HC Deb 24 March 1952 vol 498 cc129-58

Resolution reported, That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 315,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

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

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

I wish to draw attention to a statement contained in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State last week, when we were discussing the Air Estimates. On that occasion, he spoke as follows: I do not want to create undue anxiety, but it would be quite wrong for me not to make it plain that the air defences of this island at the present time would be woefully inadequate if we had not powerful allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The expansion of the R.A.F. is under way. But today it is still far from adequate, either to defend our country or to play its part in the defence of Europe and in our Atlantic lifeline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2115.] The Under-Secretary of State said that he did not want to create undue anxiety but, as far as I can see, that, unfortunately, is just what he has done. Both the daily and weekly, as well as the foreign, newspapers that I have seen have interpreted his statement in terms which indicate the greatest anxiety as to the state of our air defences. The "News Chronicle" talks about R.A.F disclosures shocking Members of Parliament. The "Spectator" talks about Britain's meagre contribution to Western defence. The "Sunday Observer" talks about last week's Air Estimates debate having revealed a tragic story. While I should not for one moment seek to attribute responsibility to the hon. Gentleman for the comments of the Press, I am sure he would agree that it is very much against the national interest that mistaken and misleading impressions of the actual strength and effectiveness of our air defences should gain currency, both in our own country and abroad.

The hon. Gentleman will agree when I say that today the Royal Air Force is both a substantial and an efficient force; that its world-wide fighter strength is greater than it was in September, 1939; that by the end of 1952 its world-wide fighter strength will at least be equal to the fighter strength of the Royal Air Force at the time of the Battle of Britain: that even today its strength is sufficient to permit of strong fighter forces being stationed in Germany and the Middle East, and that it could play a very vital part in the defence of Western Europe.

In this connection, I strongly dissent from the hon. Gentleman's statement that the R.A.F. is still far from adequate to defend our country or to play its part in the defence of Europe. On 7th March, the Chief of the Air Staff, Marshal of the R.A.F. Sir John Slessor, made this statement: The R.A.F. contribution towards a European Air Force was even more than that of the United States. And today, I read an article in "The Times," which, referring to the R.A.F. 2nd Tactical Air Force based in Germany, states that it has been steadily built up during the past 18 months, and will soon receive Venom squadrons. By the end of this year"— that is, the end of 1952— the allied air forces in Western Europe will have a strength of 4,000 aircraft. To this total the R.A.F. will contribute a third—that is, about 1,300 aircraft. This force will include 400 F.86E Sabre swept-wing jet fighters, which the United States is to finance, Canada is building, and R.A.F. pilots will fly. That does not suggest that our Air Force is still far from adequate to play its part in the defence of Europe. But before I leave that point, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Department, if this statement is correct, on the acceleration in the date of delivery of the 400 F.86's; because when I was last at the Air Ministry the date upon which these deliveries were to be completed was not expected to be before the middle of 1953?

In my view, it is dangerously misleading to look only at the size of the Royal Air Force when dealing with the state of our air defences. While we should never seek to play less than our full part in building up our air defences, we must not look at them from an entirely unilateral basis. Britain today is part of the Atlantice defence community, and we have therefore to take account of the air forces of our partners, especially those situated in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that today there are strong United States fighter and bomber air forces in the United Kingdom. Moreover he knows, as I know, that in the unhappy event of another war very much larger numbers of United States fighters and bombers will be operating from airfields in this country as part of the combined defence system of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Indeed, provision was made in the Estimates last year, and has been made in the Estimates this year, for the rehabilitation of airfields which, if an emergency ever arises, will be occupied, and from which United States fighter and bomber squadrons will operate.

There is another vital consideration in assessing our air defence arrangements which I should like to emphasise. Next time, if unfortunately it ever arises, there will be no repetition of the situation that existed at the time of the Battle of Britain, when we stood alone, because under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments, from the very outset of the emergency United States air forces would be operating alongside our own Royal Air Force squadrons. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He must make up his mind where he stands on this point. The defence of Western Europe is the responsibility of those associated in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that each country has its contribution to make, the size of which is related to the size of the contributions made by the various partners in N.A.T.O. It seems to me quite unrealistic to take any one of the countries, whether it be Britain, France or the United States, and look at the size of its contribution and then to state, "Oh, it would be woefully inadequate if it were not for its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation." That is what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that our air defences would be woefully inadequate if it were not for our powerful allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Surely we must look at the combined air defence system, including as it does both the Royal Air Force and the American Air Forces in this country and in Europe, and not argue that if we took them separately they are woefully inadequate. It is like visualising a football team and saying that if we took—this is by way of illustration—Newcastle United with Milburn the centre forward, that Milburn's efforts would be woefully inadequate, were it not for the strong support he receives from the wing forwards, the half-backs and backs and the goalkeeper. We must look at the team as a whole.

Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is using almost the identical words used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. For three or four minutes the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been using an almost identical argument as was contained in the words used by my hon. Friend, to which he takes exception.

Mr. Henderson

The Under-Secretary did not say that the general combined defence arrangements were inadequate. He said that the Royal Air Force is still far from being adequate, either to defend our country or to play its part in the defence of Europe or in the Atlantic Organisation. I have pointed out that we are to have apparently 1,300 planes out of this force of 4,000, and 400 of the F.86's operated by Royal Air Force pilots. I say that we cannot lust take the R.A.F. unit and say that it is woefully inadequate, or would be, unless we take into consideration the partners in the Treaty Organisation. I say we must look at the thing as a whole.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether his statement was based on a staff appreciation or a political appreciation. In view of Sir John Slessor's statement, I can hardly believe that it was by a staff appreciation. Was it, therefore, a political or Ministerial appreciation? In my view the country does not need to be panicked. I consider it most unfortunate that Ministerial statements are so couched as to be calculated—not intended, but calculated—to spread alarm and despondency among our friends and partners in N.A.T.O., and to give encouragement to our potential enemies.

In my view the nation already has a good idea of our general defence position. For example, they already know that the expansion programme has been operating for just over a year, and it is not likely to be completed before 1954, or 1955, or perhaps even by then in full. They also know that if the restoration of our national economy had not been given priority in the early days after the war, in all probability we should not have been in a position even to start a three-year defence programme. It was restored well enough to enable us to embark on a three-year re-armament programme involving the expenditure of £4,800 million—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

It was restored sufficiently to put us in a first-class economic crisis.

Mr. Henderson

I should be prepared to debate that with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion. At the moment I am discussing defence.

It has also been announced in the House that between October, 1950, and July, 1951, over £500 million worth of orders had been placed by the Air Ministry for aircraft and stores; orders which covered many thousands of aircraft. Surely it does the greatest disservice to denigrate the efforts which have been made in the last five years to build up the Royal Air Force.

I would beg the hon. Gentleman to qualify his statement. He knows my views. I said last week that I agreed to this need for super-priority in relation to building the modern day fighters we require, the F.3 and the Swift. But, while proceeding with the expansion of the Royal Air Force, both qualitatively and quantitatively, it should be made clear that even today the Royal Air Force has plenty of good sound teeth in it, that it is substantial in numbers and, indeed, highly efficient.

If, however, the hon. Gentleman stands by his statement, then I ask him to give the country the facts. I ask him to state the total number of front line squadrons at home and abroad; the total number of front line aircraft at home and abroad; the number of aircraft in each command—Fighter, Bomber. Coastal and Transport; the total number of aircraft which have been ordered since September, 1950; the total number of American planes, fighter and bomber, now stationed in the United Kingdom; and the number to be stationed in the United Kingdom in the event of emergency. [Interruption.]

The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), says that this is an extraordinary speech. When I was Air Minister I had the leaders of the Conservative Party criticising the then Government for withholding such information because they said there was no need for this secrecy. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) stated that every air attaché in London knew exactly how many planes and squadrons we had. Then the noble Lord says that it is extraordinary for me to ask for this information.

If the people are given the information, they can then form their own views in the light of the actual facts as to how far we are in the position of having an air defence which is woefully inadequate to defend this country. The point I am trying to make is that, if we are to assess the adequacy or inadequacy of our air defences in the background of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we must take into account, not only the number of squadrons and the number of aircraft belonging to the Royal Air Force, but the number of squadrons and aircraft which will operate from here and which belong to one or more of our partners in N.A.T.O. Then the country can decide whether we are in this calamitous position which is suggested when we are told that our air defences are woefully inadequate.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been asking questions about the number of aircraft. Surely what is important is the quality of the aircraft rather than the number. We all know that in the last war the Germans had a great number of aircraft which were obsolete. May I suggest that his questions should relate not so much to the number but to whether the aircraft ready for action are up-to-date or not?

Mr. Henderson

That is a very fair point. The country knows that our fighter squadrons at the moment are equipped with Meteor VIIIs and Vampire Vs. That is public knowledge. What is not public knowledge is how many squadrons we have and how many frontline aircraft we have.

8.23 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) has made a most extraordinary attack upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It was an extraordinarily irresponsible attack. My hon. Friend is well able to answer for himself, but I should like to comment upon what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. The words to which he apparently took exception were "woefully inadequate," which was a description which my hon. Friend applied to the present strength of the Air Force.

Only two or three minutes later, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to describe the colossal defence programme which the last Government set in motion, a programme which represents over a period of three or four years a cost of £4,800 million. Why is that colossal expenditure necessary if the present strength of the Royal Air Force is not woefully inadequate? I will willingly give way if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to answer.

Mr. A. Henderson

I find nothing inconsistent in that. What we took exception to was not so much the statement of the hon. Gentleman as the interpretation put on it by the newspapers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that I am attacking the Under-Secretary. I am not. I beg him to clarify the position and to make it clear that we have a substantial Air Force. He can say "yea" or "nay" to that and he can say "yea" or "nay" to my request for numbers. That is not an attack upon the hon. Gentleman.

It is not necessarily because our air defences are woefully inadequate that we have had to embark on this large programme. The word "woefully" means something that is calamitous—calamitously weak. I am prepared to agree that our Forces must be inadequate, otherwise we should not have embarked upon the three-year programme. I was taking exception, however, to the suggestion that the state of our air defences is calamitous or woefully inadequate.

Major Beamish

I am sure that the Minister will have some comment to make upon that. I content myself with what I have said.

I wish to draw attention to several aspects of the Royal Air Force which seem to me to be woefully inadequate. I have listened to previous debates on the Royal Air Force as someone who is a soldier, and I want to refer to three aspects of the R.A.F. in which the Army has a special interest. I want to say something about Transport Command, about close-support bombing and also about larger helicopters. The first and third of these matters were referred to a short time ago by the Secretary of State for War, who made clear the extent of the Army's interest in these problems.

During the earlier debate on the R.A.F. Estimates, the Under-Secretary gave a full reply to many questions put to him. The whole House was much impressed by the care and precision with which he answered those questions. I do not want anything that I say to be interpreted as any kind of attack upon the Royal Air Force. I should be the first to agree that the job that it did in the Middle East, to which General Erskine paid tribute, was absolutely first-class, but I go on from that to say that in peace-time it is clear that it would be wasteful for the R.A.F. to maintain a large Transport Command.

I say that because I regard as a strategic reserve the passenger and freight aircraft which are used by civilian airlines, and which would become available in case of emergency. The fact that that is so seems to me to provide this country with an outstandingly good opportunity at a time when we desperately want to increase our exports. I think it was the Foreign Secretary who, last summer or autumn, drew attention to the fact that there are about 4,000 obsolete aircraft flying on the world's civilian air routes.

That must mean that, provided we export the right type of transport aircraft to the right countries, then those aircraft will be available to this country in the event of emergency. This gives the United Kingdom a dual opportunity to increase its export drive and satisfy the market for these modern aircraft and, at the same time, to reinforce the defence programme. To do this, it is obvious that sufficient raw materials must be made available for the manufacture of these aircraft.

I do not think anyone here today will deny the fact that the latest designs of British aircraft are better than any in the world. That reminds me, incidentally, that when my hon. Friend made the speech to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects, he did not say one word which could be construed as criticism of the efficiency of the R.A.F., something which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite unfairly sought to suggest.

When I speak of our latest designs being probably outstanding in the world, I am thinking of such aircraft—I am not a technician in these matters—as the Vickers Viscount, the Comet and also of the Bristol Britannia, which, as far as I know, should make a very suitable aircraft indeed for Army transport purposes.

The point which I particularly want to make on this subject is that aircraft of this character must be properly designed so that they can be made available for military use, if required. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether, in the case of such aircraft as I have mentioned, he is satisfied that during the last few years a military eye has been cast upon the design of these aircraft. I do not mean only an R.A.F. eye, but an Army eye.

The Minister will well understand what I mean, because this matter was referred to earlier, when there was reference to the size of the doors of aircraft of this type, and to the strength of the floor, both of which are very important matters indeed if the aircraft are suddenly to be turned over from civilian to military use.

I shall be very grateful to my hon. Friend if, when he replies, he can say a word or two on this subject, bearing in mind that civilian aircraft are not normally designed for quick conversion to military purposes, should that be required later. In view of the fact that such an aircraft flies at 30,000 feet, or even higher, it is not possible, unless the original designer had the point particularly in mind, suddenly to increase the size of the door from three or four feet wide to 10 feet wide, unless the frame of the aircraft has been suitably stressed. This is a matter of real importance, and I hope more attention will be paid to it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is asking for priority for transport aircraft, and, if so, how does he reconcile that demand with the Prime Minister's argument that there should be super-priority for fighters? Does he think that we have the necessary labour and materials to build both these transport aircraft and fighters?

Major Beamish

We have had all this out before, at an earlier stage of the Air Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman was present when this question was discussed. He appears to have forgotten the answer which was given. The answer is, clearly, that this new high, super-priority is for fighters, and, if that is not clear to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot help him any more. I am going on to say that too much priority should not be given to fighters—

Mr. Hughes

What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by priority?

Major Beamish

I think it should be clear to everybody else in the House, but it is very difficult to explain matters of this kind to the hon. Gentleman, although I must admit that he is a most regular attender.

Having said a word or two about transport aircraft, I now want to say something about freight aircraft, as far as the Army are interested in them. Obviously, in the event of war, the Army would require a freight aircraft which has a good load and a long range, and which can, if possible, take off from, and land on small airfields. I may be wrong, but I believe that such an aircraft is the Blackburn Universal Freighter. I think that the prototype of this aircraft went through very successful trials two years ago, but, in spite of that fact, it is not, as far as I know, on order by the Royal Air Force. Nor, as far as I know, is there any suitable freighter available now to the R.A.F.

When talking about freighter aircraft, and transport aircraft, I have particularly in mind the requirements of the Army, which are for a transport aircraft from which parachutists could jump, and which would require to be a tail-loading aircraft. The aircraft which I have mentioned, is, in fact, a tail-loading aircraft, and would be an ideal machine for freight purposes for the Army.

It seems to me that the matter of the Army's requirements in regard to tactical aircraft and transport and freighter aircraft is something which has been seriously neglected by the late Government. It is an aspect of the Royal Air Force which appears to be woefully inadequate, if I may coin a phrase. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether in the past sufficient priority has been accorded to this question. If not—as I believe to be the case—can I have an assurance from him that more priority will be accorded to it in the future?

This is a reinforcement of the plea made in the "Sunday Express" or "Daily Express" by Air Chief Marshal Sir Guy Garrod, who is a constituent of mine. He thinks that the Royal Air Force has become too defensive minded by giving too much priority to fighters. It should be remembered that the aeroplane is essentially offensive, and not only as regards bombers. It can carry troops to the fighting line—and back again, if necessary—in the quickest possible space of time.

I now want to say something about close-support bombing. When I was in Italy during the war I was astonished at the efficiency and accuracy of the Royal Air Force in its close-support bombing role using, I think I am right in saying, a fighter-bomber, usually a Spitfire. They were so efficient that they could bomb within 100 or 150 yards of the forward defended localities.

In order to be able to do that a great deal of practice between the Army and the Air Force is necessary in operations. The Army has to know exactly when to call for this air support and the troops must be convinced that it can be efficiently delivered. The staff must have practice in the use of the wireless tentacle attached to them by the Royal Air Force. This close-support bombing is as effective as any other effort in destroying an enemy strongpoint.

It is because this is my view that I much regret the fact that the Royal Air Force is not at present in Korea. The Royal Air Force is, of course, the most flexible arm. The Australians have a fighter squadron of Meteor VIII's which is operating in a close-support role and doing excellent work. It is not a normal fighter role for the reason that the Meteor VIII is no match for the Russian MIG. The Canadians have some transport aircraft there, and the South Africans have a Mustang squadron, which is used in a close-support role. But the Royal Air Force is not in Korea, and I regret that very much indeed. Of course, we have some Valettas out there which have been doing excellent work in an ambulance role, and that fact was mentioned by the Under-Secretary in his speech on the Estimates.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that there is not enough bombing in Korea? Does not he think the Americans have done a lot of bombing there and devastated the country?

Major Beamish

I do not think the constant interruptions of the hon. Gentleman are helpful to the kind of constructive speech I am trying to make.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

The hon. and gallant Member means "destructive," not "constructive."

Major Beamish

I do not want to be led away from my point by a pacifist argument which would be much better put in the Kremlin than in this House of Commons.

I wonder very much whether the latest jet aircraft are ideal for this role. They have a huge turning circle and it appears to me that obsolescent aircraft like the Spitfire might have an important role to play in close-support bombing in future military operations. I would not go so far back as the Gladiator—I do not suppose any of them are flying now—though that was an absolutely ideal machine, except for its small bomb load, for that type of operation. I have a suspicion that the Spitfire would be the ideal aircraft for that role in co-operation with the Army.

I regret that the Royal Air Force has not a squadron or two of fighter bombers in Korea operating in this role. Like everybody else in this House I hope from the bottom of my heart that the armistice negotiations now going on will be successful. If they are not successful I hope the Government will seriously consider the possibility of sending out one or more squadrons of the Royal Air Force to operate in this specialist role.

I should like to say a word about helicopters. I know that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is going to ask me how much they cost.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I will not ask you because you cannot answer.

Major Beamish

You cannot answer, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot answer that either; but I think I can give the hon. Member a kind of answer. His views would be a great deal easier to understand and appreciate, and we should find a great deal more common ground, if he would not always ask only about the cost of helicopters, or fighter aircraft for the defence of this country, and would bear in mind the cost in human lives which would be involved if this country could not defend herself if she were attacked. That is a piece of advice I feel that I should be permitted to give to the hon. Member.

The Army can make use of a larger helicopter than is at present flying. Some larger machines have passed trials and the Under-Secretary of State for Air has referred to two types, one of which is a 14-seater. I know helicopters are being used as ambulances in Malaya quite successfully, but there is not a helicopter which can do more than inter-communication and ambulance work on a small scale. I hope that before long the Government will have the opportunity of giving close attention to the possibility of producing a helicopter which could be used in an assault role, carrying 12 or 16 men, whom it could put down in a tiny space and, if necessary, withdraw them afterwards.

These are just three aspects of Royal Air Force work in which I think the Army has a special interest. They are definitely three aspects of the Royal Air Force to which too little attention has been paid during the last six years. These were problems which were seriously neglected by the last Government. I feel confident, however, that the Under-Secretary, whose descent—or should I say ascent—to the Front Bench I most warmly welcome, will not make similar mistakes.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick (Uxbridge)

I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) made anything in the nature of an attack on the new Under-Secretary of State for Air. I am sure that all of us on both sides of the House would agree that the last thing my right hon. and learned Friend would do would be to make a personal attack on a Minister and on a junior Minister who has only recently taken up office.

Nor can I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the Under-Secretary replied to the debate on the Air Estimates with care and precision. He replied very courteously and very lucidly to a number of questions, but he also left a lot unanswered. He was good enough to mention my name in connection with three of the questions which he did answer, and I would have taken in much better part the fact that more questions of mine went unanswered if it had not been for the fact that two of those which he purported to answer were not, in fact, put by me.

Of one question the hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that I had put it, considering that I had left the Ministry of Civil Aviation such a short time ago, and that I should have known the answer to what I was asking. Of course, I did know exactly the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave about the use of civil aviation in war-time. But, if he reads my speech he will see that I never asked for the information that he was so kind enough to give.

The hon. Gentleman also said, rightly, that I had raised the question of helicopters, but he went on to say, wrongly, that I had asked what they were being used for. Of course, I knew what they were being used for both in Malaya and Korea, and I went to some length in my speech to make exactly the same point which the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes wanted to make in the debate on the Air Estimates and which he has now been able to make this evening.

What I wanted to know was when we were going to get a really economical helicopter—a multi-engined 40-seater helicopter. I know that we can be told what was not done in the past, but I do not want to go into that. The only point I am making now is that I think there is much more likelihood of getting a helicopter of this size for civil aviation if some weight is put behind the project by the Air Ministry and by the Under-Secretary of State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he intends to put his undoubted weight behind his civilian colleagues and ensure that he gets the necessary urgency put into the development of a helicopter of the size I have mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman also said in the speech with which he wound up the debate on the Air Estimates that a specification had already been placed for a jet replacement for the Hastings. Was that in reply to the question I put about the Valiant? Is that specification drawn up on the basis of the Valiant, or is it a different specification? If so, I hope that this matter will be looked at again, because there are great advantages to be gained from the development of aircraft which are capable of use both for civil and military aviation. It is so vitally important for us that I hope no mistakes will be made, and that we shall get the right type, and quickly, both for civil work and for the Air Ministry.

I asked in the Air Estimates debate about the control and reporting organisation. We were told that it was being given the highest priority. Is the "highest priority" higher than the "super-priority?" While we are on this question of priorities, could the hon. Gentleman say whether the administrative details of the super-priority have yet been given to industry, and if so whether they have been accepted by industry as being administratively feasible?

I suppose the reasons I received no answer to my questions about defence against guided missiles and rocket projectiles were our old friends security and public morale. The answer to the general questions which I put, I am sure, could have been answered without giving anything away. If the hon. Gentleman was concerned with public morale, I am bound to say that I cannot see why he used the words which he did use about our fighter defences, because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State said, a good deal of public alarm was caused by the interpretation which the Press gave to certain phrases used by the hon. Gentleman.

I say again that I do not think the question of the superiority of one type of fighter as against another type of fighter is the most important factor in these matters. Much more important is the question of defence against possible rocket projectiles. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can give us some information in broad terms on this occasion.

My right hon. and learned Friend did touch upon the fact that not only did the hon. Gentleman say that our air defences were woefully inadequate, but he went on to say that we were not playing our part in the defence of Europe and in our Atlantic life-line. There are many charges which can be made against the last Government, but a charge which cannot be sustained is that we have failed to play our full part in the defence arrangements with either our European allies or with our Atlantic colleagues.

The fact is that Britain—our country—which gave 70 per cent. of its whole national resources from 1939 to 1945 has, since 1945, done more than any other country in the world to contribute to Western defence. I do not think it should go out from this House that we have done anything less than our full share. [HON. MEMBERS: "Per head."] Per head. I mean that, as a percentage of our national income. We were in fact contributing something like 8 per cent. of our national income up to this last year, at a time when the United States were contributing only 6 per cent. of its national income.

I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, in his reply, should set these matters in their proper perspective and indicate that whatever he was trying to say about our contribution in one particular being less than that which we intend that it should be, nevertheless, in perspective it is false to say that our defences are woefully inadequate and it is even more false and unfortunate to suggest that this country has been doing less than its full share in the Western defence.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr (Cambridge)

I should like to raise two points. The first concerns what was emphasised by the Prime Minister when he said that the construction of fighter aircraft should receive super-priority. I think hon. Members are agreed that the history of air warfare teaches us that the first duty of an air force is to win command of the air. Only when command of the air has been won can it effectively give support either to troops on the ground or to ships at sea.

To win command of the air, first and foremost one has to shoot one's opponent out of the sky. I hope, therefore, that this super-priority in relation to fighter aircraft is becoming really effective. I think that hon. Members on either side of the House owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Air Staff which, just before the last war, conceived the Spitfire.

The Spitfire, with its eight guns, was more than a match for the German aircraft designed as Army co-operation planes, and if war should unfortunately break out again it is all the more important that we should have the best fighter aircraft in the world at our disposal. Our fighter pilots will be facing bombers which are coming in at three times the speed of the bombers in the last war, at night, perhaps in cloud, with our defences comparatively weaker.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure us that the Ministry of Supply is providing adequate material for the construction of new fighter aircraft factories and the expansion of existing ones, and also the supply of timber and cement for the construction of homes for the workers in the new aircraft factories; and that local authorities, under the Town and Country Planning Act, are not proving obstructive in the erection of these new factories.

My second point relates to our balloon defences. On page 125, Vote 7, of the Estimates, it is stated that balloons are mainly used for parachute training at the moment. I submit that the balloon defences amply justified themselves in the last war. They fulfilled two purposes—they prevented planes from coming in at roof-top height and making surprise attacks on vital targets, and they forced planes up to an altitude at which they could more effectively be dealt with by the anti-aircraft defences. I hope my hon. Friend will give his attention to those points—one concerning the construction of fighter aircraft and the other concerning balloon defence.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

It is always a pleasure to follow my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). I do so with great interest tonight because of the points he made. It is not for me to answer for the Air Staff but, on the question of balloon defences, I think the hon. Member will find that modern opinion is that, bearing in mind the enormous effort involved, they are not justified to the extent that we had them in the last war.

Of course, there is the importance of the maintenance of civilian morale. People liked having a balloon barrage above them. It made certain that hostile aircraft would remain at a great height. The pros and cons of the balloon barrage have to be weighed carefully, and certainly there is no secrecy about the matter, because from the Air Estimates published in the last few years it will be seen that no emphasis has been placed on balloons as a method of air defence on any large scale.

I hope, as did the hon. Gentleman, that there will be a great effort to manufacture as soon as possible the fighters which are on order. We are told they have "super-priority." My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) asked whether higher priority was higher than super-priority. This is a matter of words. Sometimes it is said the higher the fewer; but here, I think, we should stick to "super-priority," even though it is an awful word, because we want more fighters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

What is the difference between priority and super-priority?

Mr. de Freitas

That is going a little far. I should not myself even ask that at this stage of the debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not lead me into those fields.

Last week I did not realise, nor I think did any hon. Member taking part in the debate, that the wording of the Under-Secretary's speech was such as to give a wholly misleading impression of the strength of the R.A.F. and so to do great harm to Western defence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) submitted. When I read the Press, both home and foreign, I was pleased to remember that the Under-Secretary had a chance tonight to undo a great deal of the harm to Western defence which was unwittingly done by his last speech. He can undo it by giving us some considered opinion of the real strength of the R.A.F. today. In doing so, he can also dwell on the unparalleled contribution which this country has made to the defence of the West.

My speech will be short, because the Under-Secretary will obviously want time in which to reply, but there are two points on which I want information. The first concerns the reserves of large transport aircraft. A great deal was said about this last Tuesday, and transport was mentioned today, too, by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). Did the Under-Secretary do justice last Tuesday to the large reserves which exist in this country, not only in the Corporations, not only in the charter companies, but also in store in the Royal Air Force? Again, did he do justice to our reserves in the hundreds, possibly thousands, of experienced pilots available?

The second important point—and I told the hon. Gentleman that I should ask him this—concerns married quarters. Can we have a clear, concise statement on the problem of married quarters? When can we expect to reach the figure of 23,000 mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend in the last Estimates debate? In the Estimates there are references to married quarters in Vote 11, on page 186, and in Vote 8, on pages 135 and 139, but it is hard to get the full story from them.

In the debate on Tuesday I mentioned that we had reached a stage in which what we were debating was the shortage of equipment, whereas many years ago the questions were questions of manning, and I said: In our Estimates debate in those days we were chiefly concerned in discussing problems which flowed from demobilising a vast war machine and simultaneously building up an efficient, modern Air Force. I ask hon. Members who were not in this House at that time … to realise just what a problem it was to preserve the structure of an Air Force when one was demobilising at the rate then necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March. 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2259.] My right hon. and learned Friend is entitled to some credit for the married quarters programme and I cite this tonight because it is just this programme which is one of the factors responsible for the situation today in which manning is not a major problem. In spite of the appalling post-war difficulties, there were by September, 1949, more married quarters per man in the Royal Air Force than there had been in September, 1939, 10 years before.

Can we have a guarantee that there will be no slacking off in the married quarters programme? Not only is it important in itself, but a matter like that is responsible for the fact that there is so little trouble about manning today. The House now expects the Government of the day to see that houses are provided for the people of the country, and this applies also to the citizens who happen to be serving in the Armed Forces, I beg the Under-Secretary of State, in dealing with the major point of the effect of an unfortunate phrase in his speech of last week, not to overlook these subsidiary but also important points.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) drew the attention of the House to the importance of an adequate strategic reserve of aircraft and aircrew for transporting personnel and freight for the Army in time of war. The question I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air is, what is being done to set up long distance auxiliary squadrons of the Royal Air Force? It is quite clear that there are at the present time many young men who, perhaps, have become too old for fighter operations but who are eminently suitable for a strategic reserve for long distance bombing or transport work in twin-engined or four-engined aircraft.

Unless those young men can receive adequate and continual training, they will not be in a position to be used in a state of national emergency. It seems to me, therefore, very important, if the strategic reserve, which, I think, both sides of the House agree should be maintained, is to be built up satisfactorily, that steps must be taken, and taken quickly, to establish those long distance auxiliary squadrons.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), I think, when the Labour Government were in power, initiated discussions in connection with the formation of such squadrons, but, so far as I am aware, no action has been taken—or was not taken, certainly, when the late Government were in power.

Mr. A. Henderson

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to auxiliary transport squadrons?

Sir W. Wakefield

Long-range auxiliary squadrons to implement, in time of war, transport squadrons of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Henderson

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would direct his question to the Minister, who I am sure will tell him the number of squadrons that were formed and about to be formed before the change of Government.

Sir W. Wakefield

I do not know, but I am under the impression that one long-distance auxiliary squadron has been formed, but it has not functioned effectively. I stand subject to correction, but, as far as I am aware, there are no long-range auxiliary squadrons operating and training these aircrew at the present time.

It is highly desirable that steps should be taken as quickly as possible to form such squadrons, particularly in the North of England, where there is a very large potential of young men able and willing to undertake such reserve work and hold themselves in readiness for any air emergency which may face the country. There is no need to amplify the point. I merely draw attention to the need for having this strategic reserve behind the Royal Air Force and the, as it were, mercantile marine of the air. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that action is being taken to develop the long-range auxiliary squadrons of the Royal Air Force.

9.7 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

If it is true that our contribution is not yet good enough or adequate, can the Under-Secretary give the House some idea of what he thinks would be adequate and what the cost would be? In doing so, however, I hope he will bear in mind that it is important that we should be suspicious of some of these somewhat greedy and at times voracious demands from Service Departments.

We remember from the past that, if we fall into the trap of mass-producing any particular type of weapon, we may find ourselves woefully inadequately prepared to meet any crisis when it arises. That was the Germans plight under the Nazis; they appeared to get ahead of us but then found themselves with obsolete aircraft as compared with the Spitfire which we had, although not in large numbers.

The House will be interested, I know, when I say that we from North Staffordshire are vitally interested in this matter. Reginald Mitchell was a North Staffordshire boy, born and bred in our area. He had great genius, and his contribution to the defence of our country and of Europe, and perhaps of the freedom of the whole world, may well be said to have been almost unique. I therefore ask what is being done to encourage boys like Mitchell, who with their ability and their genius came from humble homes in places like North Staffordshire. There must be available hundreds more of that type. What is being done to give them the necessary encouragement so that in design we shall always lead, as we did in that crucial year, 1939.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), will, I know, agree that, although we still remember and mention Mitchell's name, we tend not to give sufficient honour to those who serve our country so uniquely well in supreme crises; we tend to forget them in time of peace. We do not search them out; we do not make anything like the fuss of them that is made in the Soviet Union of the designers of their modern aircraft. Although I am the last person who could be accused of being a militarist, I do feel that genius, wherever it lies, should be encouraged, and that our duty should be, not to ask for continual cascades of money to be poured out, perhaps thoughtlessly, but to use that money with discretion and forethought, because in that way we defend ourselves best.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer

I want to make only a short intervention. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) intervened in the Army Estimates debate, so I am only getting my own back. I want to say a word about the question of training for inter-Service co-operation. One had only to be at the military manœuvres in Germany this autumn to see the brilliant way in which the British Air Force and the Air Forces from all the Western Union countries co-operated. Many of them flew on to the airfields only an hour before operations, and within 10 minutes of getting their orders they were off on operational flights, attacking their targets.

The training for inter-Service co-operation should take place, I suggest, on a lower level than it does now at the Imperial Service College and so on. We want it on the squadron leader-battalion commander level so that they have a better understanding of the intimate use of aircraft in speedy attack and offence than exists at this moment. We had that understanding during the war but it has now been lost. That has happened after every war. I want to quote this one example, which was misquoted in the speech which I made on the Army Estimates.

In the Italian campaign, I had the whole of my squadron's leaders talking to the air. By the time that orders get back from brigade it is too late to do anything. I want tank squadron leaders to be able to call aircraft straight down to tackle an objective within five minutes or half a minute of calling for it. I hope that my hon. Friend will do everything in his power to see that high-level officers who are against this sort of thing because they feel that power has gone out of their hands are curtailed in their efforts in this respect, and that we will get this training in that kind of co-operation at a far lower level than is the case at the moment.

9.12 p.m.

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

I tried in my opening speech last Tuesday to be as scrupulously fair as I possibly could, and particularly to avoid trying to score party points. Indeed, during the course of my speech I said this: When the re-armament programme was first considered in 1950 the Government of the day took immediate action to increase training facilities. As a result, training expansion is now well under way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2113.] I was, therefore, very disappointed that the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) in his speech this evening departed from his usual meticulous fairness when he implied that my speech was based on politics rather than on facts. While naturally I take full responsibility for what I said last Tuesday, and, indeed, I would say exactly the same thing again if I had to make that speech tomorrow—

Mr. A. Henderson

The same wording?

Mr. Ward

I take the full responsibility but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, because he was at the Air Ministry much longer than I have been, what the custom is in the preparation of an Estimates speech, and he knows, as well as I do, that it goes in draft form round the Department and is very carefully examined and vetted by all the sections concerned. Therefore, it is not really fair to say that it was a political speech rather than one based on facts.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman and other speakers this evening have said that I gave a misleading impression. I cannot agree with that. I do not think it is true to say that the Press took that line either. On the contrary, practically all the editorial comment on it was exactly in the opposite sense; that what I said could not have been clearer or more concise.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no desire whatever to write down the value of the Royal Air Force or to denigrate its efficiency in any way. Why should I? I have the most tremendous regard for the Royal Air Force, and have had all my life.

I took care in my speech to stress that both the Meteor and the Vampire were capable of tackling most of the enemy types of bombers which are likely to attack us in large numbers for some time to come. Those were approximately my words. I also paid a high tribute to the quality of our pilots, and I pointed out that their quality would no doubt largely counteract the deficiencies in aircraft performance.

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the defence of these shores is primarily our responsibility. It is quite wrong to sit back and say, "It is quite all right. We will just wait for the Americans to come and do it for us."

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that.

Mr. Ward

It was implied.

Mr. Shinwell

No, my right hon. and learned Friend did not say that.

Mr. A. Henderson

Most emphatically, I said no such thing. The hon. Gentleman is indulging in tit for tat. He suggests that I made a certain interpretation and he is now putting a certain interpretation on what I said. I did not suggest that we should wait for the Americans to come to the United Kingdom. What I said was that we must look at the combined defence scheme, which includes the stationing of American fighter and bomber squadrons in this country.

Mr. Ward

If I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I willingly withdraw and apologise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to the fact that American squadrons were here and that more American aircraft would be available, and he certainly gave me the impression that he was relying on the Americans rather than on our Air Force to defend this country. That is quite wrong, and we must accept the primary responsibility of defending these shores.

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not seriously contend that we could defend this country adequately at a time when we have not one fighter in service to match the MIG.15 in performance figures, at a time when the control and reporting system, on which our air defence leans so heavily, has not been restored to its war-time efficiency, let alone modernised, at a time when our medium bomber force is still armed with Washingtons and Lincolns and the build-up of the Canberra force is going slowly, and, finally, at a time when our home-based photographic reconnaissance force is still armed with the piston-engined Mosquito.

These are perfectly fair points, and, while I do not want to denigrate anybody, the fact remains that, if enemy bombers come over in large numbers escorted by large numbers of enemy fighters, it is no earthly good pretending that a straight-winged type of fighter would be a match for a swept-winged or a delta-winged type of aircraft. I mentioned in my speech—I tried to make it clear—the important jump forward between the straight-winged and the swept-winged types. We cannot possibly expect our pilots to go into battle in straight-winged types against pilots flying swept-winged types, because it simply would not be fair.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if bombers come over England in large numbers escorted by fighters, there is a need for a large number of defending fighters. We cannot keep all our aircraft in the air at the same time. A proportion of them must be on the ground—servicing, re-arming and refuelling. Therefore, if we are to engage large numbers of escorted bombers, we have got to have a very large number of fighters. We have not got that large number yet, although I did say that the expansion of the R.A.F. was under way, and it is; but at the moment we still have not got enough.

Although I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and others that we have made, and are making, a very good contribution to N.A.T.O.—I never denied that—at the same time the build-up of our own Air Force is going too slowly and must be accelerated.

Mr. Beswick

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that if bombers escorted by fighters came over these shores, they would be attacking, not Britain, not just one country, but an Anglo-American base, and in those circumstances would it not be reasonable to expect that with our fighters would be American fighters also?

Mr. Ward

That is exactly the point I am making. Hon. Members on the other side seem to think that it is perfectly all right for us to hang on to our obsolescent types of fighters as long as the Americans look after us with their Sabres.

Mr. Shinwell

We do not accept that.

Mr. Ward

I do not accept that. I believe that we should have the latest types of fighters, in addition.

My aim, as, I am sure, is the aim of hon. Members opposite also, is, simply, to see by all means possible that if our pilots have to go into action, they will do so at least on equal terms with their opponents, and if possible on superior terms. Anything less than that would not be fair to our R.A.F. pilots. I hope that I have disposed of that satisfactorily.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), in a very helpful and interesting speech, referred to aircraft capable of carrying and dropping the heavy and bulky loads required by the Army. There is little I can add to the remarks I made in my winding-up speech last Tuesday, when I explained that the C.119 Packet would have been quite adequate for this purpose and that it would, therefore, have been unwise to go ahead with the ordering of another type until we knew definitely whether we would get those Packets. I repeat my assurance that now that we have been definitely disappointed in this, we are going ahead and studying the problem of re-equipping part of Transport Command with a suitable freighter aircraft. Further than that I cannot go at the moment.

As regards modifying civil aircraft to take Army requirements, this would necessitate, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, considerable constructional alterations, and would have two effects. First, it would mean grounding the civil aircraft for quite some time, and second, having carried out the modifications and alterations, the weight of the aircraft would be increased to such an extent that the passenger-carrying payload would be reduced beyond economical limits. It would put our airlines at a great disadvantage in competition with foreign airlines if they had to carry that handicap.

Of course, on the outbreak of war, these aircraft could be modified, but we would then have to consider in the light of existing circumstances whether the loss of airlift while these modifications were being carried out was justified. Following on from that, came the question of the Auxiliary Transport squadrons. As the House knows, we already have one—622 Squadron—based on Airwork, Limited, which was formed entirely from the employees of the company. In the event of war that squadron will be mobilised and the aircraft of the company requisitioned.

The formation of three further squadrons has been discussed, the three squadrons being based on Lancashire, on Scottish and on Hunting. But our experience with the existing squadron has revealed certain difficulties and has shown the need for a substantial modification of the original scheme, which is now seen to have been rather too rigid. The companies concerned have been fully consulted and are giving every possible assistance.

I think the House will, however, agree it will be unwise to go ahead immediately with the forming of these new squadrons until we are absolutely satisfied that the difficulties can be overcome, because they are difficulties which will apply to the three new squadrons as much as to the first one. Meanwhile, the delay in forming these additional squadrons will not in any way affect the ability of the companies to provide the air transport needed in an emergency. As the House knows, we have already made use of charter companies for a considerable amount of trooping work.

I must apologise to the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the mistake I clearly made in winding up, but I do not think he was quite fair to me because he implied that I did not answer the questions put to me. Let me give him the figures. Out of 41 points of substance raised during the debate I answered 34—

Mr. Emrys Hughes

And missed out seven of the most important.

Mr. Ward

My speech lasted 40 minutes, I could not do more than that. I apologise to the hon. Member if he was one of the unlucky ones whom I did not answer quite so fully as the others, but I will answer one of the points which he made tonight. The control and reporting system has been allotted by the Prime Minister the same super-priority as the building of the new fighters.

The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) asked about the married quarters programme. I will try to explain this as quickly as I can in the short time at my disposal. It is financed partly out of Vote 8 and partly out of Vote 11. Vote 11 provides for expenditure on permanent married quarters in England, Scotland and Wales financed out of the Armed Forces Housing Loan Act, 1949. Vote 8 provides for all married quarters at home not eligible for loans under this Act, and for those eligible under the Act, but which are in excess of the amount granted to the Air Force under the Act, and third for married quarters abroad.

Under the Act, of course, all married quarters built must be suitable for general housing purposes if they are no longer required by the Royal Air Force. By 1st April we shall have completed 2,000 married quarters started during the year, and a further 4,400 will be under construction. Expenditure under Votes 8 and 11 will be approximately £7 million. It will cover the completion of quarters already started at home and starts on further married quarters up to a maximum of 4,000. Although we shall do our best it may not be possible to complete this maximum figure.

I am sorry if I have not been able to answer all the points, but I have done my best in the time available and I will say again that we shall examine all the speeches very fully.

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

Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and Air Force; and to amend certain enactments relating to the armed forces of the Crown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Antony Head, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. George Ward and Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison.