scientists, doctors and so on are very important, but I am convinced that the greatness of any country is dependent upon the proportion in which that country rates the arts as against scientists and mathematicians. If we look abroad to other countries, we see that those who have held the practical things of life to be of more importance than the spiritual, have been led to their own destruction, and have led to the destruction of others. It is high time that we restored the balance, and got back to the real study of man. We want to know from the Government whether, on this occasion, there will be exemption, as during the war, and whether, unlike the procedure during parts of the last war, there will be exemptions only for technical students, scientists, doctors and dentists. Are they going to treat with equal consideration those young men who have dedicated their lives to the study of what are broadly known as the arts?

I also wish to ask the Government about their policy in regard to teachers. I think I am perfectly justified in saying that we have spurred the Government on in this matter. The whole future of the Education Act is at stake, and no statement, so far as I know, has yet been made by the Government to reassure those who intend to be teachers. Today we have a gap of some 100,000 teachers which has to be filled, and we have had from the Minister the most miserable figures about those at present al training. We know the difficulties, many of which I bequeathed myself, but what we want to hear from the Government is whether, in this call-up, special facilities are to be given for deferment for young men entering training colleges, and whether these deferments are to apply to the long-term training colleges and, if so, how are they to he operated. We also want to know what is to happen to the teachers when they have concluded their training at the colleges, and what sort of service is expected from them, because until we know that, we cannot operate the Education Act. We also want to know about agriculturists. From the fumbling statements made almost daily by the Minister of Food, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the agricultural position of this country is one of vital importance. We want to know whether those who are dedicating their lives to the higher ranges of agricultural study will be similarly deferred or exempted, and what kind of military service may otherwise be demanded of them. Can the Under-Secretary give us any idea of the position of universities? Is it the case that the universities are willing only to take ex-Servicemen? Are they so full that they cannot take any young men, because, if that be the case, I make the plea, if the new Education Act is to mean anything, for a combination of those who have been in the Services and those who may normally continue their curriculum by passing through the universities from the age of 18 onwards?

That is the first stage. We want to hear from the Government their immediate plans for the autumn of this year in a matter which should have been decided long ago.

The next stage is more important, and it concerns what all the young men in the Royal Air Force want to know. We want to know what is the Government's long-term view. The only official view I have seen, if I can so regard it, is an article which appeared in the "New Statesman" on 23rd March, 1946. The editor of this excellent journal, in his freer time, is a constituent of mine, and as he has full liberty of movement, he is not prevented from making speeches or addresses in my constituency. His journal has stated that the country should expect one year's compulsory service. He also states that a target figure should be given for the Regular Forces to be raised by voluntary enlistment. He then makes the striking suggestion that, having done all that, our commitments should be adjusted to the figure finally reached. I should not like to follow the "New Statesman" quite as far as that, because I think it would be much more reasonable to ascer- tain clearly from the Government a definition of our commitments, and then for this country to carry out her age-long tradition of framing tip to her commitments, whatever may be the cost. I do not ask the Government to follow the editor of the "New Statesman" in the wilder suggestions which he makes at the end of his article. Perhaps he was absent on the day the article was written and did not write it.

Whether that is the case or not, I should like to know if the Government believe in a one-year compulsory military service. I believe that we made a mistake in previous discussion on these matters in trying to decide this question too far ahead. I want the Government first to make a statement about immediate needs for this year, and then to give a longer term policy for a short time ahead, until they get out of their present problems and U.N.O. is operating successfully. Eventually we shall have to decide our long term policy for the Services and for our young men. I think it is reasonable to take these things by degrees. We are not asking the Government to put themselves into an obviously embarrassing position with their supporters by deciding on a long-term policy tonight, even if they are capable of giving a decision at all. We ask the Government to do these things by degrees, and by doing so they will be doing a great service to the young men of this country.

In conclusion, I make the appeal that the first stage shall be decided now, namely, this year's programme—the programme which can be foreseen for a year or two ahead. Without that the whole attitude of the Government towards the young men and education is a mockery. We may be told that the Government can only give way to pressure groups. In the course of another Debate, we were told that for many years the old have organised themselves into such pressure groups, and that the Labour movement cannot stand up to them. With the help of hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Aberavon, and all educationists in the House, we hope to bring home to the Government, in the most insistent manner, that the young, although they may not have the experience of the old, have the vigour to form the biggest pressure group of all. If politics are to be run by pressure groups, I can assure the Under-Secretary that he will not be disappointed, but I hope that he will decide this matter calmly and in the light of ideals. Our greatest ideal should be, based on the statement in the White Paper, that "the bulwarks of a city are its young men." The bulwarks of our city are our young men, and it is important that they should not have this perpetual uncertainty hanging over them if, educationally, they are to give of their best. I leave the Under-Secretary to fill in the gaps in my remarks, and to fill in most definitely the gaps in policy in regard to the call-up to the Services, giving us a reply in the same way as hitherto he has answered us so successfully in this House. I hope that he will not disappoint us today on these all-important matters, and that he will not disappoint us by giving a negative reply.

No doubt other Members will wish to join with us, and I do not wish to delay the House further, because I know there are other matters to discuss. When the Government do make up their minds regarding this period of military service, I hope that it will not be treated by the young men as a brake and a burden on their lives, and that they will take it cheerfully in their stride. Whether it is to be for some at 18, for others, perhaps, at 21 or even for others a period of service in the Territorial Army, or in some other way combining their duties with their studies, whether in industry or outside it, let it be a composite picture, a democratic process. If the Government take that decision there need he no controversy in any part of the House. We shall have made a decision in a proper way, and we shall not have frittered away the time of the young men of our country.

4.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey)

There is no difference of opinion on any side of the House as to the urgency and importance of a decision on the duration and conditions of national service in the immediate future. I do not think that anyone on this Bench—certainly I do not—wants to quarrel with the various points which have been made, very ably and forcibly, by each of the speakers in this short Debate on the inconvenience, and more than inconvenience, unquestionably—the anxiety—which must be caused, in many spheres of national life, to the young men themselves, to potential em- ployers, to educational authorities and the like, so long as they do not know the duration of the period for which young men must be called up.

It is true that this affects the apprenticeship scheme. I think that the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment put his finger on a very important point. It is also an exceedingly complex one, and there is a wealth of trade union experience on this side of the House on the matter. Although it is not one on which I am qualified to speak, I believe that, not only in relation to national service, but also in relation to the changed and changing character of modern industry, the whole question of apprenticeship might repay careful re-examination. There is no quarrel on the points that have been made with regard to industry and trade, and the uncertainties which must go on until a decision is given on the duration of the call-up. Those in agriculture, and, it might have been added, in mining too, will want to know where they stand —whether the deferment or exemption which they have hitherto enjoyed is to continue—and the educational authorities, of of course, are profoundly affected.

I cannot, at this stage, answer in detail the questions which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put to me on that point. Some of them, I think, are questions which the spokesmen of the Ministry of Education are much better qualified to answer. But when I have said all that, and agreed and admitted the obviously vital importance of this decision, I would like to put it to the Committee that the more important the decision, the more important it is that it should be a right decision. Do not let us overlook how much hangs on this decision, even in the immediate future, for this nation. I am now speaking of what the right hon. Gentleman termed the first decision—the decision as to the immediate call-up, the duration of the immediate call-up and how much the nation depends on that. On the one side, there is the maintenance in the immediate postwar period of adequate Armed Forces and, on the other, there is the provision of an adequate labour supply of the right quality for industry, for the export trade and for agriculture.

The whole problem of our manpower allocation, which is a life and death issue for this country today, is intimately bound up with this question of the duration of the call-up in the immediate future. I would emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden has said, that what is being asked for is not one decision but two, and it is very important to keep them distinct. We have to decide the duration of the time which young men who are being called up, or who will be called up in the immediate future, must serve in the Royal Air Force and, consequentially, of course, in the other two Services. That is one decision and one of the very greatest urgency. There is another decision—really, two related decisions—the question of whether we are to have, as a permanent feature of our national life, a system of compulsory national service, and, if so, what is to be the duration of the call-up under that permanent system of national service. These are entirely different. The first is the period for which it may be necessary —some period clearly is necessary—to call up young men compulsorily at the present moment. We are doing that, so obviously there is no question of its necessity. It is simply a question of the duration for which they shall be called up. But that period is not necessarily the same, by any means, as the period which would be fixed were it decided to keep a permanent system of national service; and it would be the greatest mistake, when a decision is announced by the Government on the duration of immediate call-up, if that were taken to mean that it would necessarily, or even probably, be the same period as would be given for a permanent system of national service, if there is to be one. The two things are completely distinct and should not be confused in any part of the House.

I do not think that it is true to say, as has been suggested, that the Government are waiting to see what is the result of a system or an appeal for voluntary enlistment. We are appealing to men as they leave the Services to re-engage, and a certain number are doing so. The Prime Minister yesterday announced a bounty scheme for special short term re-engagement to cover the postwar period. The result of that cannot be known fully for some months at any rate, but that is not what the Government are waiting for. It is a misconception to think that it is. The reason why no decision has yet been announced on the duration of service of the immediate call-up is that it has not been possible hitherto to foresee the numbers in the Armed Forces which will be necessary after the end of this year. A figure has been arrived at, and announced to the House, for the Armed Forces taken together and for each Service separately as of 31st December, 1946. That has been as far ahead as His Majesty's Government were willing to commit themselves. Is that an unreasonable position? I ask hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to put it to themselves: Do they feel confident that they could tell us here and now what the size of the Armed Forces will be which it will be necessary for this country to maintain during 1947, 1943 and 1949?

Those who are pressing the Government this afternoon for a decision on this matter of the duration of the call-up are asking for nothing less than that the Government should commit themselves here and now, to the maximum size of the Armed Forces of this country two, three and four years hence. That is a decision of the utmost difficulty as well as of the utmost importance. What is it that makes the decision difficult? It is, of course, the uncertain—is it too much to call it tumultuous?—character of the world situation today. That is why I would complain of only one word in the Amendment which has been put before the House today, and that is the word "needless." The mover of the Amendment told us about the uncertainties, to which he was perfectly right in alluding, and their consequences, and he said that they were needless. I cannot accept the view that they are needless. Those uncertainties are not of the making of the Government or even of this House. They are the uncertainties of the world situation, and they affect us in such a way that we cannot come to a decision on this matter without the utmost care. What are the uncertainties of the world situation? Are they abnormal? I do not think they are. I think they are such as occur at the end of any great war. In the past, the years immediately after any great world conflict were always periods of great uncertainty and great international disturbance before the world settled down. That was so after the Napoleonic wars of 150 years ago, and it was certainly so after the first great war in 1918.

When we complain today of the uncertainty and the tumultuous character of the world at present we too easily forget what the world was like in 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922. At that time there were six separate British Expeditionary Forces actually fighting in various parts of the world. They were attacking Russia, which had been our Ally during that world war, under the very active leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition. Any uncertainties and difficulties which the world faces today are of a very mild character compared to that situation. That situation persisted for a very long time. After all, it was not until 1922 that the Chanak crisis took place, which was really the end of the period of extreme uncertainty after the last war. Therefore, when we point out, as we must, the difficulties and uncertainties of the present international situation I hope that I am not complaining or drawing a picture of special difficulty or referring to something unexpected. In fact, they are considerably milder and we hope and believe that they will be much shorter than they were after the last world war. As the mover of the Amendment pointed out, it is only eight months since the end of the Japanese war. There is nothing, therefore, unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the world situation is disturbing and difficult, and that it has been hitherto a matter of great difficulty to look ahead two, three or four years and commit ourselves to the exact size of the Armed Forces which we shall need at that time.

The situation in the world is changing every day, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Foreign Secretary is going out in the next few days and will be engaged in what we hope will result in the signing of a whole batch of peace treaties. That will be one factor in the world situation which should have a stabilising effect. It will then be possible to see far more clearly in the immediate future. Though I cannot make, and I am sure hon. Members opposite would not seriously expect me as a junior Minister on this occasion to make, an announcement of such transcendent importance as this would be, I can say that the country will not have too long to wait before this announcement on the duration of the period for which, in the immediate future, and without prejudice to any more permanent schemes, men in the Armed Forces will be called up. It cannot be made before the Recess, but it will be given after the Easter Recess, and I do not believe that it need be unduly delayed.

4.57 P.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon):

I do not think we can leave the question where it has been left by the hon. Gentleman. It is a most important matter in its effect on the Services. I really have great sympathy for both the Under-Secretary and for his colleagues sitting behind him, because they know that these uncertainties are not only destructive to the hopes of young men, but are very confusing to the Staffs of the three Services in making their plans. All I rise to ask is whether we can have it as a definite promise that the announcement will be made by the Prime Minister after the Easter Recess. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he is not in a position to make an announcement of this kind today, but are we to take it as certain that after the Easter Recess a definite statement will be made? I only want to know whether it will be a definite statement, and it so how soon will it be made after Easter?

Mr. Strachey

I can say perfectly definitely that a statement will be made after the Easter Recess.

Sir. R. Glyn

In those circumstances, if it means soon after Easter, it will be welcomed, because it is of the greatest importance to young men who are now considering what their future is to be at the university. I hope that the announcement will be made at such a time, and definitely before the Summer Recess, that we shall know exactly what the terms and conditions are, because it is not good enough to go on indefinitely as at present. I could not help thinking during the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the whole of the younger generation will suffer for all time if we go on like Mr. Micawber and await events. It is for us to take a decision occasionally which may have the effect of making other countries far less turbulent. One of the reasons for this turbulence is that we do not seem to know our own mind, or we do not seem to be strong enough to take a definite line. If an announcement is made after Easter, coupled with an announcement from the United Nations Chiefs of Staff Committee, it will help to clear the air. I think the statement of the hon. Gentleman is a most important one, and we must hurry His Majesty's Government until the promised statement is made, which we hope will be within a few days of the resumption after the Easter Recess.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hoģ ģ (Oxford)

I intervene only for a short time, first to say that the announcement which the Under-Secretary has made regarding the prospect of a statement immediately after the Easter Recess reduces to absolute nonsense the whole of the remarks which he addressed to the House. The hon. Gentleman made his usual courteous and extremely well-reasoned speech, but it was the speech of a man who had no decision to announce, and which gave reasons why no decision could possibly be arrived at. It was the speech of a man who asked us to remember the tumultuous nature of the times. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman hopes to happen in the next 10 days which will make the times so much less tumultuous that he will he able to give then, a decision which he is unable to give now.

It is not plausible to suggest that the Easter holiday will reduce the tumultuous happenings in other parts of the world to such an extent as to enable this vacillating Government to come to a decision. It is not plausible to pretend that the Government have been taken by surprise by this Debate today, because the topic was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) as long ago as October last, and has been pressed almost continuously from these benches ever since. One would have thought, having regard to the persistency of the criticism, both in this House and the country, about failure to reach a decision, and having regard to the grave inconvenience and anxiety caused not merely to those about to enter the Services, but to industry and the learned professions, that the Government would have done the House the courtesy, on this occasion, to have announced their decision. I cannot accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman is limited entirely by the terms of his Departmental responsibility. He might well have been authorised by the Cabinet to say what was in their minds today. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the world is in too contused a state to make a statement on 16th April, but that presumably by 1st May—Labour Day—some decision will he arrived at.

My experience of these matters leads me to wonder whether the announcement, when it comes, will be of the slightest use to the universities, to industry, or to the young men concerned. Our experience has been unfortunate in this respect. The attitude of the Government has been that in the disturbed state of the world decisions were impossible. I believe that that is an argument they will continue to use, and that the real point of the difference between hon. Members on these benches and hon. Members opposite resides in the fact that we believe the disturbed state of the world makes a provisional decision abundantly necessary, while they regard it as their excuse for want of planning. We have not had an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that this will not be the case, and I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, in which case I shall go into the Opposition Lobby. What disturbs me about the present situation is that I cannot resist the impression, gained over a period of months, that the very frequent "stalling" on the Government Benches is what is really holding up a decision. It is not the disturbed state of the world, as we are constantly assured, but the confused state of the Labour Party's mind on the subject. It is not the disturbed state of the world which is causing delay. We know enough about the difficulties of the present situation to enable us to arrive at a provisional decision. What is holding up the decision is that any decision on this point would cause trouble in the Labour Party. It is the internal division of the party opposite, and not the external divisions in the world, which is preventing the decision being made—

Mr. Beswick (Uxbridge)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that internal divisions in the Labour Party will vanish by 1st May?

Mr. Hoģģ

I hope that by the Whitsun Conference, at least, the Labour Party will have made up their mind. Perhaps it was to that that the hon. Gentleman was referring. It is not fair to ask that the affairs of this great country should be held in suspense on so vital a matter while the Labour Party make up their mind. There- fore, without the smallest sense of personal offensiveness to the Under-Secretary, who discharged an unpleasant task with notable distinction, I trust that the Opposition will go into the Lobby against the Government, in order to express their disapproval of their characteristic want of planning.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid Bedford)

The Under-Secretary is "tipped ' in many newspapers for early promotion, and if the ability to say absolutely nothing at great length, felicitously and disarmingly, is the main criterion for high office in the Socialist Party, then the hon. Gentleman has a bigger appointment in his pocket. I think the House has been disappointed at the absence of any statement from the Government, either for immediate or long-term purposes. We cannot allow the exceedingly lame defence which the hon. Gentleman put up to pass un-answered from the Opposition Front Bench. Members know that there is no subject on which their constituents, and those to whom we look for guidance and advice— educationists, in particular—are more concerned than this subject of length of service in the Armed Forces. My postbag is full. I am a school governor, and all of us know the difficulties in which school governors are placed. Many people are engaged in training for industry, and we know the difficulties in which industrialists and trade unionists find themselves. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), were abundantly justified in putting forward this Amendment today.

The Under-Secretary has been at great pains to show the difficulties in which the Government are placed in coming to a rapid decision. But the Socialist Party did not always take so long in coming to a decision on the length of service in regard to conscription. In April, 1939, when the Military Training Bill was introduced, they did not even wait a week to make up their minds as to what period of service they thought proper—no period at all. The present Prime Minister told the government of the day: You will appeal to us, but you will appeal in vain. And on the question of a fixed period for conscription the present Minister of Health described this and other aspects of conscription as another squalid attempt by the Tories to defend themselves against a re-distribution of international swag."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May. 1939; Vol. 346, c. 2139.] The Socialist Party had thus a great many useful sources to draw upon in coming to a rapid decision at that time. Indeed, following their action, the Socialist Prime Minister of France said he was staggered at such an attitude in the United Kingdom. What effect that had on the will to resist in France only history will show.

We, in that Bill, provided for six months' liability for military training for those between 20 and 21. Within a day or two the Socialist Party made up their mind to vote against that Bill, and against any period of compulsory service. This was only a few weeks after Hitler marched into Prague, and five months before the outbreak of the war. We are also entitled to claim that those were tumultuous times. The Government came to a definite decision as to the length of service. At that time we did not have the advantage of an Opposition Front Bench which was prepared to cooperate on the subject of a fixed period for compulsory service. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour at that time, and I remember the many conversations we had in 1939 with the vice chancellors of the universities, the President of the Board of Education, in regard to technical training, and the teaching colleges, Members of Parliament—and what talks have the Government had with the University Burgesses?—the University Grants Committee, and innumerable trading and industrial bodies. I saw a great number of them myself, and I remember vividly what pains we were at to see that the compulsory period of training, from 20 to 21, was achieved with the minimum of disturbance.

If I may interrupt the theme of my few remarks, there is one point of very considerable interest to a small number of people to which I would like to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State. It concerns the release from the Royal Air Force of people half way through university courses. I am thinking, in particular, of the long-term needs of agriculture and one constituent of mine —representative of a number, but not too many—who had done half his agricultural course before he was called up, his agricultural course being a bachelorship in science at a university where that was not an honours course. The university is precluded from asking for his early release as he was not working on an Honours course. His university career was interrupted and after a period of Service, which, as hon. Members will realise, in the case of these young men, having gone on not for one or two years, but for three or more years, he finds the Government's refusal to make up their minds before the university term starts in September absolutely intolerable. On behalf of that constituent and many others I urge the Government to look at this matter again with real and renewed vigour.

In place of the statement that we had hoped to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, we have had nothing further than the very woolly statement by the Prime Minister on 4th March, a statement couched in phrases reminiscent of the speeches of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. He repeated, not for the first time, that we can make up our mind in this matter only when certain other things are settled—our commitments in the world and our international obligations under the United Nations.

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) pointed out, if we are to wait till those are settled, we shall have to wait a very long time, and the lives of not only this university generation, but a number of other generations will be partially wasted. The Under-Secretary referred to the suggestion that the Government were waiting for voluntary enlistment before they made up their mind, and said that nothing in the Prime Minister's speech could have that meaning read into it; but, in fact, the Prime Minister said that the Government were prevented by a number of factors, of which he expressly named the ignorance of the numbers of voluntary enlist-

ments,as one, from coming to an early decision. I hope that we can have an interim report on the subject of voluntary enlistment in the Royal Air Force. It would be exceedingly interesting. That is one of the practical comments that we had expected to receive from the Under-Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman made great play at the close of his speech with the difficulties in the world today, and compared them with the difficulties in the period after the last war, and even drew attention to the fact that in Poland then, a. perhaps in parts now, the war was still continuing years after the Great War, in 1921. But there is this difference. The Government of that time did not go on calling up' young men without giving them any indication of the period of service to which they would be liable. It is futile to compare the situation in 1918 and the situation now. In 1918 the Government, whatever in the eyes of later generations their demerits may have been, most certainly did know their own mind on this subject. The present Administration, tortured by past statements which, now that they have been confronted by the facts, they realise will not bear examination, and with their own followers having been bemused for many generations by some of their Election speeches, are now finding the utmost difficulty in reconciling their own party, whom they have themselves deluded, to the acceptance of compulsory service for a fixed period. Because of this, undergraduates at many universities, young apprentices hoping to start their apprenticeship, and education authorities all over the country, are being held up to ransom, and I hope the House will, by its vote, register most emphatically a protest against this intolerable delay by His Majesty's Government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 124.

Division No. 129.] AYES. [5.15 p.m.
Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Barstow, P. G. Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Barton, C. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Allighan, Garry Bechervaise, A. E. Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Bellenger, F J. Brook, D. (Halifax)
Attewell, H. C. Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Austin, H. L. Binns, J. Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Awbery, S. S. Blackburn, A. R. Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Ayles, W. H. Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Bruce, Maj. D. W T.
Baird, Capt. J. Bottomley, A. G. Burden, T. W.
Balfour, A Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H W Callagham, Jame.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, P. Ascerley, (Hitchin) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Chamberlain, R. A. King, E. M. Rogers, G. H. R.
Champion, A. J. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Scollan, T
Chater, D. Kinley, J. Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Chetwynd, Capl. G. R Kirby, B. V. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwaod, D. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Cobb, F. A. Lavers, S. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Cocks, F. S. Lee, F. (Hulme) Shurmer, P.
Collick, P. Leslie, J. R. Silverman, J, (Erdington)
Collins, V. J. Levy, B. W. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Colman, Miss G. M. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Simmons, C. J.
Comyns, Dr. L. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Skeffington, A. M.
Cook, T. F. Logan, D. G. Skeffington-Lodge, T C.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Longden, F. Skinnard, F. W.
Corvedale, Viscount McAdam, W. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Cove, W. G. McEntee, V. La T. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Daggar, G. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Smith, T (Normanton)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Maclean, N. (Govan) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) McLeavy, F. Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) MacMillan, M. K. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Deer G. Mainwaring, W. H. Sparks, J. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Mallalieu, J. P. W. Stamford, W.
Delargy, Captain H. J. Mann, Mrs. J. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E)
Diamond, J. Martin, J. H. Strachey, J.
Dobbie, W. Mathers, G. Stubbs, A. E.
Dodds, N. N. Mayhew, C. P. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Douglas, F- C. R. Medland, H. M. Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Driberg, T. E. N. Mikardo, Ian Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dumpleton, C. W. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Edelman, M. Mitchison, Maj G. R. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Monslow, W. Thorneycroft, H.
Edward:, John (Blackburn) Montague, F. Thurtle, E.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Moody, A. S. Tiffany, S.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Timmons, J.
Ewart R. Morley, R. Titterington, M. F.
Fairhurst, F. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Tolley, L.
Farthing, W. J. Morris, P. (Swansea. W.) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. C.
Foot, M. M. Mort, D. L. Turner-Samuels, M.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Moyle, A. Usborne, Henry
Fregman, Peter (Newport) Murray, J. D. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Gaitskell, H. T. N. Nally, W. Viant, S. P.
Gallacher, W. Naylor, T. E Walkden, E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Neal, H. (Claycross) Walker, G. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Goodrich, H. E. Noel-Buxton, Lady Wallace, H. W. (Walthatmtow. E.)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Oldfield, W. H Warbey, W. N.
Grenfell, D. R. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Watson, W. M.
Grey, C. F. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Grierson, E. Paton, Mrs, F. (Rushciiffe) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Paton, J. (Norwich) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J. Pearson, A. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Peart, Capt. T. F. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Perrins, W. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Hale, Leslie Piratin, P. Wilkes, Maj. L.
Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R. Poole, Mai. Cecil (Lichfield) Wilkins, W. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Popplewell, E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Hardy, E. A. Porter, E. (Warrington) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Harrison, J. Porter, G. (Leeds) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Herbison Miss M. Price, M. P. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Hobson, C. R. Proctor, W. T. Williamson, T.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Willis, E.
Horabin, T. L. Ranger, J. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Hoy, J. Rankin, J. Wise, Major F. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roes-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Yates, V. F.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Reeves, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Reid, T. (Swindon) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Irving, W. J. Rhodes, H. Zilliacus, K.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
John, W. Robens, A TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Captain Bing.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Cuthbert, W. N.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Darling, Sir W. Y.
Baldwin, A. E. Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Davidson, Viscountess
Barlow, Sir J. Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Digby, Maj. S. W.
Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Clarke, Col. R. S. Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Drewe C.
Boothby, R. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Duthie, W. S
Bowen, R. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Eccles, D. M.
Bower, N. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, J A. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Erroll, F. J
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Crowder, Capt. J F. E. Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Low, Brig. A. R W. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Gammans, L. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Smithers, Sir W.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn G Lloyd (P'ke) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Snadden, W. M.
Glyn, Sir R. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I of Wight) Spence, Maj. H R
Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Gridley, Sir A. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife. E.)
Grimston, R. V. Marlowe, A. A. H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J
Haughton, S. G. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Studholme, H. G.
Head, Brig. A. H. Mellor, Sir J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Sir C. Molson, A. H. E. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hogg, Hon. Q. Morris-Jones, Sir H. Thomson Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Hope, Lord J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cireneester) Thorp, Lt.-Col R A. F.
Howard, Hon. A. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C. E. Turton, R. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Neven-Spence, Major Sir B Wakefield, Sir W. W
Hurd, A. Nioholson G. Walker-Smith, D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Noble, Comdr. A. H P Ward, Hon G R.
Hutchison, Cot. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Nutting, Anthony Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Jeffreys, General Sir G Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Jennings, R. Prescott, Stanley While, Sir D. (Fareham)
Keeling, E H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham Raikes, H. V. Williams. C. (Torquay)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury) Willoughby, de Eresby, Loro
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C (Hillhead) York, C.
Langford-Holt, J. Renton, D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H. Ropner, Col. L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lennox-Boyd, A T. Sanderson, Sir F. Major Sir Thomas Dugdale
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Scott, Lord W. and Air- Comdre Harvey.
Linstead, H. N. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

Question put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

PAY, &C., OF THE AIR FORCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £73,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defra the Expense of the Pay, &c., of the Air Force, which svill come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, in addition to the sum of £103,500,000 to he allocated for this purpose from the sum of £150,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.