Lords Sitting of 5 April 1950

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Beveridge—Took the Oath.
GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.] WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL [H.L.] TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.] ST. JOHN'S CHAPEL BEVERLEY BILL [H.L.] GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE FUCHS CASE
2.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I wish to correct a point of fact arising out of a speech which I made last week on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, I then said that there was no truth in certain statements which had been made in the Press about the Fuchs case. The fact is that in a notebook belonging to a man who was one of those examined by the Canadian Royal Commission there did appear, amongst a long list of other names, the name of Klaus Fuchs. This notebook, together with all other relevant material, was promptly made available to us by the Canadian authorities. Subsequent events have, of course, attached a significance to that name which it did not then bear. As I was, when I made my speech, imperfectly informed on this particular, I thought I owed it to your Lordships and to the Press to make this correction.

HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT JUDGES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for increasing the number of puisne judges of the High Court and the number of judges of county courts; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill, be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the number of crimes known to the police and classified as robbery with violence in the Metropolitan Police District in each of the years 1940 to 1949, in which the criminals concerned had provided themselves with implements of the, character of "coshes."]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the crime reports in the Metropolitan police district from which this information could be extracted have been destroyed for the years prior to 1944. As regards offences of robbery and assault with intent to rob known to the police since then, a search of the crime reports shows that the numbers of cases in which coshes or other blunt instruments were used were as follows: 1944, 28; 1945, 41; 1946, 43; 1947, 47; 1948, 45; 1949, 33.
VSCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the Lord Chancellor very much for the trouble he has taken to obtain that information, may I put two questions arising out of his reply? I phrased my Question to refer to the classification of "robbery with violence," while appreciating that, of course, coshes might equally be found in connection with other crimes of violence committed for the purpose of stealing property—for instance, shopbreaking, housebreaking and so forth. I do not know whether it is possible for my noble and learned friend to tell the House whether the figures he has given refer strictly to robbery with violence (which, of course, was my Question), or whether they have any reference to analogous crimes of violence. Secondly, I would ask this: Can my noble and learned friend tell us whether consideration is being given to amending the law so that a man found in possession of an implement of this kind will be liable to be punished, as he is if

819
he is found in possession of housebreaking tools? I appreciate the difficulty, for of course it is easier to define housebreaking tools. I think a good many people would be relieved to hear that this matter was under consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to the second part of the question, I can tell the noble and learned Viscount that at the present time that matter is being considered by the Home Secretary with a great deal of sympathy. He is trying to evolve something on the lines suggested. The difficulty, as the noble and learned Viscount said, is one of definition. If that difficulty can be overcome we may be able to do something on the lines suggested. At any rate, as I say, the matter is now being considered. With regard to the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's question, of course it is possible that a man convicted of an offence which does not involve any violence at all might have in his possession some instrument which would be useful if he did get into a "spot of bother." I have therefore taken the trouble to ascertain where I might get the information for which the noble and learned Viscount asks, but unfortunately I cannot get it. There are no figures available, and any information given would be nothing more than an impression on the part of the police. The figures I have given relate exclusively to either robbery, or assault with intent to rob. I regret to say that I cannot give the noble and learned Viscount the further information for which he asks.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much.

MAXIMUM PRICE FOR MEALS
2.43 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can now relax the 5s. limit for hotels and catering establishments.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Food is
820
now reviewing the Order under which the charge for meals in catering establishments is limited to 5s. and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his answer, may I ask whether it will be borne in mind that the present system of surcharges and the like is quite unintelligible to the average person in this country, let alone a foreigner; and whether it will also be borne in mind that we are to hold the Festival of Britain next year, and that all our hotels and catering establishments should be 100 per cent. satisfactory if we are to create the impression in the world that we desire to create? That being so, will the Minister of Food remember sympathetically the request that is put forward, that this Order should be done away with as having outlived its usefulness in present conditions?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I can only say in reply to the noble Earl that I know that my right honourable friend has all the relevant matters fully under consideration. I have actually seen mentioned elsewhere, though not perhaps in precisely the same terms, the two points which are now mentioned by the noble Earl in your Lordships' House. I feel confident that my right honourable friend has this particular question, along with other relevant questions, under consideration.

PLIGHT OF OLD PEOPLE
2.46 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the alteration brought about by recent social changes in the situation of old or infirm persons and of persons living alone; to ask what measures they propose to deal with the difficulties which have arisen; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention this afternoon has, I think, at least in its present form, arisen only during the past ten years. I am about to suggest to your Lordships that the measures for coping with the necessities of solitude and old age under the recent Acts and the reorganisation of the social services are either defective or ineffective. I shall begin by illustrating one side of the subject by a few examples which have come

821
to my notice during the past six years but, with your Lordships' permission, I shall not mention the names of any localities, because it is in fact part of my case that other localities can show examples similar to those which I shall quote.
I have tried to enlist the services of a press cutting agency, in order to give your Lordships a more comprehensive view than my own personal observations can give, but the work was refused—I presume because it entailed such laborious work in searching the files of purely local newspapers. I will give your Lordships some examples of old persons dying, either of sickness or starvation or both, in complete abandonment and neglect. A few years ago, not very far from my house, an old man was found who had been dead four days. He was living alone, and when he fell sick he was unable to rise and obtain food or attend to himself. Even had he received attention, of course, it is possible that he might have died—though that is not certain—but even if that had been so, in his last hours he would have received the ordinary attentions that are accorded to dying humanity.
Again, not very long ago in the North, an old lady was found who had been dead for nearly eight weeks in her house. Your Lordships must remember that these old people are apt not to call for assistance until they become too ill to do so, and then it is a question of whether disease or starvation terminates the affair first. In another town in the North I came across a case of an old man, blind, who was found dead. At the inquest the doctor said that had he been called in there might have been a possibility of hospital treatment. The coroner asked him: "Who would be responsible for a man such as this under the new scheme?" The answer was: "Nobody, so far as I can see. It is a terrible situation." I have heard of two other cases, one in the South, the other in the North. I have also come across another case, which through a piece of good fortune, did not occur, which I shall quote to your Lordships later on as illustrating a point which I wish to emphasise. It seems to me that, if one man without any serious effort can come across so many cases in six years, Parliament has a right, and I think a duty, to ask whether this is merely a "fluke" or what is the seriousness of the
822
situation it has a right to be fully informed of the matter and also to consider what improvements in the present system are called for to cope with the evil.
I have several letters on the subject and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read to you part of one of them which is useful as it will serve to illustrate nearly everything that I propose to say.
"I think there is a serious gap between the social welfare services are the hospital services.
…I have made no serious inquiry into this problem. Therefore, I cannot give you any accurate information as to the numbers…I have had several cases brought to me for help of persons infirm and, in some cases, bedfast, for whom there was no room in the hospital"—
this is the hospital side of it—
"…and who could net be removed to the social welfare hostel, and had no one except probably the next-door neighbour to look after them. Formerly, cases of this kind would have been reported to the public assistance officer, who would have made arrangements for their admission in the public assistance institution. Under the present scheme, the medical department of the public institutions has been taken over by the Hospital Beard, which keep the beds for hospital patients, whilst the hostels under the auspices of the Social Welfare Committee can accommodate only those aged persons who are physically fit.
Perhaps one concrete instance will put the matter clearly. An old lady of eighty, who was too ill and infirm to move from her bed, lived alone in an almshouse. Her only help was the next-door neighbour, a person over seventy years of age. The old lady of eighty was locked n the house about 8 p.m. each night, and stayed there alone without anyone to give her a drink or make, her clean and comfortable until the next morning, when about 8.30 a.m. the neighbour called again. The doctor made repeated application for admittance to hospital for a period of some weeks, but was not successful in getting the old lady removed. I appealed to the health offices and managed to get a 'home help' to give some assistance to her.
I have spoken of this problem to the chairman of the social welfare. committee who admits there are cases of this kind, but says that it is the responsibility of the Hospital Board to allocate the beat for persons who are bedfast, and the pressure for surgical and maternity cases is so great that there is no room for those who are infirm or suffering from long-term sickness."
My Lords, almost every point in that letter will be illustrated in what I am about to say. In a recent circular of over one thousand words, the Ministry admits, not exactly the evil but the public concern about the problem. The remainder of the leaflet is devoted to praises of the present system—it is rather in the nature of a "puff," I am afraid—with the

823
further suggestion, the only concrete suggestion in the leaflet, that more voluntary aid should be enlisted, and that voluntary committees should be formed. I was very glad to see that, because I am told that since 1948 voluntary workers have been steadily edged out of the welfare services, and I hope that this leaflet indicates some change of attitude on the part of the Ministry with regard to voluntary workers.
In what I am about to say now, I am particularly anxious not to give the impression that I do not value the work of voluntary committees and voluntary workers. They have a place—I think a very important place—in the new system. But I have one rather strong objection to handing over all real executive responsibility to any committee, because with committees I always feel that if anything goes wrong no one is personally to blame and everyone, even the most public-spirited, has an interest in not having too much publicity over what has happened. In fact, so far as I can see to-day, all the forces tend to make for concealment, which is a bad thing.
In the case in which I quoted to your Lordships an extract from the inquest, I happened to be staying in the town concerned, and was talking to members of the town council. I did not know of this case at the time, although it had just occurred. But I talked to them about this question of the old people, and I was told very positively that they had taken excellent measures to meet the dangers, that they had a committee which regularly visited every case in the town and that no such thing could possibly occur. Supposing I had known of this case and had said "What about this?" The reaction of my friends on the council would have been that this case was exceptional; that the committee must not be judged by a single hole in the net; that that net could be easily repaired and that only harm could come from wide publicity. The last thing that even the local Press will wish to do will be to make too much of a failure on the part of the most public-spirited people in the town. Nor can one really blame the people who are honestly doing their best.
I remind your Lordships that in the "bad old days," things were different. Had any of the cases which I have
824
mentioned occurred before 1940 the relieving officer might well have had to face a charge of manslaughter; he would certainly have been pilloried in the Press. Our national passion for keeping our neighbours' consciences would have had full play, and there would certainly have been a strong searchlight of publicity turned upon the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw (I am sure he will not mind my referring to it), has expressed to me privately doubts about the manslaughter aspect, but I have my reference—namely, Rex v. Curtis, a case of manslaughter heard in 1885. I have not read the case, but I am told that it had a tremendous effect on the profession of relieving officers. They always tell me with some pride that they did their work, and if they did not they would be punished for their failure. I do not think there have been many such cases before 1940, and I do not want your Lordships to think that I am asking for a return of the old system. I am very anxious, however, that the good points of that system should not be done away with, or that, if they have been done away with we should regain them.
I have told your Lordships about a case of that kind that did not occur. It concerned the relative of a friend of mine, a person well known to many of your Lordships. The relative was an invalid lady who had deliberately cut herself off from her family, possibly on account of the effects of her illness. She lived in one part of London while my friend lived in another. The relieving officer in my friend's neighbourhood took the opportunity of seeing my friend and asked him for particulars about his relative. The reason was obvious. The relieving officer in the district where the old lady lived, had seen her moving in the street. He inquired about her and who she was, and ascertained that she was living alone, and he noted that one day she might become his responsibility. He set himself to work to find out who was looking after her, and he asked his confrere to obtain particulars. That is a very good illustration of the way these things used to work. As a matter of fact, quite recently, the lady became ill and was confined to her room. Through the kindness of her neighbour, her family were informed and she was looked after in her last moments. But if nobody had known about her, if she

825
had had no family, or if her relatives had not looked after her, she might have become number six on my list, because those whose duty it was to deal with the case had not the necessary information.
Before giving your Lordships a detailed idea of what I would like to see done, I think I should make some remarks about the general situation of the elderly, apart from those who are living in solitude. We must always bear in mind that this is not a question of wealth or poverty. In fact, the people who are in receipt of public assistance are probably better off in many respects than those who are well-to-do. It is estimated that to-day there are in the country about 7,500,000 people over sixty years of age. Though people do not become really old until a few years after sixty have elapsed, that is the nearest figure that I can give your Lordships; I have no figures for the higher ages. Many of these people—in fact, the great proportion—are living with their relatives, and when they fall sick they are sent to hospital. Quite often when they are ready to leave hospital, their relatives refuse to take them back, and that creates a very great difficulty.
Your Lordships will remember that in law it is now no longer the duty of children to maintain their parents. It was probably in deference to opinions held by noble Lords opposite that that duty was removed. While the duty remained in law, I think it was recognised by the people as just, and it was carried out with a fair amount of affection and a sense of duty; but to-day the duty no longer exists, and the looking after of our elder relatives is felt to be irksome. It is a very irksome duty and the acid of irksomeness rather eats away affection, so that one gets many cases of people refusing to take back old people who have been sent to hospital for any reason. As a result these old people cannot leave hospital, and they occupy valuable beds which are really required by others.
In this connection I have been told by people who ought to know (I do not know if it is true) that there are sufficient hospital beds available for all the work that hospitals ought properly to be called upon to do, including caring for the old when they are sick, hut there are not sufficient to furnish beds for old
826
people who go to hospital for quite temporary reasons and then have to remain there permanently. I should like at this point to say to your Lordships that the system which has grown up is bad for the old people, just it is bad for the hospitals. So far as I have been able to find out, and from my experience, old people are much better out of bed. It is the one way of preventing their becoming bedridden. If they once take to their beds for any period of time, they may never get up again. Anyway, they are much healthier whet they are moving about.
Now I have some suggestions to make to your Lordships for coping with the evil, and I think they can all be adopted, according to the circumstances. I suggest, in the first place, that wherever possible old people ought to be maintained in their own homes. For this purpose we want a very much larger "home help" service. I have heard the "home help" service criticised and I have also heard it highly praised, but I think that the trouble with it is that in winter and where there is a big demand unsuitable people are employed in the work and there is insufficient supervision. It is a kind of work where there ought to be a certain degree of regular supervision. But where it is possible to get home help for old people, that is a very useful way.of dealing with the problem.
Another point is connection with those who are living with relatives. I suggest that local authorities should be empowered to pay the relatives two or three guineas a week for the keep of the old people. I suggest that for this reason. Those relatives have no duty to look after those old people and therefore there is no need for them to do so. They have therefore a right to receive a consideration. It costs seven, perhaps eight, guineas a week to keep an old person in hospital. It would be much cheaper to the public and very much better for the old people and for everybody if they could be kept with their relatives. It would save the public purse, and I cannot see that there would be anything wrong in it. My third suggestion, which I think is already being put into practice to some extent and which is very important, is that adequate homes should be provided. By adequate homes I mean homes suitable for different kinds of people, people of different habits and different tastes. They should be

827
places to which people could be induced to retire voluntarily. It is much better to get this work done voluntarily than by compulsion. If that were done we should have to see that arrangements were made for different kinds of homes for able-bodied old people and for those who are frail. In this way these old people would enjoy a brighter and more varied life, and hospital beds would be freed for those who really needed them.
Apart from the "home help" service these suggestions have hardly touched on the needs of the people with whom I began—namely, the old people who are living in solitude. I know that the local authority has power to remove these people to homes, but I wonder whether the Government really contemplate an extensive use of this power. I very much hope not. What happens to their property? Who is responsible for the lovely enamelled snuff-box or some picture—those things which still make the pleasure of old people through their connection with happier times? It is not an answer to say that the county council are insured against any losses of that kind. I am thinking of the old people who will go back to their properties one day. I believe that that is a very important matter. This power of compulsory removal is, I feel, a very considerable abridgment of the liberty which we have always been accustomed to enjoy. I am certain that no Tory Government would ever have ventured to take to themselves so drastic a power. However, in spite of these powers there seems to me to be no organisation to give us what we need in this matter. The first thing we need is early information of cases which are likely to give trouble (that is the most important thing); and the second is the duty of regularly visiting these cases when they are known.
If I had to organise this matter myself I would make the welfare of these people the concern chiefly of the borough. These cases really do not concern the county; they are all town cases. I would make the local welfare officer responsible, and I would give him a district which was small enough to enable him to know it thoroughly and to become accustomed to the people whom he met in it on his daily rounds. Then I would make him just as responsible as was the relieving officer.
828
He would thus have the same inducement to form the necessary connections and liaisons, and to ferret out these cases. For all those reasons the area under his supervision would have to be small. Without something of that kind I do not see how we can avoid these very lamentable cases.
One of the things about which I would like some information—and this is why I am moving for Papers—is: What is the real extent of the evil? How many of these cases have occurred during the past ten years? I think that we ought to know. If we are going to put this burden on the welfare officers I suggest that they ought to be given certain powers. They ought to be given the power of requiring a hospital to furnish a bed if necessary. In the old days they used to have the power to ask a hospital to provide a bed for a patient, and if the hospital could not make a bed available it had to find a hospital in the area which could. To-day that power is not there, and we get cases like the one which I have no doubt your Lordships saw reported in the papers the other day: an old lady was sent to a hospital with a broken femur, and because the hospital had no room for her she was given a couple of tablets and sent back home. She died. As we know, a broken femur is not, as a rule, a fatal injury.
The second need is that of visiting. That is a thing which I think might usefully and suitably be undertaken by voluntary associations. In this connection I would like to ask for the assistance of the churches in providing for more visiting. They nearly always know their old people. I believe that in this respect the Women's Voluntary Services have done wonderful work. But whatever arrangements of that kind are made, there is one thing that we certainly should have and that is insistence on any visitor to an old person sending a written report of the visit—possibly on a regular form—to the local welfare officer for his information. It would be absurd to impose on voluntary societies the responsibility for the discovery of these cases; that must be the duty of the welfare officer. But if we adopted my suggestion I think we should be in a fair way to coping with the evil. I am sure there would be no difficulty in finding plenty of voluntary visitors. Even in these days there are

829
some people left with sufficient leisure, sufficient good-heartedness, and sufficient of what I shall call natural Toryism to welcome an opportunity of personally assisting their neighbours. I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I rise, perhaps not altogether inappropriately, after Lord Saltoun's sudden appeal to the Church. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my own thanks to him for the plain and practical way he introduced his subject. Of course, it is a matter about which one can expend a great deal of sentiment, but practical effectiveness would probably be in inverse ratio to the amount of sentimentality expressed. I should like to follow his excellent example I do not suppose that it is possible to deal with matters of this kind without making sure that there is an evil to be remedied, arid I noticed that the noble Lord spent some time in trying to establish a case. His case could be established only by enumerating a number of actual instances, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I add very briefly to those instances which the noble Lord has already given.
I have in my hand a report sent in by one of our church workers, who strongly emphasises precisely the state of things suggested by the noble Lord. Here are some remarks made.
"It is almost impossible to get an old person into hospital. Only recently an old man was left entirely in the care of his mentally deficient daughter. For days he was left unwashed, the doctor just remarking, 'No use.' Another case was that of a bedridden man sent home, and his wife, an invalid, had to get out of the one bed in order to let him occupy it. Afterwards she was found lying on an old sofa, and after a fuss we managed to get the pensions people to buy a bedstead, which they did, but no mattress. We managed to get a mattress from the Church Army and now they both have a bed. A daughter who is at work nearly all day long is doing her best for them in between times."
The story continues:
"The secretary of my Women's Fellowship has her father-in-law ill, and the doctor has told her that he is too old to go into hospital. Certainly he is ninety-two but they cannot lift him, and have a very bad time. So I could go on. and I am sure many others could. The fate of aged sick people now is really pathetic."
I mention those instances merely to reinforce the case already set out by the
830
noble Lord who has just sat down. I appreciate greatly what he said about the possibility of calling in to a greater extent the aid of the voluntary societies. I think it would ill become anyone speaking on a matter of this kind not to say how grateful we are to the law for all that it has done in recent years. Actually, the position in regard to old people is decidedly better than it was a few years ago. I am not in the least grumbling against the law, or asking for any remedy in law; I am asking merely, as the noble Lord himself did, that the law should be more adequately applied. I think it is true that there are a number of instances in every part of the country where some such improvement in administration is obviously required.
Let me again follow the noble Lord's example in suggesting some practical steps that could be taken. In the first place, we ought to do something about ensuring the possibility of admitting into hospital old people who are sick. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, will talk about this matter from the medical point of view. I imagine that one of the great difficulties is not the lack of beds (probably there are enough beds), but the lack of nurses. That is a serious situation with which we are all concerned. All I can say from the Church's point of view is that we are prepared to do everything we can to support any move made by the Government in order to increase the recruitment of nurses. In my own diocese, and in the neighbouring diocese of Southwark, the Church is undertaking a kind of campaign to try to induce more young women to recognise the possibility of a vocation in nursing. When we can secure an adequate supply of curses I have no doubt that we shall be able to offer old people admission to hospital.
That, of course, only deals with the minor part of a great problem. What we need is to think of the old people as a whole, and particularly of those who would be greatly benefited by being enabled to maintain their own independence of life. What is necessary is some care about their housing. It is an undoubted fact that at the present time many old people are in much graver difficulties than they need be because they are not satisfactorily housed. It ought to

831
be possible to ensure that local authorities, in every housing estate they establish and in every block of flats they build, arrange a certain number of houses and flats which can be used by old people. If small flats of two rooms were provided—sometimes even of one—on the ground floor, where the people would not have to mount a number of stairs, it would be possible for old people to find comfortable residences for themselves. That is a matter about which the voluntary societies cannot give a great deal of help, although we have voluntary societies which do excellent housing work. There is another way in which we can do work of real value to the country and to the old people, and that is in the establishment of what are called residential homes. In such homes old people can be properly looked after and given adequate care and a certain amount of nursing, until they become too ill to be left in that kind of residence and have to be taken to hospital. I am sure it would be a cheap way of dealing with this great problem if voluntary societies could be helped to build and maintain such residential homes.
One other point which it is important to stress is the need for fighting a real war against the solitariness and isolation that are the bane of the declining years of many old people. We ought to do all we can to bring them into the society of their fellows. One of the most moving experiences I have had is when I recently went down to the East End to look at a club. The club was a joint concern, run by the local authority and the church. I went into a vast room where there were quantities of whist tables with parties, sometimes of men and sometimes of women, sitting round them. There was not an empty table or an empty chair in the whole vast building. Some of the people were playing dominoes, some were playing cards, and some were knitting; and all of them seemed to be extremely cheerful. There was a babel of happy conversation which showed that the atmosphere was of the best possible kind. That afternoon I realised how much could be done by joint action. I feel, therefore, that in this problem there is great scope for co-operation between local authorities, the Government and the voluntary societies, and I hope the
832
voluntary societies will be given every possible opportunity of doing all they can in the matter.
3.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am sure one of the first things your Lordships would like me to do is to give our general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for having brought up this important question this afternoon. The last time on which your Lordships had an opportunity to talk about the plight of old people in this country was in 1947, when I myself put down a Motion which was spoken to by several noble Lords. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said about the trouble we have experienced through the break-up of the Poor Law and the abolition of the valuable office of the relieving officer. I expect some relieving officers were not very good, but many of them were really friendly with the people who came under their care. There was a certain value in the care of the old people being their personal responsibility, rather than that the aged should be taken care of by a committee, no matter how excellent the people composing the committee may be.
One of the subjects about which I should like to speak is my own particular interest in this work, which is purely on the medical side. One of the difficulties, which has been mentioned both by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and by the right reverend Prelate, is the difficulty of getting people into hospital when they are sick. One learns from one's paper and finds from experience the great difficulty of getting admission for people who have turned the age of sixty or sixty-five, no matter what is wrong with them. It is not that these persons will not get better, but the fact that they tend to be in their bed for a very long time, when there are large numbers of younger people who are waiting for hospital treatment and care. Some authorities prefer to take in more people rather than admit those who are going to remain for a long time. But I feel there is a change of mind coming, certainly in the medical profession, because it has been found that one can rehabilitate people, of no matter what age, to an extent where they can be discharged from the expensive beds in hospital, where they are taking up the time of skilled medical and nursing staff, and be

833
put into some kind of home where they can still be taken care of—that is, if they cannot go to their own homes. A certain number can go to their own homes, but in the case of many of these people who live by themselves, or with their families in very cramped conditions, it is practically impossible for their families to take care of them when they are not fit.
One of the strange things about London (it was mentioned in a report by the Nuffield Trustees, who met under the chairmanship of Mr. Rowntree in 1946 or 1947) is the large number of single or widowed people who live by themselves. The report covered two boroughs in London, one of which I know fairly well. There it was found that of single and widowed people over sixty-five years of age 45 per cent. lived by themselves. That seems an absolutely staggering figure, but that is what Mr. Rowntree found from a very careful survey. In other towns and country districts the figure was about 10 per cent. So there is this enormous number of people in London living by themselves, and by some pure chance—I suppose it is an economic one, under which one pays less rent for a room on the top floor than for a room on the ground floor—a large number of them do live on top floors. That means that when they have been sick with some fairly crippling disease they probably cannot go back home again, because they cannot cope with the stairs, the shopping, the cooking and the general housework.
Some of them can be helped by the local authorities, who can send helps and nurses, but there comes a time when something more than that is required. That is where the real difficulty arises now. What we need in this country is a series of homes such as those the right reverend Prelate mentioned, where people who are not particularly in need of nursing can go for care and attention—the kind of accommodation envisaged under Part III of the National Assistance Act, where the local authority can make provision for people who, by reason of age and infirmity, can no longer take care of themselves. That can be done by the local authority, and a great deal can be done by voluntary bodies, too. Mention has been made of the good work done by the W.V.S. They have a series of residential clubs in the country, and also a series of what they call nursing homes.
834
People who are quite well are admitted to the clubs, but when they become frail and feeble they are not cast on the world but are transferred fro in the residential club to the W.V.S. nursing home. Therefore, there are two ways of doing this work: either through the local authorities or through voluntary bodies.
When your Lordships were discussing the Second Reading of the National Health Services Bill, I raised the question of the care of the chronic sick. I received a warm and encouraging reply from the Government that attention would be given under the National Health Service to see that more people were employed to take care of people in the chronic-sick wards. Most of those in chronic sick wards are people who have turned sixty or sixty-five years of age. I am pleased to see from some figures published recently (they appear in the report of the Minister of Health, published about a week ago) that there are now thirty-six people of consultant or specialist grade, and nineteen or twenty people of the registrar or junior grade, employed in looking after people in chronic sick wards. That is not very great progress, it is true, but it represents a larger number than were employed when the Bill was being debated by your Lordships; I think the number was then two, but it may have been three.
One does not wish to rush this service along too quickly, because one wants to get it done really well and on a solid basis, and not to get people employed who do not know much about the subject. Therefore, one should see an improvement in the treatment of patients in these chronic sick wards in the next five or ten years. I trust that the service will be on a big scale by then. That will mean pari passu that it will be essential for places to be established to which people who have been rehabilitated can go. That is where the importance of these homes arises. I feel that these homes should be provided as quickly as possible, because by that means we shall he able to get patients discharged from their expensive hospital beds into some place just as comfortable and more like their own home, where they can be looked after until possibly they may go back to their own places, or, if not, until they die.
A great deal of work of that sort has been done in the county borough of

835
Rochdale, in Lancashire, where they have established a large number of homes under Part III of the National Assistance Act. By doing that, they have managed to transfer from the wards of the Rochdale Infirmary the patients who were there for purely social reasons, so that the wards are now free for the treatment of sick people and not the non-sick and destitute who were formerly filling them. I am sure the example of Rochdale should be widely copied. It is possible that it is already being copied, and I do not want to be unfair to other county boroughs who are doing this work, but that is just one case I came across comparatively recently. Another body who have realised the need are the King's Fund Homes in London, who, as your Lordships know, have a large sum of money with which to contribute to hospitals things they do not normally have. Their work has been changed since the National Health Service Act, but they have set aside the sum of £250,000 in order to provide homes for people of this sort.
As I have said, the need for admission to hospital is very great. There is a fairly large charity with which I have connection which runs a series of houses in Kensington where people can take a single room and move in with their furniture. They are taken care of and are given a certain amount of help and attention. These houses are in two blocks. One block has no particular trouble in getting people admitted into a certain chronic sick hospital, but I was particularly distressed the other day to find that the other block has very great difficulty indeed. We made some inquiries about the difficulty, and were told that only one bed had become vacant in the wards of this chronic sick hospital in the course of the past year. Whether that meant that a patient had died or was discharged, I do not know. That shows the great need I mentioned a short time ago for people who can treat, remedy and rehabilitate these people and for the local authorities to provide the necessary homes. By carrying out that work, I think we shall go a long way to solving the problem of the infirm and sick person.
I will not touch upon the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, with regard to the method of tracking
836
down people who are likely to be in trouble. I think the employment of some kind of welfare officer of the type he mentioned would probably be the most satisfactory method of doing that. This is too big a burden to put upon a voluntary body. They have to report somewhere, and there has to be some person responsible to take the decision as to what shall be done. One does not like to see people forcibly removed from their homes, but there is provision for that in the National Assistance Act. If action on the lines I have just put before your Lordships were to be taken, I am sure there would not be need for any drastic action about hospital beds. There would be enough, or very nearly enough, to go round, and we should have done a great deal towards improving the lot of the old people.
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I rise to support what has been said, and I do not wish to weary your Lordships by saying it over again. It seems to me that the particular difficulties to which reference has been made cannot be fully resolved unless we look at the whole subject in its true perspective. The problem of old age is not merely a problem of infirmity or penury. It confronts each one of us, and a great deal of unhappiness in life is caused by people stumbling unawares into old age without being prepared for it in mind. That happens at all levels of society. Granted the ubiquity of the problem, those of us who have enjoyed leisure, security and health, some culture and wide interests, are better placed to meet the emergency than those who are straitened by poverty or ill-health.
One of the most important social changes in recent times is the fact that the problem of old age is no longer primarily a problem of poverty, though of course poverty is still a contributory factor. It is still most desirable that everybody should save if he can for that day, and not put his whole trust on pensions and State assistance. We have also to face the fact that the proportion between young and old in the population is going to change considerably in the next thirty years. At the present time those who are of pensionable age are about 13.5 per cent. of the population. It is reckoned that in thirty years that figure will have risen to 18.8 per cent

837
According to the Report of the Commission on Population, the cost of maintenance at the present rate is £238,000,000 per annum. In 1978 the cost will be just over £500,000,000. Therefore the economic burden on the working population of thirty years hence will be enormous. It therefore seems that, for economic reasons alone, the State would be well advised to keep as ma-ay men and women of pensionable age in employment or partial employment for as long as possible. It seems to me that that subject requires more careful consideration than it has yet received, either by local authorities or, if I may say so, by trade unions. The time has come when we want to try and work out a labour policy for those over sixty-five years of age.
This afternoon we are looking at this problem not from the State or economic point of view, but from the point of view of human welfare. From that standpoint it is a great blessing if elderly people can continue in useful employment, or if they have the resources to occupy their days well. We all know of people, at all levels of society, who, when they have ceased their normal job, have fallen into days of retirement. Life loses its interest, and often health quickly deteriorates. When we think of the skilled or the semiskilled workers in the country, I suggest that it is extraordinarily important that those people should feel, when they come to pensionable age, that they are still wanted members of the community. Society has not fully discharged its responsibility towards them by providing a more or less adequate pension. I repeat that a lot more thought needs to be given to ways of keeping such people conscious and active members of a community. That, I would suggest, is the only really satisfactory solution of the sometimes quite terrible onset of loneliness. The other day an old man said to a doctor of my acquaintance: "After sixty, work is the best medicine, doctor."
Next to work, housing, as has been suggested, is extremely important. In the city where I live, a fairly thorough survey has recently been made of this problem, and the report is to be published shortly. Of 60,000 pensionable folk only 3.7 per Cent. are in public institutions, and only 3.5 per cent. in homes or hostels provided by trusts or charities or by the local authority. There is obviously urgent
838
need to increase that provision, especially, as has already been suggested, for the very old. As vitality shrinks they not only become more solitary but often they lapse into squalor. We have also to take note of the changing pattern of society —smaller families, and smaller houses and flats. All this must make it more difficult in the future for the younger generation to house those who are getting old. In any event, I doubt whether it is the best of all arrangements for young and old to be on top of one another.
There is great need of accommodation suitable for old people; and along with it, as has been suggested, there should be a far more generous provision of home helps, some nursing care, and also more facilities for communal life. But as soon as one has said that, one wants to add something to counterbalance it: elderly folk naturally and properly want to go on living in the community where they are known. A hygienic house in a new housing estate miles away, where no one really cares about or knows them, may be all very well, but it is a very poor exchange in terms of happiness. There is in our country as a whole a fine tradition of families caring for their old folk, but unfortunately to-clay so many of the houses in our industrial slums are ill-designed and ill-equipped for infirm folk—though the same slums do at least provide community. Let us then by all means provide more clubs for old people; but the best club, probably, is neighbourliness—the neighbourliness of a little back street where they have been living for thirty or forty years.
So I would endorse, out of my limited experience, all that has been said this afternoon. I would urge that more effort should be made to make even rather bad houses less unsuitable, bearing in mind that in the long run community matters more than mere comfort. I feel that the noble Lord who introduced this debate was right in saying that the old-time relieving officer was often an invaluable friend. His weekly visits were of great comfort, but he has not been replaced. While more supplies have been laid on, the human touch has often been lacking. As things are, the routine visits of the welfare officers occur far more rarely than the visits which the relieving officers used to make. I think our practical concern should be: How can the human touch

839
which was exercised by the best relieving officers be preserved? I should like to endorse the suggestion made that here is an obvious outlet for voluntary service and Christian neighbourliness, untainted by dole-giving. Provided that it is supervised and co-ordinated with the work of the trained State or local authority welfare officers, such work can be done by ordinary, reasonable, kindly members of the community gifted with common sense. I agree with my brother Prelate that here is a work that should have the full support of the Churches; and it should be done in co-operation with both the local authorities and the Government departments.
There is one other matter to which I should like to make reference. There are scattered up and down this country numerous parochial charities and gifts which have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. It would surely be a good thing if these very considerable charities could be pooled in the several localities for the purpose of providing a valuable supplementary fund out of which amenity schemes for old people could be financed—home helps, more clubs, repairs to wireless sets and so forth, and some kind of shopping service for those who are too old to shop for themselves. Be that as it may, I would end these few remarks on a subject with very wide ramifications by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for raising this matter, and by reminding your Lordships that the aged, to whatever social group they belong, cannot be treated en masse; they have to be considered one by one. Just because they have lived a long time in this world they become more individual, possibly, than youth, and therefore their care should be the concern of the whole community and of every good neighbour. And it is a care in which the State, the local authorities, the Church, voluntary organisations and all well-disposed individuals should co-operate.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, like noble Lords before me, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, because he has introduced a subject that is of very great importance. It is naturally a very wide one, and I rise to speak on an aspect which has not been mentioned
840
before—I refer to the old people who are gentlefolk, who are so often forgotten. Many voluntary charitable associations are doing a great deal of work on their behalf. I speak to your Lordships as chairman of one of these societies a society that does its best to assist and to look after one section of these old gentlefolk, but I sincerely hope that any remarks I make will not be taken merely from that angle, because many of the difficulties that have been mentioned this afternoon apply to all sections. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, mentioned in the course of his speech that this is a new problem. I would emphasise that point; it is a new problem that has developed very seriously during the last few years. At the risk of repetition, I hope to illustrate how difficult that problem has become. One of the greatest difficulties that voluntary societies have to-day, as has already been said, is to find out about these old people. We are anxious to know of them, but a great many of them do not like to come forward and say that they are badly off. We therefore have to ferret them out.
Another great problem which has already been mentioned is that of hospital accommodation. Though previously such accommodation may not have been as good as it might have been, it was at least nearly always available for the old and the infirm. Nowadays, in the State hospitals, it is almost impossible to find that accommodation. The result is that these old people have to depend more and more on the voluntary charitable societies. Frequently, though the homes that they run may be moderate in cost, the expense is beyond the means of these old people. Therefore, very often they have to be supplemented in one form or another—for example, under the National Assistance Board regulations. But in such a case, of course, these homes are and have to be subject to a certain amount of control by the local authority.
Much has been said about hospital treatment for the sick. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I should like to emphasise it with one illustration. It is the case of an old lady of seventy-six, suffering from pneumonia, who was admitted to a State hospital at the end of November. She was discharged at the beginning of January, and was transferred to the sick bay of a convalescent

841
home run by a charitable society. Three weeks later her condition became so unsatisfactory that she had to be put back into an independent hospital, where she remained for a further three weeks. After that, it was felt that she must again have another three weeks' convalescence before being allowed to return home. Altogether, it was nine weeks from the time she left the State hospital, going from one home or hospital to another, until she was able to return home, all because of the difficulty of accommodation in the original State hospital.
Then, in connection with the convalescent homes, we find it impossible to get an old person into a State convalescent home except direct from a State hospital. In the past, the only requirement in order to obtain a place in many of the convalescent homes where such accommodation was free, or where perhaps there was only a small charge to pay, was a doctor's certificate. To-day, an old person who has not been able to obtain hospital treatment and who has stayed at home cannot obtain convalescence without payment, which payment he or she may not be able to afford; and so they have to fall back either on relatives who are not well off or on one of the voluntary charitable Societies.
Generally speaking, we have found that the officers of the National Assistance Board have been doing what they can to interpret with sympathy and understanding the regulations which they are bound to observe, but it would seem that until there are more homes suited to the needs of old people, some relaxation of the regulations may be necessary if further hardships are to be avoided. Until local authorities can meet their obligations under the National Assistance Act, I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that every encouragement should be given to all voluntary charitable societies in order to help them meet the present demands and so that they may be assured of financial assistance for those for whom accommodation is supplied. I would add one further final suggestion—that is, that Assistance Board officers should do all they can to help those old people in voluntary homes.
3.55 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, perhaps it is only right that in spite of the cloud that hangs over us from yesterday's debate and which is to be renewed
842
later this afternoon, we should give some thought to this serious social problem. The emphasis this afternoon has been laid on the old. I do not know why such a young and vigorous House as this should concentrate all its attention on the old. We should not have any particular bias, and the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, include "persons living alone."
LORD SALTOUN: Hear, hear.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: We are not concerned only with the old. Some of my most pathetic and sometimes tragic experiences have been in finding young people quite alone—very often unfortunately, by their own choice—in the trend of feeling which seized young people in a previous decade when they wanted to get away from the ties of home and have a little flatlet. There they were all alone, sometimes desperately sick; some sympathetic neighbour had summoned the doctor; the doctor had called for consultation, and the situation was found to be desperate. This problem arises not only with the old people, low the old are perhaps more isolated. The youngsters can seek assistance from friends, and are more active, while the old people are not always so sick as they imagine. Many of them who go into homes for incurables would be found to be quite capable of rehabilitation if an enterprising medical staff were appointed. That is one of the tragedies of the homes, particularly if they are labeled "Homes for incurables." The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, made a gross surgical error in referring to a fracture of the femur in an old person as a comparatively trivial injury. In a large proportion of cases it is the final event, so I warn those of your Lordships whose bones are getting a little calcified to be careful of any edge of the carpet you may meet on the way out from this Chamber, in case you sustain a fracture at the neck of the femur. If you are so unfortunate, I hope you will leek expert assistance quickly, because it is not by any means a minor injury.
The general impression is that the problem of old people has become much greater in recent years, hut that is only an impression. The Motion moved by the noble Lord is therefore fully justified, because we want to be fully informed on this matter, whether it is an increasing or a decreasing problem. I do not want

843
to spend time repeating what has been said before, but what has always struck me in my experience is that the most successful experiment in the effort to solve this problem was that which was devised by William Whiteley and which I have seen in action. He established homes in the country for aged people, and put into that colony a nursing service. That is perhaps the kindest thing that can be done for old people who are more or less infirm, or at least who are alone—to arrange accommodation so that although they have their own homes, nursing assistance is available, either within a little colony or in a block of flatlets in the heart of a city. And those flatlets need not be confined only to the aged a proportion of them could be occupied by young people.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to me personally as likely to offer either some additional problems or some possible solutions. Apart from the ideas which I have suggested, I do not know that I have anything material to contribute. I should like to correct the impression that the Government should be blamed because somebody is not taken to hospital at once. To get an old patient or a chronic sick case into hospital has been a problem for the last century—in my own personal experience, for the last half century. It has always been a problem, and in the great general hospitals you could see the fright of the resident staff if they saw a case of fractured femur in a bed, because they did not know how they were going to get rid of the patient and they were not going to be able to do anything for him except wait. There is a different approach to the subject to-day. Naturally, the hospital staffs did not want a bed which might be occupied by a series of patients whose lives might be saved, to be blocked by a chronic case which might sojourn there for months. This is not a new problem, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, realises full well. Nor did I gather from his remarks that he was trying to attach blame to the Government because there was no immediate solution.
There is one final word I should like to direct to the right reverend Prelates—namely, that the real solution, apart from cases which are too heavy a burden and
844
cannot be supported in the homes of the younger generation to-day, is to help the younger generation to keep their old folk in their homes. If the last days of these people are to be happy, they are going to he happy not by their being put into a community with a number of other old people they are going to be happy because they are mixing with the younger generation—and happier still if "generation" is in the plural. The happiest old people are the grandparents.
4.4 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, it is typical of the breadth of argument in matters that are debated in this House, that for an interval between considering armaments and the engines of destruction we should devote ourselves to a subject which is essentially humanitarian and one of peace. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for raising this subject, and I think I detect general agreement that neither he nor other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate are criticising the present scheme of things, but rather are anxious that any weaknesses in the scheme, such as it is, should be discovered and any defects removed.
The noble Lord refers in his Motion to "recent social changes." I take it that by that he means the introduction of the new National Health Service and the National Assistance scheme which came into operation on July 5, 1948. I should be disposed to use rather a stronger term in connection with these matters than to speak of them as "social changes." I would claim that there has in fact been a revolution in our method of dealing with our aged and infirm people, and with people who need assistance in one way or another—in fact, anyone who hats fallen by the wayside in his daily life. I feel strengthened in that claim by the remark of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London that the position to-day is infinitely better than it was prior to the introduction of these Acts which are the subject of the noble Lord's Motion.
I start from that standpoint—namely, that we are all agreed that the services provided for our aged and infirm people are, in the words of the right reverend Prelate, infinitely better than they were formerly. But one should not say that

845
in the evolution of the new scheme there may not appear defects, some of which have been 'pointed out this afternoon. It has to be remembered that formerly—the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and other noble Lords have referred to this point—practically all the assistance needed by the aged or the infirm was given through the relieving officer and the board of guardians. It is suggested that the present division of responsibility has been created by the new Acts; the National Health Service Act in respect of incapacity and sick people, old as well as young, and the National Assistance Act in respect of those people who for one cause or another can have their necessities met by money grants. There are also the local authorities who are now responsible for domiciliary help. Anyone who, by reason of infirmity or handicap of a nature not usually regarded as illness, can be taken care of by the local authority, who by Statute must provide homes or otherwise see that those people are taken care of by relatives and friends.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun (though perhaps I misunderstand him) seems to be in favour of the return of the old Poor Law system of dealing with aged and infirm people. I believe he is quite mistaken in thinking that only the fear of a charge of manslaughter caused the relieving officer to do his duty. I prefer to say that the relieving officers probably did their duty, as most people do, from sense of wanting to do their job well, and in a spirit of humanity which should pervade anyone who has to deal with this type of person. Since the noble Lord quoted a particular case, I think I ought to tell the House that the case to which he refers is the only one that was ever taken under the old Poor Law, and that was in 1885.
LORD SALTOUN: Yes, I said that.
LORD KERSHAW: The Poor Law officer in that case was acquitted, and it is the only case that was ever taken under that Act. There is no other occasion on which a relieving officer has been prosecuted. I make quite definitely the claim that good or had—and there may have been both kinds of relieving officers in the past—they have never ordered their method of dealing with these cases by fear of consequences of the nature mentioned by the noble Lord, any more than
846
the present officers under the National Assistance Board would be influenced by fear of consequences of that kind. At the present moment, as I have said, the State is responsible for the provision of hospital treatment and medical treatment generally through the National Health Service, while the National Assistance Board are responsible for money relief and the local authorities are responsible for any domiciliary help that may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has spoken of old people dying under conditions of complete helplessness and abandonment. I suggest to the noble Lord that in whatever system we have, short of a system of snooping to which neither he nor I would agree, such cases of elderly people dying lonely must occur. I know that the noble Lord is, under the impression that the relieving officers had a special capacity for detecting these cases in their normal course of walking about the streets, but I think it is only fair to say that several of the cases which he quoted to illustrate his point occurred before July 5, 1948. Therefore even under that system the cases were not detected in time to prevent these unfortunate deaths.
LORD SALTOUN: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord but if I may venture to do so I would like to point out that I dated my remarks from the time when old people were taken away from the responsibility of the relieving officers in 1940. After 1940 relieving officers had nothing to do with the old people. That is why I took that date, because it is relevant.
LORD KERSHAW: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. It remains equally true, I think, that it would be impossible to avoid cases of this kind, whatever the system. It has to be remembered that in the main the people with whom we are concerred can be divided into two classes—I mean that only in the sense in which we are discussing this matter. One class manage somehow or other to maintain themselves on the old-age pension. It may be that they are helped by their relatives and friends; that is to say, they live with their relatives and friends: they probably do in the main. The proportion of lonely people in that particular class can never be very

847
high. The other class whom we are considering to-day are the old-age pensioners and elderly people who for one reason or another do come within the purview of the National Assistance Board. When that happens it is fairly certain that the national assistance officer, the welfare officer, and other people concerned with the granting of additional help, will be in sufficient touch with these people. I know that the noble Lord has said that with the aid of a form they can get one of these officers to visit them. But I would point out that the form with which they are supplied in order to get the help of an outside person is a form unlike most forms which emanate from Whitehall, because it requires no filling up whatever. It already has on it the number of the person and requires only to be put in the pillar box for one of the officers of the Assistance Board to visit.
I would like to assure the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, that it is not quite correct to say that voluntary homes cannot be assisted through the public funds. If he will go into the matter he will find that even without the control which he suggested accompanies help of that kind, there are ways and means of helping the people whom he has in mind. Though I am not complacent about the cases which have come to light, I think we may fairly claim that under the present system which entitles everyone to free medical service it is less likely that anyone can suffer in silence or alone. Anyone who happens to know of a person who is ill can now send for the doctor and be assured that he himself will not be called upon to pay the cost. For that reason, if for no other, it seems fairly clear that the possibility of persons dying alone has been reduced. I do not say that it has been eliminated completely.
We have to admit at once that there are a number of old people who ought to be in some kind of institution. We know that there is a shortage of hospital accommodation for everyone, but I think it right to inform your Lordships that the total number of beds for chronic sick cases available in the National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales at the end of last year was about 57,000. Of those, five or six thousand were unoccupied because of lack of nurses. That is a difficulty which is gradually being overcome. It will appear
848
from such statistics as are available that the number of beds unoccupied because of the shortage of staff roughly corresponds to the number of known cases of elderly people who would be all the better for hospital treatment. It will be within the knowledge of many noble Lords who have spoken (it is clear that my noble friends Lord Amulree and Lord Buckinghamshire themselves take a constant part in the administration of our hospital services) that there have been moves made—
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? My particular interest is not a hospital but a voluntary charitable society.
LORD KERSHAW: Perhaps the noble Lord will remedy that defect in his public duties as soon as possible. At any rate, it will be known that, having regard to this known shortage of beds, there is a system now in force whereby all the beds in an area can be pooled to find out where, within that area, there happens to be an odd bed or two vacant. That has helped in relieving the pressure we are concerned about at the present moment.
I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London will be pleased to know that housing authorities are encouraged in every possible way to make special provision in their housing schemes for old people by the provision of small bungalows and flatlets. But, as has been said by many speakers, the solution of this problem does not lie in any one direction. From my own knowledge, I know of homes for old people—homes not too large and not too small —that have been provided by local authorities. I know of the efforts that are being made to bring together old people in the over-sixty years of age class. I am myself No. 1 and my wife is No. 2 of one of these "over-sixty" clubs which have been most effective in dealing with the loneliness which troubles old people. Speaking personally rather than officially, I think the idea of segregating aged people in homes has to be considered with extreme caution. There could easily be great sadness in such institutions when one after another of these old folk pass on, leaving behind a feeling of real loss among those who formerly had been associated with them. I believe that that

849
phase of the problem will require greater attention than it has had hitherto.
Let me say, on behalf of my right honourable friend, that we appreciate to the full the services rendered by organisations such as the W.V.S., and by the churches. Without their help it would be almost impossible to do anything effective in this direction. But, having said that, I think the complete answer—and I say that advisedly—to the whole debate this afternoon, is to be seen in Circular No. 11/50 of January 23, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I had not seen this circular before. After many years in public work of one sort or another, I. cannot remember there emanating from a Government Department a document that was so humane and so full of the spirit of brotherhood. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will quote one paragraph, because I believe it will indicate to them better than I can in my own words the spirit which is actuating the Ministry of Health in regard to the problem we have been discussing to-day. It states:
"The experience gained since the Act came into force by county and county borough councils in dealing with applicants for admission to the residential establishments and in other ways has shown an urgent need for further services of the more personal kind which are not covered by existing statutory provisions and which, indeed, can probably best be provided by voluntary workers actuated by a spirit of good neighbourliness. These services include the regular visiting of the old people in their homes, in helping them with the shopping, in obtaining magazines and books, in letter writing for them, in helping them to mend their clothes and generally in solving minor domestic difficulties."
Who would have expected that kind of thing to come from Whitehall twenty years ago?
I submit that it may fairly be stated, without claiming that the present system is perfect and without being complacent about it, that the possibility of old folks suffering in loneliness will be considerably diminished by the Health Services now available to everyone, and by the general interest which is now displayed in the subject of the welfare of the old people. I assure the House that my right honourable friend will give the most sympathetic attention to all the suggestions that have been made, and every effort that is practicable and possible is being taken and will continue to be taken to smooth the path of those who are lonely and in need of help or friendship.
26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lords who supported me in this Motion, not excepting the noble Lord who has rejected the Motion. As I am not going to press for Papers and move your Lordships to a Division, there are one or two corrections I wish to make before the matter goes to the Minister. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, for putting him under a false impression. I did not intend to say that a fracture of the femur was trivial, but to say that it is not necessarily mortal. I am sorry, but I thought I had said so. The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, says the position of old people is better now than it used to be I hope that my naturally pugnacious manner did not lead him to think I was attacking the Government. There is not much use having a better system unless it is really brought to the people.
The noble Lord said I wanted the old system back and that he would be very sorry to see the return of the old relieving officer who did his duty through fear. I do not want the old system back, but I do want an official with responsibility for these matters in a small area which he can get to know. More than one relieving officer has spoken to me with pride about his position, as if to say, "I am a man who has executive duties and if I do not do those duties I am going to suffer for it." Would the noble Lord rather put that burden on an official to do his duty, even though it be through fear, or that these people should suffer the deaths that I have described to your Lordships? I honestly think he is mistaken in saying that these cases occurred frequently before 1940. It was the pride of the old relieving officer that they did not occur. The only case mentioned to me, and it was mentioned in the noble Lord's presence, goes to prove what I say, rather than the other way. In regard to what was said about the form for a visit by the Assistance Board, I would point out that when a man is sick and really needs a visit he cannot go out and post a form. The point I made about the form is rather different. I said that no member of a voluntary society should be able to visit anybody who ought to be under the care of a welfare officer, without having a form on which to report the visit and

851
the facts which had been found out. That was always done in the associations for whom I visited. In regard to the leaflet, perhaps we understood it in different ways. I have never seen a leaflet which said so little in so many words. It does not really tackle the point: that we need an official who is definitely responsible for these old people. The noble Lord should study the figure of 45 per cent. given by my noble friend, Lord Amulree, which I think is much nearer the truth. With those few remarks and corrections, I thank your Lordships for your attention, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to say what progress has been made in consultation with the American Government on the subject of a Joint History of the Second World War, as was agreed to by this House on March 10, 1948; and to move for Papers. The noble and gallant Viscount said: My Lords, over two years ago I put down a Motion that the views of the Government of the United States should be sought on the question whether arrangements should be made for the compilation of a Joint Anglo-American History of the Second World War. That Motion was received in all parts of the House with great sympathy, if I may say so. It was supported by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party and on all sides of the House, and it was accepted by the Government with sympathy. Since then several unofficial histories have been written, and two volumes of the Official History of the American Air War have been published. Yet in this country I have not seen any official history—or it may be that it has not been brought to my notice. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in replying to my Motion in March, 1948, said:
"I accept this Motion readily and without hesitation. We will consult the Government of the United States about this matter."
852
He went on to say:
"…it will be of the greatest value to the continuance of good relations between our two countries."
That was the sole purpose of the Motion.
It may also be within your Lordships' recollection that I pointed out what damage had been done to the relations between the two countries by those bad old histories of the War of Independence, which are still on the shelves of all schools and universities. I went on to express my opinion that you cannot re-write those old histories of over two hundred years ago, but that if a joint history of the efforts of the two nations standing shoulder to shoulder in the last great war could be written now, it would have a wonderful effect on the relations between the two nations. That history would go on to the shelves of schools and universities. I suggested the appointment of two leading historians, one American and one British. They would choose their respective staffs and work together under a committee composed of well-known people, with a man of great reputation as chairman, and perhaps four or five representatives of the leading universities in both countries. If they were the sponsors of this new history I feel (in the words I used then) that this book would in time supplant the old distorted histories of the War of Independence.
I know that there are difficulties, but as I said two years ago if the two Governments set up this committee to let them choose the historians, and gave them something in the neighbourhood of £200,000 for the initial cost, the difficulties could be overcome. On the point of finance, I know that that is a large sum, but a great part of it would be recovered in the sale of the histories over the years. In the debate two years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, in speaking of the urgency of the matter, said:
"If it is to be of any value at all, a joint history of the war as conducted from both sides of the Atlantic must be available at an early date, before too many books of an irresponsible or a too patriotic character have been published."
I feel that two years has been a long time. It is five years since the war ended, but on the information I get from America if this work can be put in hand now it will still achieve the purpose I anticipated. I would ask the Lord Chancellor what steps the Government have

853
taken in the last two years in regard to approaching the American Government. I ask further that a White Paper should be published showing how far the project has progressed at the present time. I beg to move for Papers.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, a little more than two years ago I accepted on behalf of the Government a Motion asking that the views of the United States Government should be sought on the question whether arrangements should he made for the compilation of a Joint Anglo-American History of the Second World War. I confessed then that the idea seemed very suitable to me. Like the noble Viscount, I spoke not as a skilled or expert historian, but I felt it was desirable that we should have a joint history before partial accounts were written from the various points of view of the respective nations. I feel that the noble Viscount went a little far in saying that history once written cannot be re-written or overtaken. Speaking for myself, Mr. Winston Churchill's book on Marlborough caused me to revise drastically the opinion I had formed from reading Macaulay. But you must have a great art in writing in order to overtake things of this sort.
What we did following the noble Lord's Motion was to consult the American Government. They were consulted through our Embassy in Washington, with the State Department—they were lengthy and elaborate consultations—and subsequently we were fortunate enough to have in London the Chief of the Division of Historical Policy Research of the State Department, and members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office took advantage of his presence to discuss with him the project which the noble and gallant Viscount has at heart. I may add—though I am not authorised to speak for this last body—that we have also consulted, as the noble Viscount would anticipate., the eminent historians of this country I do not want to mention their names, but I will gladly give them to the noble Viscount: indeed, I should like him to consult with one or more of them in order that he may realise what is involved from the technical point of view, and what are the difficulties. So far as the United States Government and His Majesty's Government are concerned, I
854
am authorised to say that they both concur in the observations I am now going to make. As on this occasion I am speaking for two Governments, and not one, I must adhere rather closely to what I am authorised to say. Sympathy, yes—everybody likes the idea. But both Governments quite firmly take the view that they have embarked on their own official histories, and that they must before they do anything else finish those official histories.
Indeed, neither in the, United States nor in this country is there any prospect of finding historians of sufficient ability and authority who would be available to undertake this work. I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that it is no good having this work done unless it is done by absolutely first-rate people. As I have said, both Governments are committed to the completion of their own official histories. That work is making tremendous demands on the available supply of trained historians, for this is a time when the universities have heavy requirements for teaching, and are finding difficulties in recruiting their staff. Indeed, in our own case we are experiencing great difficulties in finding historians here to undertake the work on the various volumes of our own official military histories—there are still vacancies to be filled. The State Department authorise me to say that they are suffering from precisely the same difficulties. I do not know what size staff would be required, but if you think of the field to be covered there is obviously an immense amount of work to be done.
The close association achieved in the general strategic direction of the war at the highest levels—for instance, between the Prime Minister and the President personally—and through the combined Chiefs of Staffs, is a great story in itself. But it is nothing like the whole story, because collaboration at the centre was continued and reflected in the High Commands and between the Forces themselves engaged in operations. Quite outside the military field there were immense achievements in the spheres of finance, economics, supplies, shipping, lease-lend and the rest. A history which was to cover all these subjects adequately and authoritatively and, at the same time, to cover them within a reasonable compass —for it is a cardinal feature of the noble

855
Viscount's scheme that it should be a readable work and not merely a book of reference for the experts—would require historical abilities of the highest order, as well as expert assistance on a considerable scale. The real art in all these things—in paintings certainly, and I think in writing history—is to know what to leave out. To know what to leave out presupposes a great knowledge of the subject and also a high degree of skill.
I come now to the question of cost. I do not put this as a major matter. Last time we were discussing this subject the noble Viscount gave an estimate of £400,000, which would be borne, of course, in equal shares between the two countries. No one can say whether that is excessive or the reverse. For the moment I accept it for argument. I say frankly that here we should find very great difficulties in providing the necessary sum. At the present time we are spending £95,000 a year on our Official History, and it seems probable that there may be, and, indeed, I think there has been, some slight Parliamentary murmurs about that. I gather that the State Department might have corresponding trouble in Congress if they were to ask for a further sum of money in respect of this Joint History. The consolation I can give to the noble Viscount is that both Governments view the idea with sympathy, but do not regard it as practicable until after the official histories are completed. Of course, as your Lordships know, after the First World War the official histories—well, I doubt if they have been completed yet, after something like thirty years. I hope there will not be that length of time in the case of this war. Two of the civil histories, but none of the military histories, have been completed here, but I suppose it is true to say that a certain separation of time does make it easier for an historian to see things objectively. I quite agree that the disadvantage is that in that interval of time you may have other reports and other books written and it may prove difficult to overtake their errors.
The noble Viscount wants the book to be unofficial, and I agree with him. There is much to be said for that, but in practice both Governments feel this: How can this history be unofficial? If the two Governments are to finance it, they must
856
inevitably have some say in the selection of the historians, and if it is to be authoritative it must be based on full access to official records. This, of course, could not be granted without reserving the Government's right of scrutiny of the volumes before publication. On that basis, I think it is unlikely that the history would be regarded either by the public here or by the public in the United States as an entirely unofficial publication. But if it is not so regarded, has not the whole point of it largely been defeated?
Now there is another question which I must bring before your Lordships, and that is the question of the right of access to official documents, which is a formidable difficulty. It is quite obvious that no historian of repute on either side would be prepared to undertake this work unless he could have access to the full range of documents on which it was based. Now that means that the British historian would need to have full access to all American records at whatever level, and that the American historian would claim the same right here. It is very doubtful whether either Government would be prepared or willing to modify to this extent their existing regulations governing access to official documents. I am not saying that that attitude would always prevail. Obviously, it would be much easier to allow access to documents after a passage of time than shortly after the documents came into being. But I am pointing out that consideration to the noble Viscount as being the line which both Governments take.
I do not think that, for the time being, I can give a more helpful reply. I would point out that books are being written dealing with various aspects of Anglo-American collaboration during the war, and those books are widely read. I mean such records as those of Mr. Churchill, of General Eisenhower and of the noble and gallant Viscount, Field-Marshal Montgomery. They are all records of men who played predominant rôles in this great story of war-time cooperation between their countries and who are therefore in the best position to bear vivid and eloquent witness to its character and results. I have no doubt that each year important works are published in both countries which throw further light on this subject. Knowing

857
what I do of official histories and knowing what I do of those formidable histories—I hope nobody will take me to task over this—the Cambridge Modern History is not the sort of book which one takes as a bedside book—at least I never do. I do with Macaulay, and I do with Trevelyan. I think these official histories will really serve in this way: they will serve as the source from which the historians of the future will get their information, and those historians will digest that information and present it to us in readable arid attractive form. In that way, I think, the official histories will play a great part.
For the reasons I have given—the reason of cost; the difficulty with regard to access to documents; the inability at present to get historians of the right quality arid repute—we do not think that at the present time the noble Viscount's project is a feasible one. But in order that the noble Viscount may not go away with the impression that this is just a departmental excuse for doing nothing, I should very much like to bring him in touch with some of the historians (whose names I will give him) in order that he may see, not merely from the departmental point of view but from the practical point of view, that there are great and weighty difficulties in the way which at present neither Government can see their way to overcome. I hope the noble Viscount will at least be satisfied that we have taken the trouble to get into touch with the American authorities to find out their reactions. Of course, it is quite obvious and quite certain that without the most full collaboration of both Governments, any such project at the present time is out of the question.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, before I withdraw my Motion, which was supported on all sides two years ago, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the long statement he has made, and for the care with which he has gone into the matter. The noble and learned Viscount used the word "official" five or six times. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating the points that I made in my speech, but I must emphasise that what I am suggesting is that the four great universities of America and four of our own Universities should cooperate and take the work from the
858
Government. The process of their getting secret records from both Governments was fully explained in the previous debate. I will reserve to myself the right to raise this matter at a later stage. After all, there are a considerable number of historians who are writing. Mr. Churchill is not an idle man, and yet he seems to have found time to write a very great deal. And there are others who have also found time for much writing. I have read many helpful and informative histories of the joint effort of America and ourselves. General Eisenhower and General Arnold, amongst other American generals, have found time to write, and I do not see why it should be thought impossible over here. I am sure it would be much better if this work were done not by the Government but by bodies drawn from the respective universities. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEWFOUNDLAND (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
4.53 p.m.
Read.3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

DEFENCE
4.54 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Bridgeman, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the Statement on Defence, 1950 (Cmd. 7895).
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the purpose of my intervening in this debate is to deal with matters concerning the Royal Navy which were raised by noble Lords yesterday. It is the intention, with the permission of Your Lordships, that my noble friend Lord Alexander will deal in his concluding speech with the major points raised during the debate. I would like to join in

859
the congratulations which were extended to my noble Friend on his admirable speech yesterday. I fully share the views expressed by him, for whatever might be said of the excess of planning by the organisations under Western Union and the Atlantic Treaty, the facts are that the twelve nations are bound together for the security of their countries against any aggressor, and as an earnest of intention one of the powerful signatories to the Pact has already voted large sums of money for equipment, some of which has already been delivered to Treaty countries. This is an action almost unparalleled in peace time.
In the course of the debate yesterday reference was made by some noble Lords to the need of additional expenditure on research and equipment. It will be seen in paragraph 6 of the Statement on Defence that provision is being made for an additional expenditure on research and equipment of no less a sum than £35,000,000 in excess of that which was provided last year. Indeed, the net sum provided in the Estimates for the purposes mentioned amounts to almost £250,000,000. That in itself is a very large figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sought an assurance that the old principles of sea power and what they mean to a country placed in our situation remain, and that control of the sea routes is still as fundamental to large-scale strategy as ever it was. I have no hesitation in assuring the noble Lord that this is so, and that while new weapons, new methods of attack and defence, may require new means of exercising sea control, none the less the principles of sea power to this country, with its Commonwealth and Empire scattered over the world, remain true. The noble Lord was afraid that we were being put under some pressure from outside to reduce the strength of our naval forces. I can assure him and your Lordships that we are under no such pressure and that His Majesty's Government form their own evaluation of naval and military requirements. The strength of the Fleet has been shown in my Memorandum Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, and I would remind the noble Lord that while naturally he attaches most importance to the Active Fleet he must not overlook the enormous value of the Reserve Fleet. From the figures given in my Memorandum he will see that we are maintaining on the Reserve
860
large numbers of vessels which in need will emerge to build up the striking power of the Fleet. Nor must he overlook the Forces and strength of the Commonwealth countries, whose Naval Forces are steadily increasing.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, complained of the inadequacy of the information in the Defence White Paper on the subject of naval aviation and anti-submarine defence. I do not wish to elaborate on these points at this stage, as your Lordships will shortly be having a debate on the subject of the Navy Estimates, but I would remind Lord Teynham that the Defence White Paper does not attempt to cover details of all the three Services which can more appropriately be dealt with in the White Papers relating to the individual Services themselves.
The importance of research and development to counter-measures against attacks by submarines with high underwater speeds, long-endurance and deep-diving capacity is referred to in my Memorandum, and the highest priority is being given to protection against submarines, both by surface craft and from the air. All told the Admiralty will be spending approximately £11,000,000 on research and development during the current financial year. At the same time increased expenditure of about £7,000,000 will be incurred for material and contract work. This is inevitable as our rundown of war-time stocks continues.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, in a most interesting speech, asked about standardisation. I can assure him that so far as the Navy is concerned we are collaborating closely with the Americans in the adoption of common methods and equipment, especially in the all-important field of submarine warfare, where the two Staffs are developing a common doctrine and tactics. Similarly, we have made considerable progress under the Brussels Treaty, and agreements already arrived at provide for standardised methods of communication while common tactics are being developed through the exercises being carried out by the combined fleets of Western Union nations. The Royal Navy's rôle in this field is of especial importance, in that we provide the main link between America and Western Europe in naval standardisation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, played lightly with the reference in

861
paragraph 7 of the Statement on Defence when he stated that the inter-Service review of the future development of the Forces made it clear that there were no grounds for any substantial change in the relative rôles of the three Services, or any drastic curtailment of the strength of any one of them. The Paper referred to the present rôle and the strength of the Forces in the present world situation. Those who were responsible for that statement were fully aware of the many changes which have taken place, including the scrapping of many old battleships some time ago and the placing of the modern battleships in Reserve—not scrapping, as was suggested by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount's main attack was on the Government policy relating to the retention of carriers and naval aviation generally. He said that he did not desire to revive old controversies: but what else was he doing?—for this is a very old controversy, and no one knows more about it than does the noble Viscount himself. The value of the Naval Air Service—its inauguration was in 1911, and at that time it was a young and growing Service—was proved from the very beginning of the First World War. By the end of that war, there had grown a feeling that all air work should be concentrated in one Ministry. That led to the passing of the Act in 1917 setting up the Air Ministry in 1918.
What a controversy the setting up of that Ministry caused! No one was a greater protagonist than the noble Viscount himself. Indeed, there was committee after committee, conference after conference, between two strong protagonists—the noble Viscount and the late Lord (Admiral, as he was at that time) Keyes. The result of this long controversy—I do not desire to say any more about it—was that the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence put up an unchallengeable case to the Cabinet at that time, strongly recommending that the administration of the Fleet Air Arm should be transferred from the Air Ministry to the Admiralty. The noble Viscount was one of the few who did not accept that position. Indeed, from his speech yesterday it is clear that he
862
refuses to accept it even to-day, with all its advantages.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount is inviting me to interrupt. Later, I will try to explain my view of it. What I understand the noble Viscount is saying now is that there has teen no alteration sufficient to justify this being examined again. I can quite understand his saying that.
VISCOUNT HALL: That is what I said—that nothing has occurred since that date to lead His Majesty's Government to a consideration of a reversal of their policy as regards the control of naval aviation.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Then there is a difference between us.
VISCOUNT HALL: But yesterday the noble Viscount went even further. He not only suggested a restoration of the responsibility for naval aviation to the Air Ministry, or a consideration of that plan; he suggested that there was no longer any need for such a thing as naval aviation—that in fact all flying tasks over the sea could be carried out by land-based aircraft, and that the aircraft carriers were no longer required. I must say that the noble Viscount's views are not shared by any naval authority and, so far as we know, they are not seriously shared by any Royal Air Force officer of high repute. Indeed, it is rather interesting to note that in all the debates on Defence the noble Viscount is the most persistent in raising this matter. There is scarcely a debate on Defence without not merely a reference but a very strong statement from the noble Viscount in relation to this matter—which, of course, he is quite justified in making. But he must not claim that there is a very large body of opinion in this country which shares his views.
I think that I should quote fully a statement made by Mr. Churchill in another place during the debate on Defence when (and I take it that he was speaking for the Opposition) he stated quite categorically that:
"In the Navy the war in the air and the war on the sea have become so closely interwoven as to be indistinguishable and inseparable. It is obvious and imperative that the Navy should manage its own air service. Nevertheless, in the sea war of the future it is the air which will decide the fate and

863
fortunes of ships of war. Therefore, the aircraft carrier with proper naval protection must increasingly replace the battleships of former times. But what kind of aircraft carrier, and how many of the large or small types? To decide this you must look at the actual problem which lies before us. The combat of gunfire between lines of battle is utterly extinct."
There is an indication in that statement that Mr. Churchill himself has not changed his mind from the memorandum which he drew up when this was a matter of high controversy in. 1937.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as that has been read, may I clarify this point? I do not think that anyone contends—though I am not sure about the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—that aircraft which are necessarily carried on ships and which cannot operate from anywhere else should be other than under the control of the Admiralty. I take it that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is not now asserting what was turned down repeatedly—and I do not think it has been argued for ten or fifteen years now—that shore-based aircraft are much less vulnerable than aircraft carried on a carrier, and that such shore-based aircraft should be operated only by the Royal Air Force.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I interrupt once again? I think the noble Viscount said that he does not know of a single senior officer of the Air Force—here or in America—agreeing with what I said.
VISCOUNT HALL: I confined my statement to the Royal Air Force.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I say that I think there are a great number of senior officers, both here and in America, who subscribe absolutely to what I said yesterday.
VISCOUNT HALL: Well, we hear very little about them. With regard to the point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I would say that for certain purposes land based aircraft are, of course, very suitable; but that is not so easy a matter as he mentioned. Indeed, conditions during the war were not quite that easy, because there had to be a good deal of naval supervision, even in relation to Coastal Command. But I do not want to go into that controversy this afternoon.
864
May I now refer to a paper which has recently been written by a former German admiral who served throughout almost the whole of the war? He has written a very long paper dealing with this particular point. I am not going to attempt to quote very much from it, but, summing it up, he makes it clear that throughout the war at sea the British Naval Air Arm played a decisive part. Indeed, the paper is full of examples of the failure of German and Italian naval operations due to the lack of aircraft, and he refers strongly to the decisive part played in naval warfare by the use of British aircraft carriers. He shows that this was true not only of the failure of the German and Italian surface fleets, but also of the decisive defeat of the German U-boat campaign in 1943.
Let us consider for a moment the rôles for which naval aviation exists. The noble Viscount complained that the Defence White Paper said that there were no grounds for any substantial change in the relative rôles of the three Services, or for any drastic curtailment of the strength of any of them. That is perfectly true. The importance of the battleship has decreased with the coming of air power and the increasing menace of the submarine; and it is the fact that there are very few battleships in existence in the world other than those possessed by the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The methods the Services adopt to carry out their rôles do not remain static. The noble Viscount was, I think, confusing the rôles with the means of carrying out those rôles. To-day the function of naval aviation—as was its function in the last war—is the anti-submarine protection of convoys and fleets; the fighter protection of convoys and fleets against long-range reconnaissance aircraft working with submarines; the fighter protection of convoys and fleets in an area where heavy enemy attack must be expected; and strikes against enemy targets at sea or on land.
The noble Viscount said that the air problem could not be divided. Whilst that may be true, it is surely also true that the solution to the air problem can and must be shared by the Navy and the Air Force. Can anyone suggest that shore-based aircraft could in the last war have given protection to the Russian convoys or sufficient cover to the landings in the South of France, and at Salerno; or

865
could they have made possible the successful campaigns in the Pacific? Does he think that the protection of the Fleet and of convoys could ever be effectively maintained by aircraft which at any moment may be hundreds of miles away from the Fleet or the convoy which they are required to defend? No land-based aircraft could be constantly on call to meet such demands, nor could land-based aircraft afford that protection which must be given to any ships at sea against the shadowing aircraft, whether on long-range reconnaissance or working directly with submarines within the area covered by our surface craft. Indeed, the noble Viscount really surprised me when he asked whether it was right to have an absence of open strife between the Services in peace time. Surely inter-Service strife is something to be deplored at any time. The lessons of the last war have taught us the value of co-operation, and we can hope to carry out our respective rôles only if there is understanding and agreement on all sides on what we are required to do.
Certainly amalgamation of various functions might lead to economy, but the noble Viscount must know that he is not suggesting anything new. He knows that the basic flying training of all naval aviators is done by the Royal Air Force, and the possibility of further amalgamation has been examined. Amalgamation has already been carried out in certain spheres to the maximum extent possible. The Royal Navy is in close day-to-day touch with the Royal Air Force. Particularly is this so in the case of the antisubmarine school at Londonderry, where the two Services operate a combined training scheme which could only be carried out successfully where there is complete agreement on the different rôles of these two Services. The Admiralty has not challenged the acceptance by the Royal Air Force of the responsibility for carrying out the protection of coastal shipping with land-based aircraft; but I would say that in my opinion there is far more of a case for the Admiralty taking over Coastal Command than there is for the Royal Air Force to take over the whole function of naval aviation and to attempt to carry out with land-based planes the rôles assigned to the Naval Air Service.
There is ample opportunity for members of the Royal Air Force—Marshals
866
of the Royal Air Force, or whatever their standing—to make their representations in relation to this matter. One of the members of the body which made the statement in the Defence White Paper about which the noble Viscount complained is an eminent and indeed a very gallant member of the Royal Air Force. He was a party to those words. The noble Viscount knows, also, that a distinguished member of the Royal Air Force is one of the Chiefs of Staff, and if there is a desire for the changes which are so often suggested by the noble Viscount I am sure many distinguished airmen would make their representations in the right place. The policy of His Majesty's Government is similar to that of the Commonwealth countries who possess growing air strength, and it is similar to the policy of the United States of America. In all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government could not agree to the suggestions which were made by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? The noble Viscount who has spoken has made three-quarters of his speech an attack upon me. I do not think the ideas I put forward yesterday were unfair. I have a large correspondence from all over the world, and I still find that a large number of people want this matter considered again. That is all I asked for yesterday.
5.21 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, this debate on the Statement on Defence has been so broad-based on general problems of strategy and, indeed, of foreign policy, that I must ask your Lordships' forbearance when I ask you to consider a matter of detail. I feel justified in doing so because the opportunity is here, and because I am disappointed that that part of the Statement on Defence which deals with man-power contains no mention of the officers. I agree that there is mention of the resettlement of officers, but we have first to get the officers and to employ them during their active years before any question of resettlement arises. It is in regard to medical officers that I am particularly concerned and very fully informed. There is no question at all that the supply of medical officers, to an army especially and probably to any fighting unit, in order

867
to provide an efficient medical service, is of the greatest importance for the health of the troops. I think I shall have the support of every serving soldier, from the highest to the lowest, when I add that the medical officer has also a very big influence on the morale of the force.
I raised this question as long ago as December, 1948, and I pointed out the shortage and the lack of quality in the supply of medical officers to the Forces, particularly the Army. I agreed then that it was necessary to have a higher age for the call-up of medical and dental officers than for any other recruits under the National Service scheme. But at the same time I warned that even by raising the age to thirty there might still be a shortage. I advised integration, particularly with the National Health Service, and I feel justified in asking now what has happened, in view of the promise given by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, as First Lord of the Admiralty, when he said that all these representations would be brought to the notice of the Service Departments and the Government. The position is now worse, and I think your Lordships should be informed that it will grow steadily worse through the next two years; and that in 1952 the shortage of medical officers for the Army alone will be about 500.
That is very largely due to the fact that it is estimated that about 800 of the men who will leave the medical schools as qualified medical men in 1952 will have already done their military service and will be ex-Service men. There will be no improvement in the situation until 1954. The shortage of specialists is really alarming. It should alarm all parents, it should alarm particularly your Lordships who have a general responsibility, and it should alarm the Government, who have a special responsibility. Young men, the flower of the youth of our country, are being sent to distant garrisons, and members of my profession in responsible positions are certainly not satisfied—nor is the Director-General of the Army Medical Service—that there is an adequate supply of specialists to care for them. The R.A.M.C. cannot from its Regular officers undertake to provide the requisite number of specialists, who nowadays have to have very prolonged training and wide experience. In some
868
of the specialties the Service cannot provide any.
I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that in the very nature of things a young general duty officer in the R.A.M.C. who aspires to be a specialist in surgery in that Corps cannot secure adequate experience to be a surgical specialist simply from what he meets with during his service in the Corps. At the present moment, the R.A.M.C. requires 114 specialists for the half year that we are now in. Of those 114, twenty-four are surgeons. The number available to fill that requirement of 114 is twelve. It is obvious that we are reaching the danger point. The position is not a temporary one. There is going to be a permanent shortage. The Regular R.A.M.C., even with its full establishment of Regular officers, could not provide the specialists in peace time; there would be a shortage of 280. With the short-term commissions which are granted for a period of years, and including a proportion of specialists, the shortage would still be 142; and with the call-up of young men of some experience in the specialities the shortage again is 122. It is no solution to bring in civilian specialists and give them higher pay and have officers of the same rank receiving different remuneration in the Corps. That has been done, and it is a frightful and frightening expedient. It is unsatisfactory, it is unfair, it is expensive and it does not provide a permanent solution. Some of the remedies which have been suggested are palliative—for instance, an adequate supply of transport. Your Lordships will appreciate that a surgeon in an area who is confined for lack of transport, has a limited opportunity of service, whereas if he has adequate transport he can cover a much larger number of cases. Another suggestion—again this is only a palliative, but it would ease the situation—is that the Services should accept a lower physical standard for specialists, particularly those who are not serving under war conditions.
The fundamental point is dealt with in paragraph 23 of the Statement on Defence, which says:
"a high level of recruitment cannot be expected unless Service conditions compete in attractiveness with those of civilian life."

869
That is the only way in which a proper solution can be found. The first requirement is that the pay of the Regular officers should be advanced. Some Regular officers serving now are anxious to retire. There is a ban on retirement. Do your Lordships think that that will lead to a contented Service? In fact, there is a considerable discontent, The Regular and short-term establishments can be increased, but that is no solution. The only way to get a specialist service for the Army under the present National Service Act is by obtaining civilians. There is a suggestion that the civilian age for recruitment should be raised to 45 years. It would be a serious matter if the specialist section of the population should have legislation levelled against them that might interfere with their careers up to the age of 45.
In December, 1948, I made a suggestion—which I still think is the right suggestion—that there should be some integration with the National Health Service. Those who hold whole-lime posts in the National Health Service should be appointed with a definite obligation that they will from time to time accept secondment to the Forces. They should be able to return to the civilian service without loss of seniority and promotion. In my view, secondment is the solution. The integration of the Forces' medical services with the National Health Service and with the Colonial medical services would do much to enhance the reputation of the Commonwealth and Empire. I submit to your Lordships that the matter is one of extreme urgency. I know that these matters have been considered in Department after Department, in the Defence Department and in committee after committee, and if the hold-up has been at the Treasury, it is time that pressure was brought upon the Treasury to permit of a solution being obtained.
5.31 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to address myself to the subject upon which the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has just spoken. I did not know he was going to raise this point and I have not equipped myself with notes, but it is a matter with which, as chairman of the responsible committee, the Medical Priority Committee, I have some acquaintance, as has my noble friend who is vice-chairman of the same
870
committee. It is true that the situation in respect to recruitment to the Service is very grave as regards both general duty officers and specialists. The fact that during the next two years so many men who would normally be called up for eighteen months' duty not be available for call-up, because they have exhausted their military service obligations before they become qualified, is a temporary matter. It does not make the situation at the moment any less serious. The situation with regard to specialists is serious, but I think it is only fair to say, because perhaps the House would like some reassurance on this point, that during an extensive tour which I made of the Forces' medical services in 1946 and 1947, it was clear that while there were difficulties in regard to the medical services, as indeed there were in regard to other services, there were no objectionable features about medical treatment; and, indeed, medical and surgical treatment was being carried out very well. During my tour I visited all the commands in which British troops overseas were engaged, with the exception of Japan, which from the standpoint of our influence was a very minor command at that time, as to a large extent the Americans dominated the scene.
In my view there is no doubt that the only solution finally is to regard the National Health Service, as the mother and father of all the medical services, in the Colonies, in the Services and anywhere else where numbers of medical officers are employed—for instance in the Overseas Food Corporation and the Anglo-Iranian Company. There are a number of different pockets of medical personnel all over the world—although perhaps the Colonial Service should not be described as a "pocket"; if it is, it is a large and capacious one. Unless all those medical officers are integrated in some way, as has already been suggested by my noble friend, then there will always be a difficulty. It seems to me, and I think my noble friend will probably agree, that we cannot make up the differences in the service in one part of the world and another merely by extra pay and extra amenities and facilities. We want some kind of general basis of security of life, and the solution seems to me to be the bold one that it should be regarded as part of the duty of those taking service in the National Health

871
Service that part of their time should be given to one or other of the Fighting Forces. It would not matter at what age that service was given, and the time could be adjusted according to the medical officer's own work and the needs of the Service concerned.
Something on these lines, something striking, something new, will have to be done. At the present moment we are only at the beginning of the development of the National Health Service. It is not at all certain at the moment whether the hospitals in this country are not employing more people than they require. For instance, about eighty-two medical officers are registrars at one large hospital in London. That is possibly at least four times too many. Probably my noble friend would think it a good many more too many. Many things require to be done in the National Health Service, but I think that if the matter is tackled on these lines we shall find a solution. As this matter has been brought to public notice in this debate, perhaps it may serve a useful purpose if we make up our minds that the whole question of the medical services should be looked at from a national point of view, and all doctors regarded as being in one pool to serve the national interest, whatever it may be and in whatever part of the world it may be.
5.38 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, it is late and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I shall endeavour to be brief and I hope to the point. I wish to refer in particular to Malaya. I have only just returned from Malaya, leaving Singapore on March 23, so I have fairly recently returned to this country. Your Lordships are well aware that the position in Malaya is bad; that is common knowledge. Out there it is generally agreed that the position is worse than it has been for the last six months. I think everyone will agree on that point and that most people will also agree that the position is worse than it has ever been since the trouble started. For example, the capital of Malaya, as the House is aware, is Kuala Lumpur. Yet it may not be within your Lordships' knowledge that it is unsafe to go any distance, even a few miles, outside the confines of Kuala Lumpur city. I recently
872
took off from the airfield at Kuala Lumpur beyond which, but quite close, there are some low hills, I should say about a mile from the High Commissioner's house; yet these hills cannot be safely entered.
Kuala Lumpur is linked with Singapore by a railway and by road. Neither are safe. Nobody, if he can possibly help it, will travel by road to Kuala Lumpur. If he does, it is at his peril. Nobody, if he can help it, will travel by train from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, because it is also definitely unsafe. While I was there only a fortnight ago a railway station was burnt on this line—it is the only single line—seven miles from Johore Baru. Johore Baru is the capital of the State of Johore, which is just across the narrow Johore strait. Incidents occur all the time. Every day the local Press has its tale of people shot up, attacks of various kinds, and other unpleasant happenings. I do not want to overpaint the picture, but I repeat that the situation is very bad.
Hitherto we have talked about these people as bandits. But one asks oneself whether their character has not changed, and whether it is not now more a matter of organised guerrilla warfare. I believe myself that it is. We know that they are fully organised. One section of them is organised in uniform, with battalions, companies and all the rest of it; they are ably directed, and served by a large body of others, not in uniform, throughout the country—many of them terrorised, some of them in sympathy. At any rate, they are well served. There can be no question that their Intelligence service is extremely good—personally I suspect that their Intelligence service is better than ours. I was out there six months ago—as, indeed, other members of your Lordships' House may have been—and I came back at that time feeling greatly reassured. The general impression then was that the situation was in hand, or would shortly be in hand; that these bandits were being broken up into bands, which were being driven in and rounded up; that there was a great shortage of munitions and general supplies, especially medical supplies, and that it was only a matter of time before we had the situation in hand. At that time I think the generally accepted figure was that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 of these

873
people still in the field—I do not guarantee the figures, but that is what one gathered.
The other day when I was there my visit happened to synchronise with the middle of the so-called "anti-bandit month," which your Lordships have seen advertised in the papers. I believe there has been a great rally of the loyal local population, and, amongst other things, while I was there there was published an up-to-date list of the "bag" against these bandits: it was about 3,000. I could not help thinking back to the statement made earlier that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 in the field last June. Further, inquiries now seem to establish that there are still several thousand in the field. If there were 2,000 to 3,000 in the field six months ago, and 3,000 have been put "in the bag" since, and still there are in the field 2,000 to 3,000, or perhaps even more, obviously there is something wrong with the arithmetic. Surely the explanation must be—as I believe to be true—that they are drawing on recruits locally. They are no doubt going in for a policy of deliberate terrorisation, in order to draw recruits to them, some willingly and some enforced. We were told yesterday in this House that all recommendations made by the local authorities had been adopted and, I gathered, approved. To come back then, to what I said before, if the position is, as I believe it to be, worse than it ever has been, surely there is something wrong: either the recommendations approved were not adequate, or in their approval they were watered down a little. Anyhow, the effect has not been striking.
So far I have perhaps given the impression of criticising rather too much. You may well say: What is the remedy? It is obviously not easy. For I am certain that the fault does not lie with our gallant troops, to whom this House has so often paid a well deserved tribute; nor does it lie with the loyal elements of the community, who have stuck it out in a most gallant way; least of all does it lie with the planters and their wives, who in order to earn dollars to help us bridge the gap, stay deep in the jungle at the risk of being shot up, day and night, at any minute. Therefore, one is driven back to asking oneself: Is it not a question of faulty system? And, if so, what?
I certainly would not wish to dogmatise or say anything embarrassing to anybody,
874
but the system out there is very odd. There is, if I may say so, a plethora of high authority. Surely, when you are faced with an abnormal situation such as this, you may have to do something abnormal to meet it, and not have a series of high authorities of all sorts and kinds and not one solitary unified control. Therefore, what one asks onself is whether there ought not to be one individual "Supremo"—I use the word which we used at the end of the war when we had a "Supremo." I know that may be a rather startling suggestion to make—there may be constitutional and all sorts of other difficulties. But if it is a basic fact that the retention of Malaya is absolutely vital to our position in the Far East and to the whole of our world policy, then I feel we may have to take unusually stringent and drastic action. We may have to appoint one person with the fullest authority and powers, and with the assurance that he will be backed from home without question, to cope with what is undoubtedly a particularly critical state of affairs.
In fairness, in talking about the system, I think one must admit that it is a peculiar one. There is the Commissioner General, who I believe has no executive authority over the various Governors within that area. That is not only Malaya, but the whole area of the British territories in South-East Asia. There are four independent King's representatives—four Governors—all of whom have not only the right but the duty to correspond direct with the Colonial Office.. Not only that, but the Commissioner-General himself is under two masters, if I may put it in that way—that is to say, he is under both the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office. We all know that dual control is not always the best method of dealing with things, even in normal times, let alone when faced with a critical situation such as we have now. Therefore, I come back to what may be the totally impractical suggestion of a "Supremo" in command of the whole area, with full powers and full backing, whether he wants troops or more police or whatever he wants. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the police, because I think I left them out before. They have done a wonderful job of work.
I have said enough for the moment about Malaya, but as I am speaking I will just mention the general question of

875
South-East Asia. I visited not only Malaya but also Indonesia and the Philippines, and so I have had a bird's-eye view of the situation as it is now. Your Lordships will not be surprised if I describe the situation as extremely grim. With China going Communist it has been infinitely complicated. That applies to every area throughout the whole region. There is one area, however, where perhaps there is a little ray of sunlight, and that is Indonesia. It is true that it comes a little late, and it would have been far better if it happened two years ago, but the Dutch and the Indonesians have finally composed their differences and an independent Indonesian Government are now in operation. They have been in operation only a very few months, and obviously there are difficulties to be overcome, but so far as I could judge they are making good. It is rather refreshing to find at least one area in that great region of South-East Asia where things are looking a little better.
French Indo-China I say nothing about, and Burma I say nothing about, but it is obvious that throughout the whole area this question of China has had a radical effect. There is not the slightest doubt that it has invigorated these gentlemen whom I call "guerrillas," and has added to their morale. What is more, it has added to their morale in the eyes of the local population in Malaya, which is very important. Naturally, the inhabitant of Malaya who lives there, and whose children and grandchildren are going to live there, keeps an eye on the main chance. A great many of them are determined to back the right horse. They watch the horse coming down the course—and some of them are past masters at doing that—and anything which comes along which strengthens the hand or adds to the morale of these so-called bandits acts conversely against us. Therefore, when I read in the Singapore papers a statement that the recognition of China by us had had no effect whatever on the increase or strength of this bandit business, I was amazed, because it was so patently untrue. Furthermore, the prospect of having Chinese Communist consuls throughout the British territories in the area fills people with alarm—and frankly I am not surprised. Anyway, that is the picture as I see it.
876
For the last couple of years I have said nothing about Malaya because I thought it was more becoming not to do so. But there comes a time when things reach such a pitch that one feels one would be failing in one's duty as a member of this House not to tell the House frankly if one feels that things really are serious, and that serious measures should be taken to put things straight. We have to hold Malaya—there can be no shadow of question about that. If we have to hold Malaya, we must be prepared to go a very long way to do so, even if it may be along rather abnormal lines.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, your Lordships' House will have listened with great attention to the grave words which have been uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn. He speaks with great authority, and with an authority born of knowledge and experience. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will take due note of the warning which he has uttered to-night, and that the complacency—I can call it nothing else—which I detected in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, in this matter of Malaya last night, will now be removed, and that we shall see the problem deeply and properly studied. It is clear that after this long period of struggle if the situation is deteriorating, as the noble Lord has told us, something must be wrong, and certainly somebody must be to blame. We do not expect His Majesty's Government to come here in a white sheet, but we do expect them to come here with a mind receptive to suggestions and open to criticisms when they are so pertinently offered in such a statesmanlike manner. I think my noble friend Lord Mancroft had every justification for the remarks which he uttered last night. He has a most signal reinforcement in the speech which has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and I hope that the 'Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will re-read every word and repeat it to his colleagues in the Cabinet.
We have had a long and interesting discussion upon a topic which I think we all recognise is of absolutely fundamental importance. When I was contemplating what I should say to your Lordships to-night, I re-read the White

877
Papers which have been issued annually since 1946. They are not exactly stirring literature, but I think they repay re-perusal. In a sense they, are a mirror of events in the international field and in the military field in the last four years—sometimes we might be tempted to say a distorting mirror, but at any rate a mirror. We see that the expectations of the Government—and not only of the Government—that the world was settling down, figured prominently in the earlier White Papers. There were great hopes for U.N.O., and there was a natural preoccupation with the problems of demobilisation and with the disposal of warlike stores. There were hesitations about formulating a policy for what was called "the eventual shape of the Armed Forces," and there was implicit in the White Paper of 1947 or 1948 the assumption that the rôle of the post-war National Service men would be to form a trained Reserve in the event of war, while the permanent obligations of the Army would be fulfilled by Regular recruitment.
In the 1946 White Paper as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has already stated, although Greece was mentioned, there was apparently no real perception of the significance of that episode. We see cropping up in the later White Papers, and g becoming ever more frequent, mention of unforeseen commitments and unlooked-for occurrences. Long-term planning about the shape of the post-war Service is rudely pushed to one side, while solutions for immediate crises have to be improvised, and resources which ought to have been devoted to training and re-equipment become absorbed in such enterprises as the Berlin airlift and in dealing, or trying to deal, with the troubles in Malaya and the Far East. Meanwhile, there is no treaty with Austria and our troops remain there; we have our commitments in Germany; and we see implicit in these annual Statements how far our resources have been stretched and how constantly arid how progressively long-term planning has had to give way to the march of events.
Then, in 1.949, the Government avowed their grievous disappointment with the failure, or apparent failure, of the United Nations Organisation to settle the differences in the world. We see coming into view a policy for regional security Pacts. I must confess that I have a preference
878
for the older terminology, "a system of Alliances", but perhaps that is a little démodé, Anyhow, we see it becoming overt, and now it figures even more prominently in the recently published White Paper. Indeed, there is no chance relationship between the disappointment of the Government's hopes for the united efforts of the nations to settle their differences, and their recurrent inability to implement the plans which they wanted to draw up for what has been termed a "balanced system of defence." And why is this? It is because Great Britain, in common with Europe and the whole Western world, has been constantly reacting to Russian initiative. The Kremlin has given us no respite. It suits the Russian book to see us use National Service men so uneconomically as we have had to do to reinforce our troops in Malaya.
These situations have not just arisen; they are part of a grand design; and, so far, Europe has been saved not by policy but by the atomic bomb. Russia, on the other hand, has made in the circumstances what we must admit is from her point of view the best use of those years. She has consolidated her position in Eastern Europe: Communism under Russian influence has overrun China and, meanwhile, national divisions have been fomented by Communists elsewhere who are no less effective, though perhaps less overt. We have just heard Lord Killearn tell us how great is the jeopardy of the whole situation in the Far East. Truly there is no reason for gloom in Moscow, but I assert that here there are the greatest reasons for disquiet. If you see a man going up a moving staircase which is in reverse, you may admire his efforts to reach the top but you measure his progress by the distance he covers up or down. We have been on a moving staircase in reverse—and our progress, relatively, has been downwards.
We ought to ask ourselves three questions. First: how long have we got? Secondly: what are our resources? Thirdly: are we making the best use of both our time and our resources? Russia knows pretty well our resources, and she is not going to give us the time we think we need; she will undoubtedly continue, as she has done in the last five years, to attempt to forestall us by fomenting trouble and stirring up unrest in the

879
various parts of the world that are least convenient to us and most convenient to her. I confess that like Lord Bridgeman I was deeply shocked at the Prime Minister's reply to a recent debate in another place. He said that the Colombo Conference was not primarily a Defence Conference: it was concerned with foreign affairs. My Lords, defence, foreign policy, and economic policy are a tripod. If one leg is short or deficient, the tripod will fall over. I was even more profoundly disturbed when the Prime Minister said in the same speech, speaking of Commonwealth co-operation in defence, that one cannot force the pace. In Heaven's name, if the Prime Minister of Great Britain cannot force the pace, who can? It is not we that make the pace: it is being made for us.
Therefore, I do ask the noble Viscount once again to take most careful note of the questions which were asked him yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We on these Benches fully recognise the achievements in bringing about Western Union and the North Atlantic Treaty. We fully recognise the importance of the aid which the United States has given to the nations of Western Europe to supplement their arms and equipment. We must recognise that in the past we have not always been ready enough to fight a war—even though we have managed to achieve victory. And so I ask once again: Is Western Union ready now to prevent war? I ask also: Are the plans off the drawing board, and is there an effective joint policy? I ask: How soon will those plans reach the stage where planning ends and action begins?
I make no apology for re-presenting those questions to the noble Viscount. I think they are proper questions to be raised in Parliament, and if they are not fully answered disquiet will grow, not only here but in Europe, and reviving confidence in the future of Western Europe will end. And if it ends the task of integration will grow not easier but far more difficult. I was pleased to see the noble and gallant Viscount, Field-Marshal Montgomery, listening to our deliberations to-day. The whole House is fully aware of the magnitude of the task which faces him, and he also, I think, recognises the magnitude of his 880
difficulties. But, as the noble and gallant Viscount well knows, on our success in meeting and solving these problems the whole future of this country, of Western Europe, and of the world will depend.
I offer two reflections. The first is that history and geography alike have cast on this country the rôle of leadership in these affairs. But His Majesty's Government must be equal to the task. The second reflection is that the best is often the enemy of the good: an imperfect plan acted upon is better than a perfect one laid by in a pigeon-hole and put on one side by the march of events. This is particularly relevant to the problem of Germany. As Lord Bridgeman said yesterday, planning staffs must have a clear direction upon this subject. I am sure it is an illusion to believe that there is time for us to observe Germany's behaviour and then decide. We shall not be given the time for such a leisurely procedure. Plans must be put into effect very soon, and they must be based on a firm decision now, that if Germany is to be left out then the military consequences must be faced, especially in the realm of military geography. It is fatal to base plans and obtain agreement upon a hollow formula which begs a question such as this. Even if we are successful, and even if at best we can put off another long and bloody struggle, the prospect which faces us is not a particularly pleasant one. We ought to realise that.
I can see no alternative to a long period of watching the frontier, and prolonged vigilance is the most wearying of all military preparations. The ability to maintain constant and effective vigilance depends upon a good morale; in fact, the outcome of this great struggle (for struggle it is) ultimately depends upon this factor. We are faced with the opposition of two rival philosophies. The Communists are constantly making a parade of theirs, and we must not underestimate their power. I think that we in Western Europe are in danger of forgetting the philosophy upon which our way of life—what we call the free way of life—is based. There is that philosophy and there are assumptions underlying the ancient civilisation of Europe, even if sometimes we forget them. I believe that the central assumption is the belief in the transcendental value of the individual human being. This has often

881
been attacked but has never been abandoned. I submit that there is no compromise possible between philosophies so completely opposed.
In Europe the resolute opponents of Communism cannot understand an attitude which sees nothing wrong in the aims of Communism and objects only to its methods. If the defence of Europe is to be a reality, we must depend on those who are firmly opposed to all totalitarianism and are armed not only physically but spiritually to oppose it. I hope His Majesty's Government recognise this fact, that they will so act as to encourage their natural allies in the fight for freedom and that they will encourage them morally as well as materially. In this field, as in the whole sphere of defence, the gravest of responsibilities rests upon the Government. I hope and pray that they may be worthy of it.
6.14 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the debate on the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has ranged widely. It has given the Government many serious questions to answer, in particular the questions which were raised in two powerful speeches which must have disturbed your Lordships on all sides of the House, by the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Killearn, on the Malayan situation. We shall await specific answers to the questions which were raised by those two noble Lords. I should like, if I may, first to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, on his appearance here at the Government Front Bench. I am sure that I express the wish of all noble Lords on this side of the House that his work in the Government in the high office that he holds may be both successful and congenial.
It seemed to me that the noble Viscount put forward his case as a happy man in a very contented state of mind, satisfied, as he felt he had a right to be, with the achievements of his Government and taking a legitimate pride in the contribution he had been able to make in past years at the Ministry of Defence. But I thought also I detected some slight resentment and some expression of a feeling of unfairness at the Opposition's boldness in query and in criticism. In respect of that particular aspect, the noble Viscount used what appeared to me some
882
what strange tactics as a means of expressing that resentment. He made certain statements in the form of, one might say, a counter-attack that I think we on this side of the House cannot allow to pass unchallenged or uncommented upon.
I must quote the noble Viscount's words in the debate yesterday. You will find in Column 757 of the OFFICIAL REPORT that he said this:
"I should like to feel … that Conservatives had always been as zealous in the past in their preparations for possible military contingencies as the Government to which I have the honour to belong have been in the last four years."
The noble Viscount then repeated what, if I may say so without offence, I would describe as another piece of complacency. It appears in the middle of Column 759, where he commented upon the Government in 1938 "not recognising the danger." The noble Viscount really must not presume that we all have such short memories on these matters as he himself appears to have. Let me remind the noble Viscount of two or three facts. When the National Government in July, 1934, decided to increase the Royal Air Force by forty-one squadrons—an increase which in fact laid the foundation for the fighter force which won the Battle of Britain—the Labour Opposition moved and supported a vote of censure in another place. That vote of censure or this measure of re-armament was moved by the present Prime Minster who declared—I quote his words—that re-armament was
"not calculated to add to the security of the nation,"
but was
"certain to encourage a revival of dangerous and wasteful competition in preparation for war."
Continuing this reminder to the noble Viscount of some of the pre-war years, I would point out that in July, 1935, over two years after Herr Hitler had commenced re-arming Germany, my noble friend Lord Swinton, who was then in another place Secretary of State for Air, introduced a Supplementary Air Estimate. The Labour spokesman, en behalf of the Labour Party, dealt with that Estimate in these words:
"We are moving a reduction to show by vote as well as speech that we are determined to take exception at a time like this to the squandering of so much money upon the enlargement of the Air Service in this matter, quite needlessly as we think … We object to this country being committed to the air race that is going on."

883
I must take the noble Viscount just a little further. As late as March, 1938, after five years of Nazism, when the National Government then in power asked for approval of further provision to extend the Armed Forces, the Labour Party condemned the provision of what they called "immense armaments," and the noble Viscount himself marched into the Lobby in disapproval of the proposals in the White Paper on Rearmament. Finally, four months before the war broke out, in April, 1939, when the National Government announced its intention to introduce a system of compulsory military training, the Labour Party voted against it. Amongst those who voted against it was the noble Viscount himself. Let me remind him that in those days the difficulties of the Government in office were much greater than have been the difficulties of the Government to which the noble Viscount belongs, because in those days the Government did not have the loyal support of the Opposition in matters of national interest such as this Government has enjoyed since 1946.
My Lords, our criticism is, not as the noble Viscount seemed to say yesterday, a criticism of what has not been done. I think the Government are fully entitled to the greatest credit for the work they have done in regard to pacts or alliances. Our criticism is that we are told we must be content with Government declarations; we must be content with what we are allowed to see; we must be content, as it were, to gaze at the shop window, at the same time being forbidden to enter inside to see what really exists upon the shelves, on the counters and in the cupboards. The noble Lord, Lord Killearn, used the phrase "a plethora of plans." If a plethora of plans and planning staffs can ensure security and home defence, then I must at once acknowledge that we have absolutely nothing to fear. But our criticism is that assurances on Staff plans do not replace the need for this country to have instantly ready defensive and offensive forces, made up of men and materials in sufficient numbers and of the finest quality, and also throughout the whole of the free world adequate bases from which those forces can operate. No noble Lord supporting the Government can say that this House has been told in positive terms that the nation possesses those safeguards.
884
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, yesterday stressed—and I think quite rightly—the great contributions which Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada have made to defence. Of course, these are the outward signs of the determination of the Commonwealth brotherhood to stand four-square in defence of men's liberties against attack, from whatever quarter of the globe. We are faced with the possibility of a new sort of war. It war comes it is not going to be a war of country against country, where Staffs can prepare plans; where the field of battle can, as it were, be surveyed, like the Low Countries before the last war; where Staffs can plan out almost where battles will take place. Today we are facing a world crusade of an ideological creed which wishes to control the world—a creed which to us is evil and wrong. This crusade is backed up by great and growing armed forces. Here let me interpose the hope that the noble Viscount in his reply will deal very positively indeed—either denying them entirely or saying that there is substance in them—with the figures which were given yesterday by my noble friend Lord Swinton from Commander Asher Lee's book on Russian air strength, from which he quoted a production of 40,000 to 50,000 aircraft a year, and a first-line strength of 15,000 aircraft.
I submit that we cannot allow this debate to conclude without some sort of reassurance on that matter. Either that that report is entirely erroneous, according to the Government's information, or that there is substance in it. If this crusade, backed by these great and growing armed forces, which is at present engaged on the cold war of political penetration and the threat of force, turns into a hot war of guns and bombs, then the eruption may have a main field of activity. It will, nevertheless, be an eruption to a lesser or greater extent all over the world, for adherents to this creed of evil, which would kill freedom as we know it, will strike both visibly and invisibly, wherever they exist. So it is against this need for instant readiness that we ask the Government to give us a reassurance in public—or, if they feel that they cannot do it in public, then in private—that we have the necessary force ready at any hour it may be called upon.
I gather that the Government do not look favourably upon a secret session.

885
Indeed, the question of a secret session was criticised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Wilson, yesterday. The noble Field-Marshal has attained a position of great military eminence, but perhaps has not had so long in political life as the noble Viscount and myself and other noble Lords on this side, and we think one of the advantages of a secret session is that it enables members to put critical questions to the authorities without those questions becoming public knowledge, and Ministers can justify their actions, or otherwise, without giving away secrets. The value of a secret session is not the secret information which the Government could give to the House; it is the opportunity that is given for free criticism of Government action, and an opportunity for the Government to reply.
Against this need for instant readiness of our Forces, we listened yesterday to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, justifying certain expenditures by admitting that for the last four and a half years we had, to use his own term, been "living on our own fat" as regards stores and supplies, and that now we have to replace those supplies and stores, and (I quote his words again), "even conventional stores." I think those are very grave words, because they arouse in my heart and probably in the hearts of other noble Lords feelings of misgiving that there are to-day shortages in essential stores in the Services which should gradually have been replaced over the last four years. We should not have allowed stores to be exhausted, which was the impression the noble Lord gave to me in his speech yesterday. No doubt he will be able to clear up that point.
My noble friend Lord Swinton yesterday pointed out that now Russia has the atom bomb we more than ever need not only adequate offence but a fighter force and radar matched, exercised and ready. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, answered in advance that need with a truism which I have heard from Ministers before, "Better go for quality than quantity." That is all right up to a limited point only. I ask myself, as regards the first line of the Royal Air Force: where is that quality over the next three or four years? Let me take three main characteristic aircraft. First, fighters. We have Vampire and Meteor jet fighters. They are adequate
886
at present, but according to all the technical information available they are inferior to the latest American fighter, and, if reports are correct, the new Russian jet fighters are their equal and, in some respects, their superior. One asks, in reference to the essential quality which is to discount any shortages in quantity, what is coming along, and when is it coming?
Take bombers. We have no jet bombers at all in our Royal Air Force squadrons. Russia is reported to have them. Bomber Command to-day has Lincoln heavy long-range bombers which are virtually obsolete aircraft. Now Bomber Command is getting the American B.29, which is already a semi-obsolete aircraft. I ask the Government: Where are our new long-range jet bombers? It is true, of course, that we have the Canberra, a first-class aircraft, a jet bomber; but it is not in service with the units yet. We do not know when the Canberras will be in the squadrons, and in any case they are only light or medium bombers and cannot supply the need for a long-range bomber of superior power for our long-range bomber force. The United States have already flying several long-range jet bombers and we may well say: Where is the quality over the next two or three years which is going to make up for the lack in quantity in our squadrons?
I turn to Coastal Command. I would say that Coastal Command is, as it were, in the doldrums to-day. The anti-U-boat squadrons have an aircraft which, as the noble Lord knows, is called the Shackle-ton. If I may say so without being rude, this machine looks rather like an outmoded Christmas tree, with everything hanging around it; and the pilots dislike it intensely. There is no new flying boat under development. What were known as the "Strike Squadrons" against shipping during the war are non-existent to-day in Coastal Command. I certainly think that the need which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned yesterday for a quick striking force from the air against U-boats, is not met by the present state of Coastal Command. Again I ask myself, as regards Coastal Command: Where, now and over the next two or three years, is the quality which is to make up for the lack of quantity?
I turn for a moment to civil aviation, because there we have a much brighter tale; there we have quality. We have

887
two aircraft, the Cornet and the Viscount, which are superior to anything else in the world. They are made by private enterprise. I ask myself: Where is the military counterpart of that technical ascendancy which we have in civil aviation? I wonder whether the noble Viscount will consider this—I do not expect him to answer—that a good many years ago Lord Rothermere, with great patriotism and at his own expense, developed an aircraft called the "Spirit of Britain." When he felt that officialdom was being resistant to new technical developments, he gave an order to Bristol's who built that aircraft, and from that "Spirit of Britain" was developed the Blenheim Bomber. That plane, I grant, was almost obsolete at the beginning of the war, but nevertheless it was a great technical advance and did much towards making our Royal Air Force operationally sound before the war. Can we not do something like that with the Comet, and so try to take advantage in the military field of the technical advances that we have achieved in civil aviation?
My conclusion is this. We cannot shelter behind a statement that we are going to have quality to-morrow. If we are not to have great quantities, at any rate we should be assured that we have the quality to-day. I do not believe that we have it, and I cannot see any prospect of that quality coming in our first-line units to any great extent for the next two to three years. We need the assurance now from the Government that the defence picture is better in reality than the Government's silence, combined with such information as we are allowed to have, so regretfully leads us to fear to be the case.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I first of all say that I am very grateful to the House for the general tenor of the debate, and I am sorry if, as I gather from the speech of Lord Balfour of Inchrye who has just spoken, some of the things I said yesterday seemed to indicate that I wanted to make Party points in the course of the debate. No doubt from time to time there are occasions when we must necessarily make Party points, but from the point of view of the Government, I
888
am quite certain that so far as possible we should always desire that in matters relating either to the general defence of the country or to the welfare and efficiency of the Services at least a measure of agreement should be obtained amongst the various Parties in the State, and co-operation in general in reaching the objectives.
Having said that, I would perhaps make only one very short reply about the series of political incidents that were quoted by the noble Lord who has just sat down. Of course, the short answer is that in the period from 1931 to 1939 (during the early part of which a great number of my colleagues now in the other place, including myself, were not in the other place) it was the constantly-expressed view of the Opposition that far too little attention was being paid to the basis of collective security, and that there was a tendency, when rearmament was brought before the House for approval, for it to be discussed usually upon the basis that it needed to be quite unilateral in its idea and construction, and it was not sufficiently related to collective security. Of course, it was always the practice of the Opposition, as it still is, to move reasoned Amendments to whatever Vote might be before that particular assembly, and to vote upon the reasoned Amendments without necessarily being against all the provisions before them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Should I be right in interpreting the noble Viscount's attitude during that period as being that he was prepared to vote for other people arming to defend him, but consistently voted against our arming ourselves?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: No, certainly not. If we are going to debate this matter on Party lines, I am prepared to do it. As the noble Viscount has done me the honour of referring to my attitude on another occasion, I say at once that I took the line in another place in 1938 that the direction of policy at that time was such that we were heading for war, and that when war came we should be found alone. At that time I quoted in another place the fact that in two hundred years this country had not won a major war without Allies, and powerful Allies. I said that the policy then being followed would lead at the start of the war to our Allies being non-existent for some time,

889
and I remember, when what I had said eventuated, calling the attention of certain people to my statement in 1940. If I may do so without raising undue heat, I should like to ask the noble Viscount to read again the speech of his leader, Mr. Churchill, on October 5, 1938, after the Munich incident. There he will see where his leader placed the blame, who had the power, who had the responsibility, and also the criticism which Mr. Churchill made of the policy followed.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can answer that with the full authority of my leader, Mr. Churchill. Generally, we did not do enough, but no help of any sort or kind was given by the Opposition and the last people who had any right to criticise were the noble Viscount and his friends.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That certainly could not be applied with truth to myself. I could if necessary quote many passages from Hansard to prove my case on that.
Having given perhaps too much time to the political points raised, by the noble Lord, let me deal with the main questions which have been raised during the course of the debate. I had to leave over from yesterday the questions of manpower and recruitment for the Regular Forces raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. It would be fruitless for anyone to suggest that this does not raise a problem which is very difficult of solution. The fact is that there was no Regular recruitment to the Royal Air Force and the Army in the years of the war. That, with the prolongation of the service of many Regulars during the war, and therefore the magnitude of the rundown in the Regular Forces of long-service men, from 1945 onwards, left a large gap to be filled. The actual amount of recruitment obtained during those years was not altogether unsatisfactory in comparison with the years following the First World War up to 1922 and 1923. In fact we obtained 298,000 Regular recruits for the three Services up to the end of December, 1949, which is about 50,000 more than were obtained in the somewhat similar period after the first war.
Then, however, the number of recruits that were being estimated for by the Government of the day did not exceed 340,000. We have a much larger
890
objecttive in the number of troops which we consider it necessary to keep in the three Services for the security of the country and to contribute to the collective defence into which we have entered. The present position is that we have in the Services about 420,000 to 425,000 Regulars, which is rather more than the total number of Regulars the Services on the outbreak of war in 1939. But the position is not so satisfactory as it appears on the surface, because in the course of recruitment in the last three or four years we have had a number of short-service recruitments, some of which are likely to fall out soon, and something must be done to try to repair that situation.
The question can be approached in a number of different ways. I feel sure the Service authorities are not leaving out of account any suggestions that have been made, but I should like to examine one or two of them to see whether their adoption would lead to the solution we all desire to obtain; to have in our Forces at least the minimum number of Regulars required to keep the Forces as a whole efficient and ready to undertake the tasks which are allotted to them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Experienced Regulars?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Certainly I do not think we can rule out the question of bounties. I will say no more about that matter except that it is under consideration. But I would say that the suggestion that substantial increases in pay will deal with the situation in the light of the circumstances we face is exceedingly doubtful. May I say, with respect to the authorities who have approached the matter from this angle, that I do not think we have been helped very much by some of the criticism in the Press, and in other places, with regard to the provision which has already been made in pay and allowances since the war? The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, justifiably asked how we looked at the position in relation to the statement of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who said that there had been a 23 per cent. advance in general wage rates. I have had a look at the increases that have taken place in the Services. It is quite impossible in a short speech to go through the whole of the schedules of the pay codes but let me

891
take three examples—no doubt I shall be charged with selecting the best examples, but noble Lords can compare them with others. First of all take a corporal, Class A, tradesman; his gross emoluments have improved since the middle of 1945 by 28 per cent.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Married or unmarried?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I thought the fairest way was to deal with the smallest family, of a man with a wife and one child. Then let me take a warrant officer, Class 2. His gross emoluments have improved since 1945 by 40 per cent. If I may take a rank equivalent to that of a captain in the Army, the improvement in his gross emoluments is 50 per cent. I know that I shall be told in the case of the officer and of the warrant officer, Class 2, that taxation now enters into the question, and that the position is different from what it was before the war. But in taking gross emoluments and seeing how they compare with conditions outside the Services, we must remember that Service personnel are not the only people who are paying taxation. There must be a comparison of like with like. We have taken into consideration the general question, and I am not suggesting that I am ruling out any kind of approach by way of bounty, pay or amelioration of conditions. But I feel that the best kind of solution will probably come from improvement of amenities, conditions, married quarters and the like, rather than by the increase of pay which is possible within the limits of the military budget we have adopted.
When I look at the question of married quarters, again I think that what has been done in regard to housing in the last four and a half years is hardly recognised. It is true that the Army, because of the enormous pressure upon them in their great demobilisation campaign, were somewhat late in entering into the provision of permanent new married quarters. They are doing well now. But it is also true that for many of our troops, and especially married troops, not only in this country but in other parts like B.A O.R. and Austria, we have taken at the public expense a large amount of furnished accommodation. At the present
892
moment more than 44,000 of our Service personnel are actually accommodated, either in married quarters or in quarters which have been specially hired and arranged for them. May I remind your Lordships of something which I am sure is already known to you, but which needs to be put on record? It is felt strongly that, if we are to meet this kind of expense, we are entitled to be able to spread it upon a loan basis, in the same way as the civilian housing aid is spread over. That is the principle we have adopted, and this will enable us in the current financial year to start between 6,000 and 7,000 new married quarters for the alleviation of this particular problem of the Services.
I would not have your Lordships think for a moment that this problem is one which brings any feeling of complacency to the Government. We feel very strongly indeed the need for having the minimum number required of Regular Forces. There is nobody in the Party to which I belong who would wish to see National Service purely as something that must necessarily happen. If we could supply the whole of our defence needs at the present time by Regular Forces, no one would be happier than we. If you look at the technical requirements in the Royal Air Force, and in certain new aspects of mechanisation in the Army and new developments in the Navy, you will see that the same trouble arises. National Service for a comparatively short period of eighteen months, and the like, does not give the same result as would be obtained from the experienced Regular in those functions. We are doing our best to tackle the problem in the face of the great difficulty of doing it during a time of full employment—a time of full employment so essential to us for recovering our economic stability in the world. I believe it is essential to us, in present circumstances, as a first line of defence, that we should recover our economic stability in the world.
I pass to the next point about which I have made up my mind to say a few words and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley to-day, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, yesterday. They asked whether all the planning and the organisation, and so on, in connection with the Brussels and North Atlantic Pacts have come off the drawing board. Are we

893
beginning to show real progress? I should have thought I said enough yesterday to make it clear that they certainly have come off the drawing board; and the communiqué which appeared in the Press at the week-end, leading to the final approval of the strategic plans for the whole area of the North Atlantic Treaty—about which I think more is being officially stated this afternoon in the other place by my right honourable friend tie Minister of Defence—shows the progress which has been made m planning. In the meantime, we have never been idle. It was this country to whom the noble Lord said the others ought to be able to look for leadership, and they have not failed in looking to us for that leadership. It is from this country that the inspiration came to rehabilitate the French Navy—to give them help, lend them an aircraft carrier, supply them with jet planes and arrange for them to get the licence to produce jet planes on the British pattern—a point of standardisation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, yesterday. That has led to the real birth of the new movement for collective security which is going on in Western Europe. The leadership in that matter has come from this country, arid has now blossomed out into the military aid from Washington, through the Military Aid Act, in the form of the arms which are now beginning to flow in to support the general efforts which have already been made by the countries of Western Europe.
We must not forget, either, that when the situation began to deteriorate, especially in 1948, we instituted an emergency programme of production in this country, and our production has been, from a military point of view, getting better ever since that was done. Before the final consideration in Washington of the Military Aid Bill, which subsequently became an Act, we entered into an agreement that we would put extra expenditure, manpower and material into military production, in common with our allies in Western Europe, as a set-off against the help the United States of America have given to us. That is the best kind of answer can give to your Lordships' House as to whether or not we are "off the drawing board" in the matter of planning. I beg noble Lords to look at the facts. While it is perfectly certain that they are right—and I should like
894
to be right with them—in saying that there is an enormous amount still to do before we get the kind of complete readiness to deal with what might become a major attack, we want to call, not only upon our own people, but upon those in alliance with us, to see that no time is lost in putting our strength collectively into achieving the highest standard of efficiency.
The next point to which I want to refer is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and mentioned by other noble Lords, in regard to the Colonial Forces. May I say at once to the noble Viscount that I agree most heartily with him in what he said about the quality of the services rendered by the Colonial troops in tie course of the last war, and especially those from East and West Africa to which he referred. The noble Viscount is asking at the present time that we should consider going in for a large expansion of the use of Colonial man-power for military purposes, outside the actual military forces required for internal Colonial security. That, of course, raises a number of issues. I would say at once that I should welcome—if the financial and other conditions could be made—the opportunity of having such expanded Colonial forces. But, with all the other necessities which are pressing upon us in the military budget that we have, perforce, to present to Parliament in present world circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether we could get an expansion of the size the noble Viscount seems to indicate. Moreover, it must be remembered that the extent to which you can use such troops in this, what I may call, present peace time—the world is at peace and not at peace in many ways—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We were speaking largely about Malaya.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If the noble Viscount will wait, I will come to it. In peace time there are limits to the ways in which they can be used. I am quite sure it would not be suggested that they could be used in Europe.
Questions were raised yesterday with regard to Malaya and Hong Kong. In the case of Malaya, we have the use of very efficient Gurkhas, and we have also the growing efficiency of the

895
Malayan-trained troops. I saw some of them last year when I was in the East, and I must say that I agreed with the reports given to me that they seemed to have improved constantly under British training and direction, and that the other troops there are doing very fine service indeed. From that point of view we do not anticipate any difficulty. I assure the noble Viscount that in the course of the conferences and joint consultations with the Colonial authorities which we have had in the past twelve months, two things have been borne in mind. The first is that the standard and quality, and the organisation and planning of the present Colonial troops as they stand shows a very great improvement indeed, about which I am glad to be able to speak, because that is the view of all the military officers I have consulted. Secondly, the question of being able to expand beyond that basis of security forces is constantly under consideration, and if there were an opportunity to provide the extra facilities for that, without interfering with a vital service which, in the opinion of our Service advisers, it is essential to retain, then we should certainly not leave the matter out.
In view of what has been said, I think I should say a word or two about what the noble Viscount said concerning the book of Mr. Asher Lee on the state of Russian preparedness. May I say at once—I speak from memory about the discussions I have had—that the figures which were quoted by the noble Viscount from that book might be described as less inaccurate than many previous estimates have been. But I would not go so far as to say that they are accurate. The field covered by the book is naturally very wide. All such matters as are covered in it are constantly under study by our Intelligence. I should say that whilst the figures would not be as inaccurate as some previous estimates, they are not in our view accurate, and I should say that our advisers disagree with some of the assessments which are made in that book. Beyond that, I say quite frankly, I would not go in open session.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There seems to be a mania about security. Surely we should not be giving information to the
896
Russians which they do not already possess if the noble Viscount was a little more informative and said in what respects he thinks Mr. Lee's published figures are wrong.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That would be just the kind of security matter which, in the course of a war—and I knew the noble Viscount very well and appreciated all the work he did during the war—the noble Viscount would not want to give, as to what his assessment was of a potential foe. I am quite sure that if he were dealing with the security side of this matter he would take exactly the same stand to-day as the professional advisers of the Government are taking, and upon whose advice we are acting.
I turn to the question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, today, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his speech yesterday. I am rather astonished to think that some noble Lords feel that my attitude with regard to Malaya could in any way be thought to be complacent. I described the situation as very serious indeed. What I said was perfectly true, and that is, that His Majesty's Government have not withheld any part of the help which has been asked for at any time by the authorities in Malaya, Service or civil, and that we are determined that we will do everything it our power to bring the unsatisfactory position there to an end. I thought I was right last night in not holding out hope that that could happen suddenly. I see that my words have been somewhat differently reported in the Press. Perhaps the word was not clearly heard at the time, but I am quite prepared for my words as they appear in Hansard to be taken as they are and accepted on that basis. There was certainly no complacency about that.
The fundamental point which remains is the one which was raised by a number of noble Lords—I think by the noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Killearn—as to the need for having some central authority in this matter in Malaya. Well, I should have thought that I made it fairly plain in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, yesterday. In fact, when I read about the appointment of General Briggs by His Majesty's Government and the powers which are accorded

897
to him, one noble Lord rather queried whether I had not been describing powers which might be too much to give him. With the experience which General Briggs certainly has in this kind of guerrilla warfare—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, it is indeed guerrilla warfare—I have a great deal of confidence that that appointment will bring a marked improvement in the arrangements made to deal with the exceedingly difficult situation. I can assure noble Lords that we shall do our utmost to bring that matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, one or two points about the general organisation, and whether it would function successfully in relation to Western Union and the North Atlantic Treaty. I read my noble friend's speech again this morning, and I did feel, if I may say so with respect, that if one took a view on the situation as he described it, without any determination to move on from where we are, one would almost say: "Well, what is the good of anything? Why try to get the nations together to resist possible aggression? Because it means the setting up of all this machinery and you cannot get all the things you want at once." I am quite sure that that was not the note which was uppermost in my noble friend's mind, and I am quite sure that he wants to see collective security obtained by this process. All I would do is to repeat that I am greatly encouraged by the situation, as a result of what has been done, compared with the situation as I found it at the end of 1946. No one could have sat through the discussions at the Paris. Peace Conference for dealing with ex-enemy peace treaties, as I did for many months, without being quite sure that something had to be done to arrest the drift that was going on at that time in the face of the infiltration of this other gospel against us.
I think that I have fully answered in my previous remarks as much as the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, desired yesterday should be answered in regard to the matter we were discussing just now. But it would be discourteous if I did not make a special reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said yesterday about the possibility of a secret session.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble Viscount going to say anything in reply
898
to the specific questions I put to him about the Air Force? They were very specific indeed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Yes, I will try to say something about that matter. But with regard to the proposal for a secret session, I have naturally thought over the position, and I have had to remember that if such a proposal were adopted, it would have to be with the approval of the whole of the Government, and certainly of the Prime Minister. The statement which the Prime Minister made in reply to the Question on 16th March, when the matter was raised by the Leader of the noble Viscount's Party, was, I think, expressing the view not only of the Prime Minister but of the other members of the Government; and I am therefore unable to add to the statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to that matter.
As regards the general position of the Air Force, I shall try to deal with as many points as possible. I understand that when we are dealing with the equipment of the Air Force we must consider, at any rate in peace time, quality first. But there is a time, as we all know, when quantity as well as quality must be considered. We are dealing now with a position in which we have been Producing very large numbers of planes in the last four years; and very large numbers in total have been supplied to our Allies. Certainly that is so in the case of fighter aircraft. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said about our fighters, I could not accept, without a great deal more evidence, that there are any superior fighters in the world, at the moment, to the Vampire and the Meteor. And with the increased performance of the latest type of Vampire—the Venom—still further progress is shown. But I am also sure that both Lord Balfour and Lord Swinton will be glad to know that the research development which is so important has come along very well indeed; and we have reason to believe that we shall continue to have great progress in the performance of the Vampire, the Meteor and the Venom.
As regards the bomber, it is true, as the noble Lord has said that from many points of view Lincolns are obsolete; but that they would be incapable of any good service I do not accept. Certainly in the case of the production of a new heavy

899
4-jet bomber, it is vital that when we get it it shall be the best, and that it will not need a constant series of changes and amendments before being brought into service. I am not going to mention any country in particular, but I hope the development work which is going on with regard to the British 4-jet bomber will not be subject to the alterations and so forth which seem almost inevitable in some of the aircraft which have been produced elsewhere. I am hopeful that we shall have the same success with the development of the 4-jet bomber as we have undoubtedly had in the case of the machine which the noble Lord rightly praised, the Canberra. I agree with what was said about the efficiency of our development work on the civil aviation side, and especially about the Comet. What the noble Lord said about this is worth looking at, and I know that the Secretary of State for Air and the Air Council will study the question, and, if the matter is not already under consideration, will see whether something of the kind suggested cannot be done.
With regard to Coastal Command, it is true that a great number of planes which had been in current use in Coastal Command in the last year or two have been on the out-of-date side. The noble Lord was a little scornful of the Shackleton, but I dare say some of the pilots of a few years back would have been only too glad to be given the Shackleton. There has been an improvement; but I hope that it will be possible for Coastal Command to be given some kind of progressive improvement in aircraft equipment.
My anxiety is to try to satisfy noble Lords on all the points they raise. They will, of course, not necessarily accept what I say, but I want them to feel that I have not neglected their points. There is one other question which was raised by the noble Viscount and that was concerned with air bases, not merely in our own country but in various places throughout the world. I can assure the noble Viscount, from my own contacts in the last three-and-a-half years, that this matter has never been outside our thoughts and our anxieties. It sometimes seems impossible to obtain even far less than what we should regard as essential. Sometimes we have to put things into a category between "desirable" and
900
"essential," but we are certainly doing our best to get the air bases we require. It would be inadvisable for me to say too much about where the bases would be, and under what conditions, and so on. We have to make a distinction between a landing strip and a whole aerodrome.
I must apologise for having kept your Lordships so long already. I feel that my safeguard in not having covered the whole of the points raised is this. As I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who has since spoken to me privately, there will be debates initiated in this House in the near future, especially by noble Lords opposite, on the individual Services. I understand that notice has already been given for debates on the Army and the Navy. Before then, I am certain that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Hall, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, or myself will be careful to study any other points which have been raised in the course of this debate. I am sure we shall be happy to try to deal with them in the course of debates upon individual Services.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In view of the full disclosures which the American Air Administration have made of their programme and progress, may I ask the noble Viscount, who has given a very detailed reply to-day, whether he has intentionally omitted to say anything about the first-line strength of the Air Force?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid I must plead guilty to the noble Viscount that I do not wish to refer any more to that point, or to produce figures upon it. The circumstances are so different here. The geographical position of, and the immediate threat to this country are not as they are in the case of the United States, On the best professional advice we have to adopt certain lines of security for ourselves. As I said before, the experience we have gained, both during and since the Second World War, proves that very often the information we gave to Parliament in those pre-war days was successfully used against us by the enemy. I am sorry I cannot go beyond that. May I say that we take the attitude that, serious as is the situation, powerful as is the potential enemy, as the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, reminded us, and concerted as the pushing

901
of his philosophy may be, we do not hold the view at the present time that war is inevitable?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Neither do I.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am glad to hear that, because. during the course of the noble Lord's speech, taking it literally line by line as he was addressing the House, I felt that he had a conviction that there could be no compromise, that there was absolutely no other way out but war. I am very glad to hear that that was not the intention of his speech.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I was very careful to say that it was not my view. I said I thought the time was short. I laid the greatest possible emphasis on the word "time." I should very much like to hear the noble Viscount place a similar emphasis.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I did say that we do not regard war as inevitable.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Nor do we.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Nor do we consider that our growing strength and progress, and the further developments in planning under the North Atlantic Treaty, can fail to have their effect upon other nations of the world in which that same ideology and its pressure have to be met. All those things have to be taken in their ultimate influence. But the House can depend upon this: that through the United Nations Organisation, through our pacts already entered into, through our determination to use to the utmost the resources that we have available in our present situation, we shall put forward our best endeavours to preserve that very way of life referred to by the noble Lord, of which there are no firmer supporters in the world than those who form the present Government and those who supported the fight against totalitarianism throughout the last war.
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friends on these Benches would like me to express our thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, for the full way in which he
902
has replied to this debate. There are one or two points he has not mentioned, such as the medical situation and also Civil Defence, hut I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government will consider what has been said in this House this afternoon and, if necessary, we can revert to those points at another time. We are all glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, has been in charge of this debate on behalf of the Government. As he himself said yesterday, he has a long and happy record of association with the Service Departments. In fact, I think that association began in 1929 when he succeeded my father at the Admiralty. We are glad to think that he is still in charge of these matters in your Lordships' House to-day.
I should also like to say how grateful I am to those of my noble friends who have supported my Motion. I feel that, long as the debate has been, your Lordships will all agree that it has been fully worth while. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, said yesterday that some of the words we spoke were moderate or mild, but I think he will have realised by now that moderate words weigh more heavily in this House than perhaps they do in another place. He must not mistake moderation of language for lack of purpose. I should like to associate myself with one remark that he made in his speech yesterday, his tribute to the work of the Staff Officers who are associated on these plans. From these Benches, we heartily echo that tribute. Our criticisms were not directed to tae Staff Officers. Indeed, we realise that the harder the political scene the greater the efforts required of them.
But if, on the main question this afternoon—the question of Western Union and Germany—we are asked to say whether the noble Viscount opposite has satisfied us, the answer to that must be a definite "No." He suggested that if we looked at the official announcement we should be satisfied that plans were coming off the drawing-board. I am sorry to say that that is just what I am not satisfied about. If we were asked whether we should conclude from the noble Viscount's words that real forces which could fight an enemy are there—the forces of all the different nations in Western Union which could be integrated and could take the field under the command of the various Allied commanders, including the noble

903
and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Montgomery, whom we were so pleased to see here this afternoon—then my answer is that I for one conclude no such thing from the evidence that has up to now been put before me, including the evidence that has been put forward this afternoon. Therefore, we shall have to watch the whole of this question and continue watching it with the gravest concern.
It is exactly because this matter is so difficult that this debate was staged. We wanted to draw attention to the gravity of the situation, and we wanted, as I think we have done, to assure His Majesty's Government of our anxiety and our intention to help in every possible way. That is why we did not say more than we did. That was why we never suggested that this question of Germany was not a very difficult one. That is why I agree very much with what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, said in his speech yesterday, that this question had got to proceed by proven stages. But what we are anxious about is that those proven stages should start at once, because we are not convinced that they have begun. I shall say no more about the question of manpower. As the noble Viscount said, we shall have an opportunity to debate this question during the debate on the Army Estimates after the Recess. I think the noble Viscount will agree that this question of man-power is largely an Army question and therefore appropriate to be dealt with on those lines.
I should like to thank the noble Viscount for what he has said about the anxiety of the Government and of himself to examine this problem. We have here another dilemma. Just as we have a dilemma in the need for Western defence on the one hand, and on the other the German problem, so we have the dilemma of man-power—on the one hand, the need to find the necessary man-power and, on the other, the economic and financial difficulties. But those dilemmas have got to be resolved. They will not be resolved merely by repeating how sharp are the horns of the dilemma at the present time. So, my Lords, we shall come back to this matter again. We close this debate still
904
with a real feeling of anxiety that all is not well in the defence of Western Europe. We feel a real anxiety that our partners in this defence of Western Europe, the Western European nations, should feel that we, like they, are in it. I do not feel that to divide the House to-night would add anything to the weight of the words which have been spoken in this debate in the last two days. Therefore, I think we should leave the matter here for the present. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAKEFIELD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.