Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force (Hansard, 18 March 1963)

§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)
It is today that we vote the money for these Services and not on the Air Estimates, which have been debated, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Opposition Whip pointed out on Friday. Therefore, it is today that we give authority for the expenditure of the money. I think that most hon. Members will agree that it is a very unsatisfactory procedure to try, in the short time available to us, to cover the whole range of expenditure of all three Services. At the same time, I think that it could also be said that a Committee of the whole House is not the best or the most effective way to try to exert any kind of authority over detailed Government expenditure. In the circumstances, therefore, all we can do is to try to pick out a number of main points.
The Vote which we have before us—the pay of the Royal Air Force—represents a quarter of the total expenditure of the force. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to welcome the fact that Air Force pay will 33 be increased from 1st April next, this being the second half of the money which the force really should have had this time last year. Before I go into further detail, I should like to ask why this year we are given less information than hitherto. A comparison of the Air Estimates for 1963–64 with those of last year shows a great economy of paper. The current Estimates occupy 52 pages against the 225 pages of last year's Air Estimates.
While I think that it would be wrong to judge it purely on the number of pages, I think, looking through the document, that there is much less information in the current format than previously, and I wonder why this change has been made. The layout and the typographical content of this year's document is better than in previous years, but a number of informative notes have disappeared, and, since hon. Members find it very difficult to get any information at all of a detailed character, this is to be deplored. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain why these changes have been made.
Under Vote 1, B—" Allowances, etc., of officers "—I notice that the overseas allowances of officers are going up by £200.000 and that the allowances of other ranks is going up by £1million. Does this represent a substantial increase in the rate of allowance, or is it expected that in the next year there will be a much larger number of Royal Air Force personnel overseas and in receipt of these allowances?
I wonder, also, whether the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten us on the education allowances. In the past, I have often received representations from officers and airmen about the level of education allowances. I think that it is a long-standing grievance in the Service that although, as far as they can see, they should be on the same footing as comparable personnel in the Foreign Service and in the Colonial Office, so far as education allowances are concerned for children who are left or sent home to school, I understand that they receive substantially less.
Although there has been a welcome increase in the education allowances during the past year, there seems no case for putting people in the Services in a less favourable position than diplomats and colonial servants, who are often 34 stationed in exactly comparable circumstances. I hope that we can be told why this is, and what the Secretary of State or the Minister of Defence is doing about it.
I understand that a good deal of trouble also arises in connection with the ferrying of children to and fro in connection with the practice called in the Air Force "indulgence passages", whereby some parents are able to save a substantial sum of money by getting one of these free passages to the United Kingdom for their children. Could we be told how this is arranged?
I heard in Cyprus last autumn, to my surprise, that an attempt which had been made by some of the parents to charter an aircraft to send their children to school at somewhat reduced fares had been cancelled or forbidden by someone. I do not know whether that was an Air Ministry decision, or how it arose, but certainly I feel that what is done about education in this connection is very important for the future of the Services, because the main deterrent to many families, in considering a career in the Air Force or in one of the other Services, is the problem of their children's education.
Therefore, the maximum that can be done to alleviate the great difficulties involved, particularly when there is no suitable Service school in the vicinity, and often when there is such a school, the better. The fact that children have to change their schools every two or three years when their fathers' postings are changed is regarded as a bad and difficult circumstance from an educational point of view, and many parents make great sacrifices to avoid this problem.
I notice in this year's Estimates no figure for entertainment allowances, as there was in last year's Estimates. Could we be told whether entertainment allowances paid to officers should appear under this Vote and whether they are on the same basis as in previous years?
Also under this Vote—though it is not set out this year as it has been previously—is the language allowance. Looking back over the problems that have arisen in Germany with the forces —although, happily, I am glad to say, not in connection with personnel of the Royal Air Force—I think that there is a great deal to be said, from the point of 35 view of occupying the time of the personnel and also of avoiding possible friction through misunderstanding, for encouraging — not instructing — officers and men to acquire a knowledge of the language of the country in which they are serving.
I wonder whether the language awards are reasonably directed to this end, or whether there is a rather fancy scheme in which something equivalent to a university language degree is required so that an allowance of such a rather paltry sum is paid. I should like some information about the language awards and to know whether they are paid for the kind of purpose that I have indicated.
Finally, may I make a comment about the appropriations in aid? We need not only to concern ourselves with expenditure, but also to inquire if we see the appropriations in aid being reduced. This item, again, seems to be in a different form from that in previous years. The total amount seems to be almost exactly comparable, although the individual items are somewhat different. I notice that the receipts that we expect to get from lending personnel to other Governments is halved. Is this because we are becoming less popular in the world, or is there any real reason why receipts under this heading should be reduced?
Under "Other receipts" are included, I believe, receipts obtained by the Service when airmen purchase their discharge. I wonder whether this is the reason why this item, "Other receipts", at £145,000, is £40,000 less than last year. How many categories of personnel are precluded from buying their discharge because of an imbalance in recruitment? Does the Under-Secretary expect that the receipts under this heading resulting from discharge by purchase next year will be less, and, if so, is this because the number of people coming forward is fewer or because the Air Ministry is declining to give permission?
If we could get some information on the points that I have raised, we would be better able to assess whether this very large sum will be well spent.

§ Mr. John Eden (Bournemouth, West)
I wish to take the opportunity to make a general comment on the layout of Vote 1 and of the Votes generally. 36 I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on the presentation of the Estimates as a whole. I think it makes it much easier for us to understand what is going on when the comparison is set out very clearly as compared with what took place in the previous year.
I have, however, one point to make on that. The notes on page 9 of the Estimates refer to Appendix I. This is a small point, but it would be easier to follow, particularly on later votes, if that were printed in slightly bolder type, because the notes are extremely important and they refer to appendices which give very full amplification of some of the details of the Vote itself.
Turning to Appendix I, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Air why these marriage allowance rates do not apply to officers under 25 years of age. Why do they receive marriage allowances at the lower rate when they are under that age? I wonder what lies behind the thinking here. There must be some reason for fixing the allowance at 12s. whereas others are rated at a higher level. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can give an answer to that in due course.
Another small detail concerns the education allowance and how recently the figure has been revised. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can say anything about that and whether the allowance takes into account the realistic costs which the individual serving officer and airman would have to meet in the event of having to board his children at school while he was serving overseas.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I did not hear his opening remarks. He may have referred to a point made by my hon. Friend in his speech at an earlier stage of the proceedings. My hon. Friend said that there are reduced numbers of serving personnel, but, nevertheless, those reduced numbers are costing us a little more. Perhaps my hon. Friend can amplify the exact reason for that. Probably it is not only because of higher rates of pay; it may have something to do with the higher technological skill of the people employed.
Those are a few general points on which it would be interesting to hear further elaboration by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary.

§ Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)
I wish to raise a question on the Supplementary Estimate, namely, a reference to the cost of cancellation of the Skybolt missile.

§ The Chairman
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member, but the Supplementary Estimate will come later.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg pardon, Sir William. I was not aware of that. I do not want to transgress. Presumably the items concerned are wrapped up in the main document which we debated last week. Would it be in order to put a question to the Under-Secretary on the main Estimates?

§ The Chairman
That is so.

§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
On a point of order. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) wishes to raise a question on Skybolt, he need not wait for the Supplementary Estimate. Surely he would be in order in raising it on Vote 7.

§ The Chairman
I would rather not deal with Vote 7 until we get there. We are at present on Vote 1 and we must restrict ourselves to that.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In that case, I shall defer further consideration of this very important matter.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
On a point of order. May I point out that under Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion one could quite easily misread those items, because it says: Air Estimates, 1963–64, and Air Supplementary Estimate, 1962–63; then there is a semi-colon, which might seem to indicate that those two could be understood as being taken together.

§ The Chairman
It is often possible to misread, but I thought it better that we should not misread it.

§ Mr. Wigg
I shall not keep the Committee for more than a few moments. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) congratulated his hon. Friend on the presentation of these Estimates and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was critical. In the interests of justice, it should be pointed out that this has nothing to do with the Air Ministry. I believe that I am right in thinking that these 38 Estimates have been prepared in a form recommended by the Estimates Committee, a form which is common to all three Services. While I am sorry to deprive the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West of a ground on which to congratulate his hon. Friend when a grain of comfort is so rare, it is in the interests of accuracy that I point out that this change has nothing to do with the Air Ministry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdaie)
I wish, first, to thank the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) for deferring his question until we reach the Supplementary Estimates.
The new form of the Air Estimates has been referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), and also by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in a slightly more controversial way. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park mentioned that the new form which this year's Estimates take and this "new look" which the Defence Department Estimates have for 1963–64 follows, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, on the revision of the Civil Estimates for 1962–63. That has met with widespread approval and is something on which the Government, if possible, should be congratulated.

§ Mr. Mulley
Perhaps I did not make the point quite clear. I was well aware that the form was changed, but I do not think that the Estimates Committee had as its objective the suppressing of information which formerly was given. Surely no one said that a number of notes should not be included.

§ Mr. Ridsdale
I was coming to that point.
The Estimates were considered by the Estimates Committee last year and the new Estimates have taken account of that Committee's views. The revision, as in the case of the Civil Estimates, is in accordance with the Plowden Committee's recommendations that the Estimates should be simplified with a view to expounding the facts of public expenditure as lucidly as possible. There has been a reduction in the detailed information which is provided, particularly under 39 the civilian pay Votes, where we used to show in elaborate detail the numbers and costs of all separate grades employed, but we have only eliminated information which we and the Treasury considered to be of no real value to Parliament, or indeed, to the general public.
Most of the information previously given under Vote 1 —rates of pay and allowances and numbers of Service personnel—is now given in Appendices I and II. All the information previously given on the reserves is in Appendix III, whilst Appendix IV gives information about civilians in the same way as the Civil Estimates and in more reasonable form than the 1962–63 Estimates. We have repeated the appendices on educational and meteorological services as in the past.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked me about local overseas allowance and about the increase of £1,127,000 in the 1963 Estimate for local overseas allowance. There are three main reasons for this increase. The first is that the size of the Royal Air Force overseas will be rather bigger than this year. Secondly, we expect a bigger proportion of the overseas personnel to be married. This continues a trend which began some years ago. Thirdly, we expect higher rates of allowances in sonic of the overseas areas because of the rise in cost of living. It is this larger number of married men which accounts for most of the extra cost. Naturally, they need higher allowances than the single men if they are not to suffer a fall in their standard of living when they take their families overseas.
In modern conditions, this practice is difficult to avoid. It is part of the price which we have to pay for an all-Regular force. If we are to post married men overseas for fairly lengthy periods—for two years or more—and they wish to have their families with them, we must make satisfactory arrangements for them, within the limits of the family accommodation which can be provided overseas.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park raised the important question of education allowances. He asked how the existing R.A.F. allowances compare with those of the Foreign and Colonial Services and whether they are adequate for the R.A.F. 40 These allowances are intended to help parents with their children's education and not to subsidise the cost completely. In the words of the Grigg Committee, we take it as a guiding principle that no child should get a worse education because his father is in the Services.
This means helping those parents who choose a boarding school education and those parents who choose a day school. Many parents like to keep their children with them when they move from one station to another. Most R.A.F. parents do this. Over 80 per cent. of R.A.F. children of school age are at day school. Our help consists not only of education allowances but of the provision of local Service schools overseas, something which a Service such as the Foreign Service does not enjoy.
But we recognise that the cost of educating the children has risen, and as from the Michaelmas term, 1962—this may answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden}—the increased rates were introduced. These are £185 for the first child at boarding school, £225 for the second child and £260 for the third and other children. It is true that Foreign Office rates are higher, but the conditions of service are different in the Foreign Office and there are difficulties in making a comparison of education allowances without looking at the whole field of pay and other conditions in the Foreign Service.
What is essential for the R.A.F. and other Services is to see that the help which we give to Service parents with children having boarding education keeps pace with rising fees, and I think that we can claim fairly justly that we have been able to do this. We expect that during the coming year the number of officers' and airmen's children qualifying for education allowances will rise to about 5,500 for officers and 1,400 for airmen. This represents an increase of broadly 10 per cent, in officers' and 40 per cent. in airmen's children over the previous year, which, I think, is a satisfactory development.
A question which is often asked is, "Do airmen get the same allowances as officers?" I am glad to be able to say that airmen receive the same rate as officers, and it is clear from the increasing number of airmen's cases that they 41 are finding the allowances a real help. No one would dispute that Service life makes things difficult for parents. They are as keen as civilian parents to see that their children get a good start. But we must not dictate their choice of school. If they can get a child to a boarding school—including local education authority boarding schools—then these education allowances are a big help to the Service parents.
As I have said, more R.A.F. parents are taking advantage of them. In fact, in the majority of cases where the child attends a local education authority boarding school, the education allowance covers the bill completely. This is also true where the parent receives a grant from the local education authority for a child at a private school. If the parents choose a day school in this country and leave the children with a relative or guardian, they can also get an allowance to help them, and this has been increased recently from £50 to £55. If they decide to keep the children with them, moving when they move, we do our best to provide schools overseas of as good a standard as the general run of schools in this country.
The advice of the R.A.F, education officers is always available to the parents. I do not claim that no R.A.F. parents will run into difficulties, but on the whole the present system provides parents with a real choice and is working very well. Generally, local education authorities are sympathetic towards the allocation of boarding school places to Service children, especially when the parents are posted overseas.

§ Mr. Mulley
What steps do the Air Ministry take centrally to provide an information service to officers and other ranks about the education possibilities of local education authorities? Often, by virtue of being in the Service and moving around a lot, a man does not have much local information. Is there someone to whom he can write in the Air Ministry who will advise him about local education authority schools, as distinct from private schools?

§ Mr. Ridsdale
He has his own education officer in the unit who is in touch with the Air Ministry on these points and who helps the men on them. Very close personal contact is kept with the 42 men to make sure that they know the facilities which are available.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked me about entertainment allowances. We expect to spend £67,000 on these allowances next year. Allowances are paid to officers in commands varying from squadron leaders in charge, for example, of a small radar station to group captains commanding major flying stations, and also to commanders-in-chief. In particular, the allowances help them to be reasonably hospitable to distinguished visitors at various levels who visit them in their official capacity as representatives of the Service.

§ Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)
What is the normal entertainment allowance for an officer with such a command?

§ Mr. Ridsdale
I have not the detailed figures available, but I will see that my hon. Friend gets them. I have no doubt that some of the proposed expenditure will nourish and comfort hon. Members when they pay their much-appreciated visits to R.A.F. stations and headquarters overseas.

§ Mr. Mulley
Does not official entertainment come under Vote 9—as it was included in last year's Estimates but excluded this year—and not under Vote 1?

§ Mr. Wigg
How is this hospitality, which apparently includes free meals and drinks, extended to Members? Is it done by selection, or how is it done? From hints which we receive it appears that a considerable number of hon. Members opposite are taken away and given secret information, and they come back and drop a hint about it. But those of us who want to find out the facts are denied even a cup of "char" or even an opportunity of getting anywhere near the place?

§ Mr. Ridsdale
I am sure that the hon. Member for Dudley knows quite well that the R.A.F. hospitality is open equally to both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park also mentioned language awards. They are divided into three groups, depending on the difficulty of the language in which a qualification is obtained. The most difficult group covers such as Arabic, Japanese and Russian. The easiest group covers French, German and most of the other European languages. The awards 43 are also categorised according to the difficulty of qualification. The lowest award is that of the colloquial standard and the highest award is that of the first-class interpreter.
Thus, the awards range from £25 for the colloquial standard in French and German to £500 for a first-class interpreter in, for example, Arabic. We expect to spend over £32,000 on language awards next year. As one who has received a language award—for Japanese—I would like to say that I appreciate the value of the awards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West raised the question of the minimum age for full entitlement to marriage allowances. Airmen below the age of 21 and officers below the age of 25 draw only restricted rates of married allowances and are not entitled to married accommodation, travelling expenses for their families, removal expenses or disturbance allowance. These restrictions are common to all three Services and are imposed because it is in the general interest of all three and of the individual to encourage men not to marry before they have had time to learn their jobs, absorb the traditions of the Service and grow accustomed to the Service way of life—all of which they can best do by living in a station and playing their full part in the corporate life of the unit.

§ Mr. Eden
As this practice has been in operation for some time, who is the arbiter of the proper age for marriage allowances?

§ Mr. Ridsdale
It has been reviewed since I was in the Services. Before the war, I believe that one could not get married as an officer before the age of 30 or as an other rank before the age of 25. The arbiters are the Air Council, the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council. I believe that this long-standing inter-Service policy is the right one. Before the war, I understand, the average age of marriage for all ranks was 26.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West also raised the question of the increased amount provided for pay in Vote I. I was asked why we have found it necessary to make greater provision for pay under this Vote this year than last year. As I pointed out in our debate last week, the strength of the 44 Royal Air Force in 1963–64 will be significantly lower than in 1962–63, but the savings from the lower strength have been more than offset by the increase in the average rates of pay. The main cause of this higher than average rate is the new pay scale which is to come into effect on 1st April. In addition, we have a larger proportion of airmen serving on longer engagements, which naturally attract higher rates of pay.
Finally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked about receipts from the purchase of discharges. We expect these to be about £73,000 next year, which is about the same figure as for 1962–63 and 1961–62. About 800 airmen and airwomen have taken their discharge by purchase so far this financial year.

§ Mr. Farey-Jones (Watford)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for going back some way in his speech and returning to the subject of educational facilities. What facilities are there in the Middle and the Far East for school holidays? Is there any arrangement with Transport Command whereby children may spend long holidays with their parents?

§ Mr. Ridsdale
There are indulgence passages which can be gained, but I see the import of my hon. Friend's remarks and I will certainly look into this matter further to see whether anything more can be done.

§ Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)
I had not intended to intervene, but I have been provoked into doing so by the remarks about the entertainment allowance and the suggestion that this allowance has been used primarily for the entertainment of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and I once wanted to attend Conference "Prospect" which was attended by all the air chief marshals on the Air Council, all those who had already left it to become directors of air companies, and those who were still serving but who were soon to become directors. The steps taken to exclude us from that conference bordered on the ludicrous.
I resent the suggestion that this money is expended in a fair and equitable way as between one side and another. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) told 45 me that he would like to see the V-bomber force, and he asked me if would go with him. I agreed to do so. We made application, but the then Secretary of State for Air saw to it that we were never allowed to go. Yet, almost at the same time, another hon. Member went to see the force and then wrote two highly sensational and almost completely inaccurate articles for the Sunday Pictorial, for which he got a high fee.

§ Mr. John Hall
He was on the hon. Gentleman's side of the Committee.

§ Mr. Wigg
I am not making a party point about this. I am merely giving the facts. I am not drawing deductions.

§ Mr. Hall
I understood the hon. Gentleman to be saying that distinctions were made between the two sides of the Committee, and that it was we on this side who enjoyed the entertainment allowance. But the hon. Gentleman has now quoted an instance in which an hon. Member on his own side got precedence.

§ Mr. Wigg
If the hon. Gentleman wants me to say that it was an hon. Member on this side of the Committee, I will do so. If he wishes to, he can draw his own deductions. If the cap fits, then let him wear it. But I object to an hon. Member coming to this Committee and urging us to have sealed lips on questions about the TSR2 after he has received secret information. Another hon. Member opposite has played the same game.

§ Mr. Eden
The hon. Gentleman refers to the TSR2, but I cannot imagine how my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State himself, have any responsibility for that under this Vote.

§ Mr. Wigg
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was suggesting that the entertainment allowance, or considerable parts of it, is used for hon. Members.

§ Mr. Eden
That has nothing to do with the Royal Air Force.

§ Mr. Wigg
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the allowance was used substantially for dishing out entertainment to hon. Members. All I say is, "Good luck to those who have had it". I am not envious of them. All I want 46 is information. I do not mind people writing highly imaginative articles about the V-bombers and becoming public relations officers. I am interested in information.
Will the Under-Secretary of State be good enough to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those hon. Members who, during this financial year, have visited R.A.F. stations at public expense and have been entertained out of this entertainment allowance? Let us know what is going on on both sides. Let us know about the expense of visits, such as the one paid to the TSR2 by a few hon. Members who were given secret information that they had no right to have and who came here afterwards, with fingers on their lips, and suggested that they had some advantage. I do not believe, in any case, that they had such an advantage.

§ Mr. Hall
Which hon. Member has indicated that he had secret information about the TSR2?

§ Mr. Wigg
The Under-Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary said the other night that it would not be right to give the range of the TSR2. If he will not give it, I will do so a little later, on Vote 7.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is well within order in talking about the entertainment allowance, but the TSR2 does not come under this Vote.

§ Mr. Wigg
I am sorry, Sir William. I have been led astray again.
I want to deal with the exclusiveness involved in the allowance. I have not the slightest objection to every hon. Member, on both sides, being given an opportunity to enjoy this; and if I do not go along, that is my affair. There is no envy in my heart. But if the hon. Member for Wycombe uses the excuse that hon. Members are not having a bad time off this Vote, then I ask the Under-Secretary of State to publish the names of those hon. Members who have taken advantage of it. Perhaps he will be good enough to publish in the OFFICIAL. REPORT the names of those hon. Members who, at public expense, have had the privileged advantage of visiting the R.A.F. during the last financial year.

§ Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)
If there is any difficulty about hon. Members going to see the Service installations, it is well known, I think, that they have only themselves to thank. Opportunities to visit Service stations and other places concerning the Services are open to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as every hon. Gentleman knows, or should know.

§ Mr. Wigg
Not to me.

§ Mr. Kershaw
Perhaps there are hon Members who do not take the trouble to read their party Whip and do not ask to go on these trips to various installations. If they wish to have a list of the names published so that members of the public see that those who interest themselves in military affairs nevertheless do not trouble to visit the units, the public will be able to draw the conclusion that those hon. Members have no interest in the Services and merely like to hear themselves talk in the Chamber.

§ Mr E. Shinwell (Easington)
We have just had a piece of gross impertinence from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). That was all it was, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He does not do himself justice by talking in that stupid fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised a point of substance. We have been told over and over again that we should be better informed about Service matters. I think that that view meets with the general agreement of hon. Members. How are we to be informed? We can be informed only by visiting depots, whether it be Royal Air Force, Admiralty or Army depots, and places where weapons are concentrated, and by asking questions. I do not suggest that we always get satisfactory answers, and I realise that we cannot impinge on security. Those of us who have had some dealings with the Service Departments would not dare to impinge on security. I think that that is well known.
This is not only a question of the entertainment allowance. I beg the Under-Secretary to understand that no one grudges group commanders, wing commanders and others the very small amount provided for them to ensure that those who visit their establishments are 48 furnished with reasonable entertainment. No one suggests that there is any extravagance in such matters. This is a question of selection. The hon. Member for Stroud is quite wrong. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend's proposal that a list should be provided should be pressed.

§ Mr. Eden
On a point of order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), but surely this is a matter for dispute on the benches opposite and is nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary? It is common knowledge that the hon. Members for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and others have frequently visited Service establishments, and I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park would agree with that. The matter of selection for these visits is for the Opposition to decide and does not concern my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

§ The Chairman
It is in order to argue to what use the money under the Vote should be put. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is in order.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Anyone with any experience of the procedure of the House of Commons will know that that was not a point of order. It was merely an interruption, and I accept it in that sense.
This is not a dispute which is confined to hon. Members on this side. It affects all hon. Members. It is true that some do not avail themselves of the opportunity to visit these establishments, but that is for substantial reasons.
When we were debating the Army Estimates, the other night, I suggested to the Secretary of State for War that when it came to furnishing hon. Members with information on the matters which we are now discussing—weapons, training, and what goes on at the depots, and so on—hon. Members should be occasionally invited to visit those places instead of the matter being left exclusively to the discretion of the Whips. That is all that I ask. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for assenting to my point of view.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that that is the desire of hon. Members so far as the Air Force is concerned. I am not seeking to interfere with the discretion of the Whips. 49 However, it may be desirable on occasions that this matter should not be left exclusively to the discretion of the Whips, but that the Secretary of State for Air, or the Secretary of State for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, should invite hon. Members, and even right hon. Members, to gain information by visiting these establishments. That is all we ask.
Some of us are not prepared to be bound down firmly to leaving this matter to the discretion of the Whips, as a result of which we are debarred from obtaining information which should be available to all hon. Members.

§ Mr. Wigg
I should have not intervened again but for the highly offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). It is not the first time that he has indulged in that sort of thing. To suggest that I merely come to the House to talk and take no trouble to ascertain the facts, or to go on trips, is a gross insult. I accept it as such and will treat the hon. Gentleman accordingly in future. If he does not know how to behave like a gentleman, that is good enough.

§ Mr. Kershaw
The hon. Gentleman is fitting the cap to himself too readily. It is common ground that he makes quite a lot of visits. I remember an occasion last year when he patted himself on the back for being the only hon. Member who had troubled to visit the Infantry School on Salisbury Plain.

§ Mr. Wigg
It is true that I made that visit; it is now nearly three years ago. I also went to 38 Group with the hon. Gentleman, but I took good care to pay my own expenses. I went under my own steam. I tried to attend Conference "Prospect", but I was denied the opportunity to do so. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to visit the V-bomber force, but we did not have the opportunity of doing so.
I have been interested in the subject of Royal Air Force hospitality and facilities for some time. I have been corresponding with the Secretary of State on it. I should like to know—and I have written to him on this point—how many ex-members of the Air Council who are now directors of aircraft companies have 50 been given facilities to visit R.A.F. stations at home and abroad at the public expense. It is time that the public knew the truth about this, and about the influences which are being exerted in a very delicate field.
I have nothing against serving officers at the end of their careers getting employment in aircraft companies; good luck to them. I have no objection to any hon. Member on either side of the Committee visiting R.A.F. stations or any other stations. I do what I think is right, and other hon. Members do what they think is right. We are not helped by the impertinent remarks from jumped-up pups of the kind that we had a few minutes ago.
Great issues of public importance are involved here. This is a highly sensitive field. Above all, the public need to know the truth. We were not given the truth a few months ago about a very important matter of equipment. I do not want to make any innuendoes, or cast aspersions of any sort, but I am determined to use every opportunity to make sure that these facts are given.
If the Under-Secretary cannot give us an assurance today that this information will be made available, we shall have to seize future opportunities of raising the matter again.

§ Mr. Farey-Jones
I have listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) with great interest. Surely, part of their argument is wrong. If an hon. Member, irrespective of party, wishes first-hand information about an R.A.F. station, that should not be the subject of invitation from his Whips. He should be afforded that opportunity in his own right and it should be automatically accorded to him. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that, because that is my view?

§ Mr. Wigg
Of course, I accept that. The fact remains, however, that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and myself asked to be allowed to visit the V-bomber force we were not allowed to go. We did not make a song and dance about it. Our request was turned down by the Secretary of State, and he had every right, in the discharge of his duties, to turn us down. Other 51 people are allowed to go. I make nothing of that, but we have the right to bring these things out in the open.

§ Mr. Ridsdale
I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill on this entertainment expenditure, some of which will be used for the comfort of hon. Members when they pay their much-appreciated visits to Royal Air Force stations overseas. I am sure that that would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides. I want it to be realised concerning the Royal Air Force that the facilities are available equally to hon. Members on both sides. I assure the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that if he gets in touch with me, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and points out any unfairness, we will see that it is dealt with at once.
What I object to is when the hon. Member for Dudley gets up in the House of Commons and says that hon. Members have not been given the truth and, in the very next sentence, states that he does not want to cast innuendoes. Statements of that kind are not consecutive. To satisfy, I hope, what the hon. Member for Dudley has said, I will publish the names of the Members of Parliament and noble Lords who went on the arranged visits at home and overseas last year and which will be repeated this year.