Sitting of 12 May 1938

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board [Money].
Resolution reported;
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board to execute works and exercise powers with respect to the drainage of their catchment area and for the prevention of floods therein and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which may become payable there-out by reason of the application by the said Act of the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in relation to works authorised by the said Act of the present Session as if those works had been the improvement of existing works and the construction of new works under the said Act of 1930."
Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ROAD-WORKERS.
  Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of men employed in work on roads, including road-making, road-repairing, etc., in March, 1938, compared with the number of such men so employed in March, 1931?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Road-making and repairing are not separately distinguished in the statistics compiled by my Department,
  1680
  and figures giving the information desired are, therefore, not available.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    Cotton Weavers.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his inquiries into the question of under-employment in the manufacturing section of the cotton industry in Lancashire; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement thereon?
    Mr. E. Brown: As I promised the deputation which I met on 21st March, I have inquired into the practice of the Employment Exchanges in dealing with claims to unemployment benefit by cotton weavers in relation to employment upon less than the full number of looms. I find that each case is dealt with in the light of its circumstances in accordance with the law as interpreted by the umpire.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Am I to understand from that that the Minister has gone as far as he can in attempting to solve this problem? Are we to take it that the Government cannot give us any assistance with regard to these people? I would like to ask, further, whether the Minister and his Department are aware of the fact that many of these people are being called upon to live on 13s. and 14s. a week?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is asking questions which raise wider issues.
    Mr. Burke: Is it not possible to treat these people in the same way as persons who are offered jobs at less than trade union rates so that they can leave their jobs and go to the Employment Exchange without being penalised?
    Mr. Brown: My information is that benefit cannot be paid to workpeople in full-time employment. Proper discretion is used in the treatment of cases in which workpeople leave employment because the number of looms is reduced or who refuse employment upon a reduced number of looms.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the wider issues and bear in mind that there are thousands of Lancashire textile operators working full time and receiving less than they would receive on Poor Law relief?
    Mr. Brown: I am well aware of these facts and the reasons for them, but the hon. Member knows that there are decisions which rest with Lancashire as well as with this House.

    PARTIALLY DISABLED MINERS.
    Mr. George Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the large number of unemployed miners who are partially disabled owing to accidents received in the course of their employment, and who are now, owing to the prolonged depression, unable to obtain employment in the coal-mining industry; and whether any steps are taken by his Department with the view of suitable employment being obtained for these men?
    Mr. E. Brown: Inquiries are being made into the position, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hall: Are the inquiries similar to those which are being made in connection with the elderly men or is special consideration being given to this class?
    Mr. Brown: I am making precise inquiry into the facts which the hon. Member desires to know.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Durham coalowners and the miners' representatives are dealing with this matter this week, and will he inquire what is being done and try to facilitate the matter?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member's question covers the whole field, and the inquiry is being directed to find all the facts.

    DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons on the register in the area served by St. John's Chapel Sub-District Employment Exchange, County Durham, on 31st January, 28th February, and 31st March in 1938, and the corresponding number of persons signing on as unemployed?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that separate figures for this office are not available.
    Mr. Sexton: Is it not time we got some information on the subject?
    Mr. Brown: This is a matter of an outhouse of a branch exchange and the figures are, of course, in the figures for Stanhope. I will give the hon. Member these figures if he desires.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. G. Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the resentment among unemployed Army reservists receiving allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board whose allowances have been reduced for the reason that they are in receipt of Army Reserve pay; and will he take steps to stop this practice?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Board's current practice is to disregard the reserve pay amounting to 5s. 3d. a week which Army reservists receive who enlisted after 30th September, 1931. Of the reserve pay of 7s. a week which reservists who enlisted before that date receive, only the equivalent of 2s. a week is taken into account. Moreover, the additional 6d. per day paid to Section A reservists is now also entirely disregarded. This practice, which was recently settled in full consultation with the Service Department concerned, gives treatment substantially more favourable than that provided for in the Board's previous rules. The necessity for adjustments in some of these cases recently, notwithstanding the generous practice now in force, arose out of an anomalous position created by the Standstill in certain places. The adjustments were made under the regulations as a part of transition from the Standstill, and I have no authority to intervene.
    Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman take authority to intervene in cases such as these, and, seeing that a new regulation is to be introduced, will he use that opportunity to deal with this and other anomalies?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that is necessary, because the practice under public assistance differs very widely in various areas, and that is how this thing arises.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Did not the Minister of War say that these allowances were not to be taken into account on any consideration?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is wrong in that statement. If he will look into it he will see that the statement made by my right hon. Friend is being carried out precisely.
    Mr. Burke: Did not the Minister of War say that a concession was to be made to Army reservists, and is not the practical effect of the concession that in

    1683
    scores of cases they have had several shillings a week taken off?
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of men in Arbroath, who have for many years gone fishing to supply their own needs during periods of unemployment, are now informed by local officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board that if they continue doing so they will be considered as working and ineligible for benefit; and whether, in view of the close similarity between the case of these men and others who run allotments for the same purpose, he will ensure that fishing of this character, so long as the produce is not sold, does not count against applicants for benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir. But if the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind and will let me have particulars, I shall be happy to have inquiries made.
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he will explain further the grounds that prompted the Unemployment Assistance Board to withdraw the increases in allowance granted to certain classes of the unemployed last October on account of the increased cost of living, in view of the fact that meanwhile no reduction has taken place in rent or in the prices of essential foods such as bread, meat, milk, and tea; and that this change will in many cases mean a reduction in allowances of from 5 to 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Brown: The additions made during the winter were not granted on account of the increase in the cost of living by itself, but on account of the concurrence of this increase with the existence of winter conditions. As I informed the House on Monday last, the Unemployment Assistance Board have no legal power to continue the additions.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question? Does he agree that there has been no reduction in the cost of living in the range of foodstuffs which the unemployed buy, and that the withdrawal of this increase has meant a reduction of from 5 to 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Brown: The cost-of-living figure has fallen from 46 in November to 37 this month.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Is the full implication of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Unemployment Assistance Board gave the increase largely because of the on-coming of winter, and is it the case that when winter approaches again this increase will be automatically restored?
    Mr. Brown: I could not say that, but, as I told the House on Monday, the Board are contemplating a new regulation under which they will have power to give specific grants as winter allowances if the House agrees.
    Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £20,000 is the sum involved in the case of Liverpool, and is the right of appeal to be given to every one of the families concerned?
    Mr. Brown: The right of appeal applies in this case as in other cases.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of registered persons unemployed in Scotland for the years ended March, 1930 and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: The average numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland in the years ended March, 1930, and March, 1938, were 162,206 and 241,820, respectively.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the increase, will the right hon. Gentleman make these figures known to local authorities in Scotland who are talking about a decrease of unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: The figures are well known. The hon. Member has choosen two years and I have answered with regard to them, but there are other years besides 1930 and 1938.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that in seven out of these eight years we have had a National Government with an overwhelming majority, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it reflects credit en them?
    Mr. Brown: That is not a fair picture at all.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of registered unemployed persons in Glasgow at the last available date?
    Mr. Brown: At 4th April, 1938, there were 79,116 unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Glasgow.
    Mr. Davidson: Is that 79,000 registered unemployed, together with the huge increase in Poor Law relief in this city, an indication of the Minister's opinion of prosperity?
    Mr. Brown: I am not venturing an opinion now, but a comparison between that year and previous years is not unfavourable to Glasgow.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that speeches have recently been made indicating that the country is enjoying a state of prosperity—
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour what representations he has recently received from Scottish local authorities with regard to the operation of the Unemployment Acts; and whether he has any statement to make?
    Mr. Brown: I am not aware of any recent representations other than the communication from the Distressed Areas Conference, to which I referred in a reply to the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) on 28th April. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know what he has in mind.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that local authorities in Scotland have circularised Members of this House and of local bodies indicating that they are entirely dissatisfied with the attitude of the Minister of Labour?
    Mr. Brown: That is a different question. I am asked whether they have made representations to me, and the answer is "No."
    Mr. Davidson: Is the minister aware that in that report—
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. This is very important.
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that there are a large number of questions on the Paper.
    Mr. Davidson: But this is not a question; it is a point of Order. I made a statement that I as a Member of the
    1686
    House had received a circular from the Scottish local authorities indicating that they have met the Minister of Labour and are dissatisfied with his misrepresentations. The Minister has indicated that that is not so. I merely asked him in a supplementary—
    Mr. Speaker: No point of Order arises.

    PUBLIC WORKS, NEATH.
    Sir William Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether, in view of the large increase in the unemployed during the last few months in the Neath area and the Pontardawe area, due to the stoppage of the steel and tin and sheet mills, he will grant facilities to the local authorities to carry out essential works for public health purposes and improved public amenities, and make a substantial grant so that works of public importance may be carried out during the period of depression;
    (2) whether, in view of the closing down of tin and sheet mills in the Neath Rural District Council area at Aberdulais and Clyne, he will recommend a grant from the distressed areas fund for the Clyne parish council to carry out an urgent approved sewerage scheme to find immediate employment for the unemployed during the summer months?
    Mr. E. Brown: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to grants from the Special Areas Fund. The Commissioner for the Special Areas is not prepared to sponser works designed solely for the relief of unemployment. He is, however, prepared to give grants towards the cost of works, carried out by local authorities, which can be shown to be urgently necessary on grounds of public health. Under these arrangements he offered to the Neath Rural District Council on 18th November, 1936, a substantial grant towards the cost of a sewerage scheme to be carried out in the Clyne Parish. This offer has not yet been accepted by the local authority. There is no power to offer similar grants outside the Special Areas.
    Sir W. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rates in the Clyne parish are now 21s. 2d., and that if this scheme goes through it will mean that they will have to pay another 3s.?
    Mr. Brown: What is proposed is not an imposition but a grant. I understand

    1687
    that the local authority has been pressed on four or five occasions by the Ministry of Health for a decision, and they cannot come to a decision on it.
    Sir W. Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Minister of Health has laid down a condition that the whole rural district area has to bear the responsibility of the cost? Is he aware that some parishes are paying rates of 23s. 4d. and 27s. 8d. in the £, and that they have a special rate of 9s.; and that if the Minister's condition is enforced these highly rated parishes will have to share a portion of this additional burden?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware of these facts. The offer stands, and the practice that has been adopted is quite normal.

    BENEFIT (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORK).
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in some areas an impression exists amongst the unemployed that men volunteering for air-raid precautions work may lose their unemployment benefit as not being available for employment; and whether he will take steps to remove this impression?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have already had this matter under consideration, and propose to issue a statement on the subject at an early date.
    Mr. Storey: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that statement is made known to Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. Brown: It will be known generally. If the hon. Member wants the maximum publicity, perhaps he will consult with me and put another question in this House.

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES, SUNNISIDE, DURHAM.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Labour whether he can arrange for a subsidiary exchange to be opened at Sunniside, near Marley Hill, to cater for men displaced by closing down of coke ovens, instead of them having to travel to Dunston.
    Mr. E. Brown: I am afraid that the circumstances at Sunniside would not justify the opening of a separate office there.

    ASSISTANCE BOARD (REPORT).
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour when the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board will be available for Members?
    Mr. E. Brown: I anticipate that the report will be published about the middle of June.

    EXCHANGE SYSTEM.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to find employment for those now on the register; and whether he has any proposals to make in the near future?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the hon. Member is aware, the Employment Exchange System exists for the express purpose of bringing together employers who are in need of workpeople and workpeople who want work. Steps are constantly taken by publicity campaigns and in other ways to draw the attention of employers and work-people to the facilities offered by the Employment Exchanges, and it is my int0ntion to continue and develop this policy. In the year 1937 the number of vacancies filled by the Exchanges was 2,624,978.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister told the House several months ago that a committee was considering this matter, and has he not got any proposals arising out of its deliberations?
    Mr. Brown: I expect that we shall find an opportunity in a day or two to debate that point.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of health has already given us some indications?

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have gone to training centres from Northumberland during the years 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively; and, further, how many have been found work in these years?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that figures are not compiled and kept by the Department in such form as to enable me to answer the hon. Member's question as put. Certain figures are available, however, relating to the year 1937, which show that for the Northern Division (consisting of Northumberland, Durham,

    1689
    Westmorland and part of Yorkshire) 2,601 men were accepted by interviewing panels for training at Government training centres. In the same year about 97 per cent. of the men from the country as a whole who completed a course of training passed into employment.

  COST-OF-LIVING INQUIRY.
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has now completed the investigation into the cost-of-living index figure; and, if so, when does he propose to publish the result of this inquiry?
  Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour when the new Ministry of Labour index table is likely to be ready; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
  Mr. E. Brown: The inquiry into the distribution of working-class expenditure, which has been undertaken for the purpose of the revision of the basis of the cost-of-living index figures, was begun last October, and, as I have explained in previous replies, has to cover four separate weeks at quarterly intervals, in order that due account may be taken of the variations in expenditure at different seasons of the year. Budgets have been collected showing the expenditure of a large number of households in three of these weeks, in October, 1937, January, 1938, and April, 1938, respectively, and arrangements are being made to collect further budgets from the same households for a further week, in July. In addition, particulars of expenditure on clothing are being obtained, week by week, from a large number of households for a period of 12 months, ending in October, 1938. Statistics summarising the data collected will be published as soon as possible after the completion of these inquiries, but the subsequent revision of the index figures on the basis of the information obtained will take a considerable time, and I am not yet able to say by what date figures on a revised basis will be available for publication.
  Mr. Davies: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already received sufficient information to satisfy him that the present cost-of-living index figure is grossly misleading as regards the position of people
  1690
  on low wages and allowances from public authorities?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that this is the most comprehensive inquiry which has taken place on this question in the whole history of the world, and is being carried out as a result of the recommendations of the most powerful advisory committee, on which employers, employed and other persons are engaged. We intend to carry out this proposal, and to carry our plans to a successful conclusion with the co-operation, which we have had, I am glad to say, from many thousands of households.
  Mr. R. Gibson: Are investigations being carried on into the budgets of unemployed people, or are they restricted to families where the bread-winner is employed?
  Mr. Brown: The position is well understood. I have answered questions upon it a number of times. It was decided that the inquiry should be made of people in work
  Mr. McEntee: The Minister said that on the committee of inquiry there were employers, employed and other persons. I should like to ask who are the other persons?
  Mr. Brown: I shall be pleased to send the hon. Member a copy of the complete list, and he will see that, as the House knows, this is a most representative and powerful committee.
  Mr. McEntee: The question is, who are the others in addition to those who are employers or employés?

  CHICK-SEXING.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that there are fully-trained and skilled Englishmen able to determine chick-sexing, he will be prepared to reduce the number of permits of Japanese who are preventing Englishmen obtaining employment in this respect?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am advised by the Ministry of Agriculture that their information does not support the view that there are sufficient British chick-sexers who have attained the speed and accuracy necessary for commercial practice; but I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may have on the subject.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that I have no quarrel with Japanese chick-sexers, but am only anxious that Englishmen should have a priority of rights, because I believe in keeping British jobs for British boys?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will know that it is my duty as Minister of Labour to see that the British worker does get priority, and that policy is carried out, but I must point out to him that when in 1936 the National Poultry Council arranged a chick-sexing test for British poultry-keepers, none of those who presented themselves for the test was able to pass.
  Sir Adrian Baillieasked the Minister of Labour what is the present number of Japanese chick-sexers now in employment in this country; and what wages they are paid?
  Mr. Brown: According to the information in the possession of my Department, there are 18 Japanese chick-sexers at present employed, with permission, in this country. They are paid a salary of £1 a week, with free board and lodging, and a substantial fee is also paid in respect of each man to the Japanese Chick-Sexing Association, through which their services are obtained.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
  Mr. Dingle Footasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the recent decision of the divisional court in the case of Lewis v. Cattle; and whether it is his intention to introduce legislation amending the Official Secrets Acts?
  Mr. C. Wilsonasked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to amend the Official Secrets Act so as to limit its scope to the purpose originally intended, namely, the protection of the State and national interests?
  Mr. Kennedyasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to announce his intention to introduce legislation amending the Official Secrets Acts?
  Mr. Louis Smithasked the Home Secretary whether he has now decided what action he can take to meet the views of all British newspapers that the Official
  1692
  Secrets Act, 1920, needs amendment to prevent police use of this Measure which was never contemplated by the Government of the day which sponsored the Act?
  Mr. Stephenasked the Home Secretary what steps he intends to take to deal with the resolution forwarded to him by the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society with regard to the Official Secrets Act?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): In view of the length of the answer I will, with the permission of Mr. Speaker and the leave of the House, make a statement at the end of Questions.
  Later—
  Sir S. Hoare: I have given very careful consideration to this matter and have had the advantage of discussions with representatives of the newspaper proprietors and of the Institute of Journalists.
  There are two aspects of the matter. From the point of view of those who are concerned with the administration of justice, it is of the highest importance that information obtained by public servants in the course of their duty should not be disclosed, without authority, to other persons, and I regret to say that in recent years there have been a number of cases where matter has been published in the Press which has been based on information improperly, and in some cases corruptly, divulged and that the detection and prosecution of criminals has, as a result, been seriously hampered. From the point of view of the Press, I understand that their main apprehension is lest the use of the exceptional and drastic powers of interrogation conferred by Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, should come to be regarded as a matter of routine, and that they would like the Acts to be amended so as to apply only to cases involving the disclosure of military or naval secrets.
  The difficulty in the way of limiting the application of the Official Secrets Acts to naval or military secrets is that there are other secrets the disclosure of which might be equally prejudicial to the national interests, and it is impracticable to define by Statute the circumstances in which the use of the special powers of the Acts is warranted. I am, however, in a position to give assurances which I hope will remove all reasonable apprehensions. In

  1693
  1930 an undertaking was given by the then Attorney-General that the special powers of interrogation in respect of published matter would not be used, except after authorisation by the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State. I reaffirm that undertaking and I am prepared to amplify it by giving an assurance that the authority of the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State will only be given to the use of this power of interrogation in cases where the information disclosed is itself of serious public importance. This undertaking will be brought to the notice of all chief officers of police, and adequate steps will be taken to secure that they act in conformity with its terms. So far as Scotland is concerned, I am authorised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to say that, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure that the power will be similarly used in Scotland.
  I must, however, make this reservation. It is possible to conceive that leakages of confidential information of an official character might assume such proportions as to raise an issue of serious public importance even though the matter disclosed was not in itself of that character. In that event the Government would have to reserve to itself the right to make use of this power. I do not, however, think that there is any reason to apprehend that this will occur. I am confident that I can rely upon the co-operation of the Press in discouraging attempts to obtain official secrets by improper means from the police and other public servants, and I hope that the statement I have just made will remove any fears on the part of the Press that their legitimate liberties are endangered.
  Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the reply and the steps he is taking; but are we to understand from the reply that the right hon. Gentleman definitely rules out any question of amending legislation?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. The Government have considered the question very carefully and have come to the view that no amending legislation is required.
  Mr. Foot: Is it not the fact that, when the 1920 Act was passed, most definite
  1694
  assurances were given to the House on behalf of the Government of the day that Section 6 would apply only to spies and spying?
  Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member must read any statement of that kind with the context, and if he reads the Debates and the further comments made by the then Attorney-General in 1930, he will find that the undertaking I have given is fully in the spirit of that undertaking and that I have considerably amplified that statement.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I ask whether the assurance the right hon. Gentleman has given has any binding effect on his successors?
  Sir S. Hoare: That is always so in practice. It was so when the right hon. Gentleman's friends were in office in 1930 when the then Attorney-General made his statement on the subject.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are large numbers of men totally disabled by accidents or industrial diseases, and whose weekly compensation under the existing Acts are so low as to necessitate supplementary grants from the public assistance committees to bring their household resources up to that level; and whether he will take an early opportunity of introducing a new Workmen's Compensation Act so as to provide adequate payments to these disabled men and relieve the local authorities of this burden?
  Sir S. Hoare: I can assure the hon. Member that I am by no means unmindful of the position of the injured workman, but I regret that I can add nothing at present to previous statements.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that in my constituency alone there are 40 men totally disabled and upon inadequate pensions, being also assisted from public funds, and that there are 70 men disabled by silicosis getting much below 30s. a week; and will he consider removing from poor local authorities a burden which ought to be borne by rich industries and rich insurance companies?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly take into account the information which the hon. Gentleman has given me, but I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made.
  Mr. T. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to expedite the matter?
  Mr. Cassells: Will the right hon. Gentleman review the evidence adduced by various witnesses before the Stewart Committee for the information of Members of the House?
  Sir S. Hoare: That is obviously a matter which does not arise out of the question.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RECEIVER'S DEPARTMENT, WAGES).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Home Secretary whether all employés under the authority of the Receiver's Department of the Metropolitan Police are paid not less than the trade union rates appropriate to the class of labour appertaining in the district; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure the payment of such rates?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed by the Receiver that he is not aware of any case in which a person employed in his Department receives less than the appropriate trade union rate. If, however, the hon. Member knows of any such case, I shall be happy to cause inquiry to be made.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the rate less than 48s. per week?
  Mr. Straussasked the Home Secretary whether he will ask the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police to inquire into the adequacy of the wages, 48s. to 52s., paid to full-time male employés in the surveyors' branch of his Department?
  Sir S. Hoare: These rates which are paid to male cleaners at police stations were introduced only last January. They were fixed after full inquiry and are based on the rates paid for comparable work in Government Departments and by outside employers of similar labour. The question of their adequacy will be kept under review.
  Mr. McEntee: Are they being paid in accordance with a trade union scale?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that they are.
  Mr. McEntee: On what scale are they paid? My information is entirely different.
  Sir S. Hoare: If the hon. Gentleman will send me any information of that kind I shall be very glad to consider it.
  Mr. McEntee: If the right hon. Gentleman says they are paid in accordance with a scale surely he can say with what scale their pay is in accordance?

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Home Secretary whether he has examined the possibilities of trenches dug in parks, square gardens, and private gardens in city areas as an additional refuge in case of air attack; and whether any preliminary steps are being taken in this direction?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, and at the conference which I had recently with representatives of the local authorities I expressly drew their attention to this matter.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Are such preliminaries as the site of the trenches, the type of construction and who is to do the digging in case of emergency, being considered?
  Sir S. Hoare: They are being considered. I should prefer to deal with the whole question in a discussion rather than in answers to questions.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of the officially-expressed view that the main danger in aerial warfare comes from high-explosive and incendiary bombs rather than from gas, he has made any additional provision for grants for the building of bomb-proof shelters;
  (2) whether local authorities are required to provide bomb-proof shelters in their air-raid precaution schemes; and, if so, whether the Government grant will be on the scale proposed for the remaining expenditure?
  Sir S. Hoare: By the regulations made under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, the duty of providing such shelters as are necessary is placed upon the local authorities. The approved expenditure on such shelters will rank for grant, and the terms of the grant are settled by the Act.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister making any attempt to get adequate bomb-proof shelters or safety zones or experimenting with the transfer of the population to air-raid shelters and zones? Has he any plans at all?
  Sir S. Hoare: The question is very much in our minds, and I have asked the local authorities to expedite their surveys.
  Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister plans of any kind for experimenting with the transfer of the population from their homes to shelters or zones?
  Mr. Paling: Has the Minister made up his mind upon the principle of building shelters on a large scale?
  Sir S. Hoare: It is quite clear from the Act which was passed a comparatively short time ago that it is the duty of local authorities to provide shelters and such accommodation in their zones. I have asked them to expedite their surveys.
  Mr. Gallacher rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's question has been answered.
  Mr. Hepworthasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of taking a census of the capacity of underground accommodation in the principal towns of the country, with a view to ascertaining what accommodation of this type is available and suitable for use in connection with the air-raid precaution schemes?
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Home Secretary whether local authorities have been asked to complete their surveys of shelter accommodation by any definite date?
  Mr. Sandysasked the Home Secretary what guidance has been given to local authorities to assist them in making surveys of available shelter accommodation; what definition has been given of the terms "blast-proof "and "splinter-proof "; whether cellars and basements which, while not at present affording adequate protection, can be strengthened and adapted at small cost, are to be included in the survey; and, if so, whether the local authorities have been advised as to what sum per head it is reasonable
  1698
  to spend to strengthen and adapt such shelter accommodation?
  Sir S. Hoare: The general principles upon which the survey should be conducted were indicated in the circular of 28th March. Previous publications by the Home Office had described the methods by which shelter accommodation could be adapted to resist splinters and the consequences of blast. A further handbook which is being prepared in consultation with distinguished architects and others will be issued in the course of the next few weeks. Experience has shown that there are many cellars and basements which, with reasonable adaptation, can be made to serve as shelters. These will be included in the surveys that are being made by local authorities. In view of the wide variety of conditions it is obviously impracticable to indicate what sum per head should reasonably be spent in adapting such accommodation for shelter purposes. I have asked authorities to complete the surveys of the problem as far as possible by the end of July.
  Mr. Sandys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that surveyors in various boroughs have not been given any precise standards to work on, and that therefore the results of surveys in different parts will not agree with each other?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, I do not think that is the case. I have in my hand a circular which was issued to local authorities giving general directions.
  Mr. Sandys: Would my right hon. Friend say the date of it?
  Sir S. Hoare: 28th March.
  Mr. Fleming: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if any private owner has a cellar which is suitable for conversion into an air-raid shelter and converts it at his own cost, he is likely to have his assessment raised?
  Sir S. Hoare: That raises another question which is under consideration.
  Mr. Sandys: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the circular to which he referred gives no technical specification?
  Mr. Cartlandasked the Home Secretary how many local authorities have made arrangements with manufacturers who are carrying out direct armament

  1699
  contracts for the Government to provide protection for their workers against air-raid attacks?
  Sir S. Hoare: The Government consider it to be the obvious duty of all good employers to prepare air-raid precaution schemes for their personnel, and both the local authorities and officers of my Department are constantly in consultation with manufacturers and other employers of labour in the preparation of such schemes.
  Mr. Cartland: Can my right hon. Friend say how many local authorities are seeing that these employers are carrying out such works?
  Sir S. Hoare: I could not say precisely.
  Mr. Cartland: Would my right hon. Friend be able to find out the figures?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will consider that.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the right hon. Gentleman wants good employers to do this, and seeing that the Government is supposed to be the best employer, may I ask what provision is made in this connection when Government factories are being established?
  Mr. Priceasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that over 2,500 persons have volunteered to undertake air-raid precautions in the county of Gloucester; that there are only six instructors to deal with them; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?
  Sir S. Hoare: I presume the hon. Member has in mind instruction in anti-gas measures. For this there are available in Gloucester City and County 15 fully qualified instructors who have passed through a Home Office Civilian Anti-Gas School. In addition, as the House was informed on 27th April, steps are being taken to secure an immediate increase in the number of persons qualified to give preliminary instruction in anti-gas measures.
  Mr. Price: Would the Home Secretary, in the meantime, undertake to allow local authorities provisionally to instruct persons who can get on with the job, until the Home Office are ready with their permanent instructors? Further, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that not
  1700
  only anti-gas instruction, but instruction in many other matters, will be required?
  Sir S. Hoare: That is one of the questions which I discussed a fortnight ago with the representatives of the local authorities, and I hope very much that we shall be able greatly to expand the number of instructors by certain methods which I then suggested.
  Mr. Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the local authorities to take the initiative in the matter and give provisional instruction in the meantime?
  Sir S. Hoare: I think that the suggestions I made to the local authorities met with their approval. They were generally based on the principle of allowing the instructors who have been through the central school to give instruction in the localities to others who would then be able to act as local instructors.
  Mr. Ammon: Is it not a fact that one Metropolitan borough sent two officials for instruction, and was informed it was one too many?
  Mr. Gledhillasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to expedite the preparation of air-raid precautions schemes by local authorities, he will prepare and circulate to them a draft scheme suitable for an inland town of 150,000 inhabitants?
  Sir S. Hoare: The outline of a suggested general air-raid precautions scheme for a county borough was sent to local authorities with the circular of 28th March. There is, of course, considerable variation between the conditions of different areas, but a simple descriptive account of the basic organisation of all such schemes is in course of preparation, and in the meantime any local authority which is preparing a scheme under the Act and is in doubt how to proceed can obtain the help of the Regional Inspector of my Department. A sketch of a fire precautions scheme for a town of 80,000 inhabitants was issued last December, and I do not think the issue of any further model scheme is required.
  Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been arrived at respecting the rates of pay of volunteers for air-raid precautions services who would be employed whole-time in war; and, if so, whether he will cause the rates of pay to be given in the official leaflet issued by his Department on air-raid precautions?
  Sir S. Hoare: It is the intention of the Government that in the event of war members of public air-raid precautions services who are called up for whole-time duty will be paid, but it will be for the Government of the day to lay down the rates of pay that will be applicable.
  Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary what provision has been made for the payment of compensation to members of public air-raid precautions services injured during peace-time training?
  Sir S. Hoare: As stated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 30th November, the schemes of peace-time training of personnel for public air-raid precautions services, whether volunteers or volunteer employés of local authorities, should everywhere make adequate provision for compensation in the event of death or injury. For some time past such compensation has been available under insurance policies which local authorities can take out, the terms of the policies and the amount of the premium having been settled with the issuing companies by my Department. The question of providing this compensation by other methods is under consideration.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is adding an impossible burden to those which the local authorities already have to bear?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, that is not the case. This is one of the items which will rank for grant under the scheme.
  Captain Grahamasked the Home Secretary whether the Government or the local authorities intend to take powers to compel persons to strengthen or adapt suitable cellars or basements in order to render them proof against both splinters and the effects of blast?
  Sir S. Hoare: I do not propose at present to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope that all persons possessing accommodation which could be suitably used as shelter for the public will arrange with the local authorities to put such accommodation at their disposal in the event of emergency, and to allow such preparation of the shelter to be made in peace-time as may be required for this purpose.
  Captain Grahamasked the Home Secretary on what date local authorities were first asked to make a survey of buildings which could be rendered gas-proof?
  Sir S. Hoare: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. As he will realise, gas-proofing relates to particular rooms, and not to buildings as a whole, and the survey which local authorities have been asked to make is concerned primarily with the provision of shelter against blast and splinters.
  Mr. Hepworthasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations sent from the National Federation of Property Owners suggesting exemption from additional rating of air-raid shelters; and whether, in accordance with the suggestion made, he will introduce a one-clause Bill to give effect to this policy?
  The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): As has been stated in previous replies, this matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement upon it.
  Mr. Sandysasked the Home Secretary how it is proposed to provide shelter for those persons whose houses are shown by the survey, in connection with air-raid precautions, to be incapable of affording reasonable protection?
  Sir S. Hoare: By the Regulations made under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, the duty of providing such shelters as are necessary is placed upon the local authorities. My hon. Friend is aware that I have asked authorities to conduct a survey of the problem in their areas, so that they may ascertain the number of persons likely to be exposed in the streets and the numbers who are in houses in which additional protection cannot be given. I have also asked them to make a survey of the accommodation available in their area which, with some adaptation in peace-time, could be used as shelter accommodation in war-time, and I have more recently indicated the need of planning for a deep trench system in all open spaces in or near centres of population. When plans on these lines have been completed it will be possible for the local authority to see whether it is necessary to provide any specially constructed shelter accommodation.
  Mr. Sandys: Can my right hon. Friend answer the real point of the question, that is, is it the intention of the Government to see that these people who cannot afford proper accommodation will have some kind of blast-proof shelter provided for them?
  Sir S. Hoare: If my hon. Friend will read my answer, he will see that I did deal with that.
  Mr. Simmonds: Is it possible, in regard to these shelters, to start construction in some cases, even though the survey cannot be completed?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will consider the suggestion.
  Mr. Sandysasked the Home Secretary whether rural and other areas which may be considered relatively immune from air attack have been asked to make surveys of the accommodation they could provide for people who may be evacuated from more dangerous areas in time of war?
  Sir S. Hoare: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind what are sometimes called billeting surveys. No instructions for these to be made have yet been issued. They form a part of the problem of evacuation which is at present being actively studied. I do not think that premature requests to local authorities to consider isolated aspects of the problem would be useful.
  Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that some measure of evacuation will undoubtedly be necessary would it not expedite the whole preparation of air-raid precautions, to allow the survey to proceed at the same time as that for air-raid shelters?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am inclined to think it would not.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Would it not be wise to take immediate steps to prevent this problem of evacuation becoming even more serious by preventing new industries from continuously concentrating in the London area, and by dispersing the industries and population over a wider area?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am not responsible for this.
  Mr. Griffiths: The Government are.
  Mr. De la B ère: Is not the air-raid precautions scheme the greatest fiasco ever known?
  Mr. Louis Smithasked the Home secretary the percentage of industrial workers in Great Britain for whom adequate air-raid protection has been provided by their employers or for whom such provision is now actually in hand?
  Sir S. Hoare: I regret that this information is not available. It is the duty of all employers to make suitable arrangements for the protection of their workpeople, but they can obtain advice and assistance from the local authorities or from my Department.
  Mr. Smith: Having regard to the apparently slow progress made in this matter, will my right hon. Friend consider calling a meeting of representative employers to see what can be done?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am certainly prepared to consider that suggestion; whether the time has come for it or not, I am not quite sure.
  Mr. Simmonds: Is progress not bound to be slow while no allowance is made under Schedule B of the Income Tax?

  CRUELTY TO MONKEY, LIVERPOOL.
  Mr. Radfordasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case of gross cruelty at Liverpool, in which a boy aged 12 so ill-treated a captive monkey that its owner found it lying dead with head injuries, including extensive bruising on the face and several teeth missing; that the magistrates imposed the maximum penalty of 40s., expressing regret that they could not order birching; and, in view of this and similar cases, whether he will introduce legislation to enable magistrates to order birching in such cases?
  Sir S. Hoare: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, there are, as my hon. Friend knows, differences of opinion as to the efficacy of corporal punishment in such cases, and the matter is discussed in the report of the recent Committee on Corporal Punishment.
  Mr. Radford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the very least we owe to helpless creatures like this little monkey is all the protection that can be given by our laws; and, if so, does he think that a paltry fine as a maximum punishment is a reasonable deterrent?
  Sir S. Hoare: It would not be proper for me to comment on the decision of the magistrates, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that several alternatives were open to them and that they, for their own reasons, chose this one. As to the general question which he raises, I should prefer to deal with it in a discussion rather than in answers to questions.
  Mr. Radford: Was it within the power of these magistrates to have that boy birched, if they had so desired?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, I do not think it was.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Is not this case obviously of a type more suitable for mental treatment than for physical?

  ARCHITECTURE (SCHOLARSHIPS).
  Mr. Viantasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Architects' Registration Council possessed over £ 3,000 earmarked for scholarship funds in June, 1934, when application was made to Parliament for relief of the obligation, and that the passing of the Architects' Registration Act, 1934, deprived children of the opportunity to secure scholarships in architecture; and whether he will give the House details of how the sums diverted from their original purpose were expended?
  Sir S. Hoare: The Act of 1931 made no provision for the expenditure involved in setting up the registration system before any revenue from registration fees became available. To remedy this omission Parliament by the Act of 1934 authorised the postponement for two years of the requirement that half the fees shall be devoted to the provision of scholarships. Consequently the money becomes available to enable the Council to meet its expenses and liabilities. I have no responsibility for the Council's expenditure, and cannot undertake to give information about its accounts.
  Mr. Viantasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any explanation of the fact that, out of the scholarship fund of 1935 under the Architects Registration Act, 1931, £308 10s. was charged to administrative expenses and only £156 10s. to actual scholarships, and that in 1936 £550 was taken from the scholarship fund for administrative expenses and only £530 used for actual scholarships; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this frustration of the intention of Parliament that at least half the total amount of the fees received in each calendar year under the Act of 1934 should be devoted to the provision of scholarships and maintenance grants?
  Sir S. Hoare: The Architects Registration Council, which is a professional body to which Parliament, by the Act of 1931, entrusted certain powers and duties, is not answerable to me for its proceedings, but I am informed that the Council has adopted the plan of forming a reserve fund for scholarships, and that the figures quoted by the hon. Member ignore the amounts placed to this reserve.
  Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the scholarships awarded under the Architects Registration Act have in the main been given to persons over 17 years of age; and whether he will take steps to see that in future awards are given to assist children of school-leaving age to enter the architectural profession?
  Sir S. Hoare: The Act of 1931 provided for the appointment of a representative body as a Board of Architectural Education, and the question at what age young persons can best derive advantage from the training made available through these scholarships is one for this body, which includes representatives of the teaching profession and the universities and the schools of architecture throughout the country.

  ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION ACT.
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been call to a recent resolution of the Architects' Registration Council to the effect that, in view of the several ambiguities in the Act, amending legislation is necessary; and whether he will take steps to secure the removal of these ambiguities and inequalities of the existing law?
  Sir S. Hoare: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Does the Bill which is to be discussed to-morrow on Report in fact remove the ambiguities and inequities, in view of the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary on Second Reading?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. It is a private Member's Bill.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's Under-Secretary, when the Bill was being discussed on Second Reading, say that it would receive careful consideration from the Government, and every assistance in the Committee stage?
  Sir S. Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I have received a resolution on the subject. I have not.

  CYPRUS.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent agreement entered into between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, he will give particulars of whether it is proposed to modify or make any alterations in the project for fortifying the island of Cyprus?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Government have not approved any project for fortifying the island of Cyprus. The question, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient protective measures have been taken in case of any air attack on the Island?

  CABINET.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that eight Members of the Cabinet are Members of the House of Lords, he proposes to take any action in the matter; and whether he proposes to take action to ensure that those Secretaries of State who are Members of the House of Lords shall not exceed two in number?
  Sir J. Simon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no statement to make on this subject at present.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT).
  Mr. Neil Macleanasked the Prime Minister wheher he will make an early statement to the House of the details, financial or otherwise, of any agreement recently concluded with the Government of Northern Ireland?
  Sir J. Simon: Arrangements are being made for the circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the terms of a Memorandum which embodies the Agreement reached with the Government of Northern Ireland on certain financial matters. As the House will be aware, a statement on these matters was made by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Parliament on 26th April. No other agreement, financial or otherwise, has recently been concluded with the Government of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Maclean: Will the Memorandum be submitted to this House, so that the House may decide?
  Sir J. Simon: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Memorandum, he will see its nature.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May the Memorandum include a clear statement showing the added cost to the British Exchequer of the agreement?
  Sir J. Simon: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the Memorandum. If there is any question that it is desired to raise on it, perhaps it can be raised later.
  Following is the memorandum:
  MEMORANDUM embodying the Agreement reached with the Government of Northern Ireland on certain financial matters.

  1. Despite the fact that agriculture in Northern Ireland is a Transferred Service, it is agreed that where agricultural subsidies are granted in Great Britain and circumstances are such as to justify corresponding subsidies in Northern Ireland, no objection will be raised to the cost being borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain. The application of this principle in individual cases will form the subject of inter-Departmental discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Northern Ireland so far as may be necessary.

  1709

  2. Under present circumstances it is not considered that there is any prospect of a deficit on the Northern Ireland Budget during the period of the proposed Trade Agreement with Eire. If, however, in some future and different circumstances there were a deficit on the Northern Ireland Budget which was not the result of a standard of social expenditure higher than that of Great Britain nor the result of a standard of taxation lower than that of Great Britain, the United Kingdom Government agree that it would be equitable that means should be found to make good this deficit in such a way as to ensure that Northern Ireland should be in a financial position to continue to enjoy the same social services and have the same standards as Great Britain.

  3. So long as the Trade Agreement with Eire is in force, the United Kingdom Government will not exercise their right to reopen the question of the amount of the contribution of the United Kingdom Exchequer under the Northern Ireland Unemployment Insurance Agreement of the 29th April, 1935, if such a contribution exceeds £ 1,000,000.

  GERMAN REFUGEE.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the case of Alfred Torge, a German subject who has escaped to this country; and does he intend to make a deportation order in his case?
  Sir S. Hoare: The case is under investigation. I hope very shortly to be able to reach a decision.

  FIRE BRIGADES (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Home Secretary what is the present estimated expenditure in Great Britain on fire brigades; and what are the principal sources of revenue to meet this expenditure?
  Sir S. Hoare: The expenditure on fire brigade services by local authorities in England and Wales during the year 1935–36 was £2,419,092. Precisely comparable figures for Scotland are not available, but the last published statistics show that in the year 1933–34 the expenditure on fire brigade services in Scotland amounted to £225,363. The main sources
  1710
  of revenue from which such expenditure is met are the local rates, the block grants, which are, of course, in aid of local expenditure generally, and payments received by the fire brigades for services rendered.

  EDUCATION (SWIMMING INSTRUCTION).
  Mr. Shortasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any recent decision has been taken by the Board against teaching swimming to boys and girls between eight and 11 years; and, if so, when was this decision communicated to education authorities?
  Mr. T. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on whose authority His Majesty's inspector threatened to withhold the Government grant to the county borough of Doncaster unless they discontinued swimming lessons during school hours to boys and girls between the ages of eight and 11 years; and, in view of the resentment expressed by many parents, will he reconsider the matter?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): No new decision on this matter has been taken by the Board, but, as stated in their Syllabus of Physical Training for schools issued in 1933, they are of the opinion that where facilities for swimming are limited, as at Doncaster, preference should be given to children over 10 or 11 years of age. The arrangements at Doncaster were open to criticism on the grounds that after the age of nine only those children who had already learnt to swim were allowed to attend the baths in school hours, with the result that a large percentage of children in the senior schools were unable to swim; and the absence of groups of children from the classes, caused disorganisation in the schools. His Majesty's inspector pointed out that, for these reasons, the scheme was unsatisfactory, and stated that unless an amended scheme was submitted he would be unable to certify that the conditions of grant had been fulfilled. It has now been agreed that the limited facilities available for swimming instruction can best be used by sending all the first-year senior children instead of the first-year junior children.
  Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Member aware that all the parents of children between eight and 11, who have been enjoying these facilities for the past two years, are very resentful at the decision of the inspector, or his Department? Will he have the matter reconsidered, in view of the general request made by the parents?
  Mr. Lindsay: I am satisfied that the best result has been obtained. The fact is that there is a shortage of swimming accommodation. There are only two baths for 10,000 school children. Under the authority's scheme not one class attended as a whole, and this obviously disorganised the schools.
  Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Member aware that the education committee are of opinion that if they are given power to do so they can reorganise the swimming lessons, so that all children between eight and 11, and onward, can have their swimming lessons in school hours; and is he aware that the parents much prefer that children between eight and 11 should secure swimming lessons under the guidance of their teachers? Will he allow reorganisation on those lines?
  Mr. Lindsay: I will certainly look at the matter again, but it has been pretty well gone into. I think it is very much better that classes should not be disorganised, and that you should get the maximum number of swimmers, and not merely the experts.
  Mr. Short: As this is a question of organisation, will the hon. Gentleman not instruct His Majesty's inspectors to go into the matter more fully, having regard to the resentment of the parents?
  Mr. Lindsay: I will certainly go into it more fully, but the inspector has gone into it in very great detail.
  Mr. T. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many county borough education committees allow boys and girls between eight and 11 years of age to have swimming instruction during the recognised school hours?
  Mr. Lindsay: The Board have collected no statistics on this subject.
  Mr. Williams: How can the Board reach decisions relating to swimming instruction if they know nothing about it?
  Mr. Lindsay: We know a great deal about it. As a general rule, the younger a child learns to swim the better; but where it is going to disorganise the whole school it is not always possible to adhere to that rule.
  Mr. McEntee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities are, in fact, building children's swimming baths; and will he encourage other local authorities to do the same?

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Health how many county councils have been warned by his Department since 1931 about their alleged excessive expenditure on public assistance; and in how many cases the scales were reduced following upon such representations?
  Sir K. Wood: Since 1931 criticisms of items of expenditure upon public assistance have appeared in the reports of district auditors to 16 county councils, and, where necessary, have been the subject of subsequent correspondence by my Department. None of these cases called for the reduction of scales of relief.
  Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman communicates with public assistance authorities who are spending more than he thinks they ought to, why does he not communicate with public assistance authorities who are spending less than he thinks they ought to?
  Sir K. Wood: I can only rely on the reports which we receive from the auditors.
  Mr. Williams: Are we to understand that the auditors who have sent in reports only report on alleged excess expenditure, and never on mean and niggardly allowances?
  Sir K. Wood: We have discussed this matter before.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE SUBSIDY, DURHAM.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Health the average amount of subsidy per house paid by the Treasury for houses built under the Housing (Slum-Clearance) Act by local authorities in the county of Durham since the passing of the Act?
    Sir K. Wood: The Exchequer contributions referred to are based on the number of persons displaced from unfit property for whom accommodation in new houses is provided. Up to 31st March, 1938, the contributions promised to local authorities in the county of Durham are equivalent to an average of £ 10 per house per annum for 40 years.

    INSANITARY DWELLINGS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the inconveniences suffered by tenants occupying small houses and flats through the insanitary conditions and bad state of repair into which the landlords and owners have allowed them to get in spite of the fact that they are charging an extra sum of 40 per cent. on pre-war rental to cover repairs, he will consider introducing legislation to amend the present Housing Acts so as to remedy such conditions?
    Sir K. Wood: Local authorities have wide powers in this matter, and I will send the appropriate references to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Day: Is this a matter for consideration when legislation is contemplated; and can the right hon. Gentleman say when that will take place?

    GARDENS AND POULTRY-KEEPING.
    Sir A. Baillieasked the Minister of Health how his memorandum, number 1697, with regard to the desirability of providing garden plots and suitable spaces for poultry-keeping for the tenants of subsidised houses has been received by the local authorities?
    Sir K. Wood: This communication was only recently issued and I have as yet not received any communications from local authorities in the matter.

    HISTORIC BUILDINGS (PRESERVATION).
    Mr. Joelasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the anxiety of members of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England that the time allowed between the closing order in connection with slum-clearance work and the taking effect of the demolition order should be increased to three months to permit of more time for efforts to be made to ensure the preservation of picturesque and interesting old buildings; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir K. Wood: I have received a number of representations to the effect that further measures are desirable to ensure adequate exploration of the possibilities of reconditioning houses before demolition orders become operative. The question whether administrative improvements for this purpose are called for is now under consideration at my request by the Housing Advisory Committee.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health the reasons which induced him to allow the same capitation fee to panel doctors under the national health insurance scheme in respect of insured persons between 14 and 16 years of age, when no medical certification is necessary, as is paid from 16 and upwards when medical certificates are issued, whilst at the same time allowing only 1s. 9d. per annum to approved societies by way of administration expenses in respect of these younger persons when 4s. 6d. per annum is regarded as reasonable to cover those over 16 years of age?
  Sir K. Wood: This matter was recently examined by a court of inquiry, and the fee fixed was in accordance with their recommendations.
  Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman offered terms very much below those mentioned in the question, and has he not succumbed to the demand of the doctors for better terms?
  Sir K. Wood: No. This matter was investigated by a court of arbitration.
  Mr. Macquisten: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the medical profession are spending large sums on pasteurisation propaganda? It is their own money, and does not fall on anybody else.
  Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sum is not sufficient for the work done, and will he revise it?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    TINNED COOKED FOODS.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Health whether, for the guidance of the public, he will make an authoritative statement as to the nutritive value, or otherwise, of tinned cooked foods in view

    1715
    of the diverse views held by medical authorities on this subject?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not in a position to make any detailed statement on the matter referred to. I may say, however, that the results of research already carried out and still in progress are such as to suggest that the nutritive value of tinned cooked foods is generally similar to that of the corresponding foods cooked in the ordinary way.

    MILK (PASTEURISATION).
    Mr. Woodsasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the statement made by the Chief Medical Officer to the Ministry of Health in a recent public health report that clean raw milk is not necessarily safe milk, he proposes to take this view into account in considering further legislation dealing with pasteurised milk?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer the hon. Member to the proposals regarding compulsory pasteurisation which are set out in the White Paper on Milk Policy, issued in July last. I cannot add to what is there stated in advance of the introduction of legislation.

    MATERNITY CENTRE (MARLEY HILL).
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Health whether arrangements can be made to establish a maternity centre at Marley Hill and thus prevent women having to travel the long distance to the Dunston centre?
    Sir K. Wood: I am in communication with the Durham County Council, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    AMBULANCES.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of complaints that where ambulances are required to convey people to hospital, delay is caused by the ambulance being out of condition or the shortage of petrol; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I have received no such complaint, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case of such delay I will gladly make inquiries.

  SCHOOL PREMISES (RATING).
  Sir W. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health if he will give the method of the
  1716
  rating of school premises in England and Wales, each separately; the highest and lowest in elementary, senior, and secondary schools; and how private schools, which are grant earning, are rated in both areas?
  Sir K. Wood: I have no jurisdiction in the determination of assessments for rates and no information as to the assessments placed upon schools. I am sending the hon. Member an extract from the recommendations of the Central Valuation Committee dealing with the assessment of public elementary and secondary schools. I understand that the methods adopted in Wales do not differ from those used in England. As regards the last part of the question, it will be appreciated that the circumstances of private schools vary widely. I understand that the method of assessment adopted is governed by the circumstances of the case.

  REPATRIATED NECESSITOUS BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health whether the Government will consider making arrangements with local authorities for financially assisting necessitous British subjects who have been repatriated from countries where there is at present political upheaval, such as China and Austria, under similar conditions to those arrangements made with regard to repatriated British subjects from Spain?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. No need to consider special arrangements in respect of countries other than Spain has arisen.
  Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these people are in a state of destitution?
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me any particulars he may have in his possession.

  JOINT STOCK BANKS (DEPOSITS).
  Mr. Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there has been an unequal rise in deposits of the principal joint stock banks in recent months, indicating attempts on the part of some to attract foreign balances; and

  1717
  whether, in view of the tendency to instability to which this gives rise, he will consider what action he can take in the matter?
  Sir J. Simon: Divergencies between the experience of individual banks may be due to a large number of factors, quite apart from the question of foreign balances. The movement of deposits in the last six months has been slightly downwards on the whole. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  SECRET SERVICE (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. C. Wilsonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amounts expended upon the Secret Service for each of the last 10 years?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer the hon. Member to the Table on pages 67 and 68 of the Memorandum on the Civil and Revenue Department Estimates for the current financial year (House of Commons Paper No. 57— Memo.).
  Mr. Wilson: Does that give the figures for the 10 years?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir, from 1929.

  ARMORIAL BEARINGS (LICENCE DUTIES).
  Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of revenue collected by local authorities in licence duties on armorial bearings and the cost of collecting such duties?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The receipts by local authorities for the year ended 31st March, 1937 (the latest year for which figures are available) were £32,840. The cost to the Post Office of issuing licences cannot be precisely estimated, as the work is largely bound up with the issue of other kinds of local taxation licences, but on a pro rata basis it may be put at £ 500 per annum. This does not include any cost which may be incurred by local authorities on inspection and enforcement, but this cost is believed to be negligible.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICIAL JOURNEYS, AIRCRAFT).
  Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the heads of any Government Departments are authorised, in the interests of public efficiency and expedition, to make use of aeroplanes for distant journeys; and whether, in that case, he can state the circumstances?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Heads of Government Departments may authorise their officers to travel on duty by aircraft operated by a company registered in the British Empire if the cost of the journey, allowing for any saving of subsistence allowance, is not greater than the cost by other available means of transport, or otherwise if they consider that the urgency of the business or the saving of official time clearly justifies the extra cost of air travel. Journeys on duty by foreign aircraft are allowed only in exceptional circumstances and before undertaking such journeys officers must obtain express authority to do so.

  NATIONAL AND TATE GALLERIES (LOAN OF PICTURES).
  Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the large number of pictures which are hardly, if ever, shown at the Tate or National Galleries, arrangements can be made for an improved system for the loaning of such pictures to provincial art galleries and schools on the lines of the Rutherston loan scheme operated by the Manchester Art Gallery authorities?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The pictures at the National Gallery not shown on the exhibition floor (some 500 in number) are arranged so that they can be readily seen by the public on application and there are frequent exchanges between them and pictures in the exhibition galleries. The Tate Gallery has some 580 pictures in store (excluding water colours and drawings) but a large number of these are, under the National Gallery (Loan) Act. 1883, not available for loan. The number at present on loan is about 100 from the National Gallery and 445 from the Tate Gallery. The authorities of the National Gallery have

  1719
  frequently tried to increase their figure of loans but the results have been disappointing. My hon. Friend will appreciate that because of age and delicacy a substantial number of the pictures could not in any case be loaned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business is to be taken next week?
Sir J. Simon: Monday. —Committee stage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill; Second Reading of the Welsh Church Amendment Bill [Lords], and, if there is time, Report and Third Reading of the Patents (International Conventions) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday.—Supply, Committee (6th Allotted Day). The Estimates for the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board will be considered.
Wednesday.—Second Reading of the Air Navigation Bill Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Motion to approve the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order.
Thursday.—Second Reading of the Herring Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday.—Consideration of Private Members' Bills. This will be the last of the Fridays available during the present Session for the Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

BILL PRESENTED.
IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL,
"to enable the Treasury and the Postmaster-General to carry out certain arrangements made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with Cable and Wireless, Limited, and in connection with those arrangements to amend the law with respect to the calculation of the Post Office net surplus; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Colville; supported by the Postmaster-General, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, and Lord Stanley; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 117.]

BILLS REPORTED.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TUNNEL AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (KEIGHLEY) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

WEST SURREY WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Lee Conservancy Bill [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Duncan, Sir Francis Fremantle, Major Rayner, and Mrs. Tate; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Chorlton, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Goldie, and Mr. John Morris.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Fire Brigades Bill): the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Mr. Bernays, Mr. Charles Brown, Sir Thomas Cook, Mr. Elliot, Dr. Haden Guest, Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Maitland, Mr. blander, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Wedderburn, and Mr. Westwood.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.
Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Marriage Bill): Sir John Withers; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Geoffrey Ellis.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridgwater Extension) Bill, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDGWATER EXTENSION) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [5th Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain Bourne in the Chair.]

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1938 [Progress].

    Air Ministry.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £ 1,490,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Air Ministry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939."
    The Deputy-Chairman: Before I call on the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) I think it will be the general wish of the Committee that as great an amount of latitude as is possible should be given in the Debate. If the Committee approve we will take that course.
    3.53 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Seely: I beg to move, "That Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages, etc.), be reduced by £ 100."
    I fully realise the seriousness of an Amendment of this kind at the present moment, but the feeling not only on all sides of the House but everywhere in the country is so serious on this matter that I make no apology for moving a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for Air. Of course one cannot attack the Ministry, and that is one of the reasons why we have to move against the Minister himself. I do not want it to be felt that by moving a reduction in the salary of the Minister we are achieving anything we want to achieve. The difficulties which have led up to this Debate do not come entirely from the Air Minister but from other Ministers on the Front Bench, and what they have said on this question. Everyone must certainly feel a good deal of disquiet after reading the leading article in the "Times "to-day. It uses very strong words and, although I do not propose to quote very much, let me read these words to the Committee:
    "This discovery is the more unpleasant because many intervening pronouncements had given the impression that all was going smoothly. As a matter of fact, it
    1750
    is now realised that neither the former programme nor the existing system of production is adequate."
    There is no doubt that the House and the country have been led by what the "Times "leader calls "intervening pronouncements" into a feeling of false security. Let me quote one sentence from a speech of the Prime Minister on 5th February:
    "I think the only anxiety which is felt about it is whether it is going fast enough or far enough. I do not think there is any cause for serious anxiety on that score."
    It is this sort of pronouncement which has led many people to believe that those who have challenged the Air Minister's statement have not the same information, and that therefore they are wrong and the Government must be right, but many people have been alarmed at the sudden announcement, made after these reassuring speeches that we have had to go to America to buy aeroplanes. That certainly came as a shock. It was never mentioned in any of the earlier debates and is only further evidence, of what many people already knew, of the complete failure of the system under which we are working. We are going to ask in this Debate, and seek to prove, that there must be a committee of inquiry into what is happening in order to decide whether there should or should not be what we believe to be necessary, that is, a ministry of supply. We do not believe that the problem, big as it is, will ever be satisfied by any of the schemes however great they may appear when outlined in this House. After all, it is not from one side that you get this protest. You get it from the manufacturers of engines, from the manufacturers of air frames and ancillary parts—all are protesting against the Ministry. If everybody is protesting you cannot believe that there is no case to be made out.
    Let me mention, in passing, the Cadman Report which dealt entirely with the civil side of aviation and which made serious reflections on the Air Ministry. The defence put up by the Prime Minister was that, after all, the Air Ministry had had to do, and were doing, such extraordinary work that they had not the time to deal with civil aviation. There was no mention then of having to go to America to get aeroplanes. Naturally people thought that the reason we went to America for aeroplanes was because we had had the

    1751
    Cadman Committee reporting so severely on the whole system in the Air Ministry. I know, of course, that there is always the difficulty with Service departments that when you try to find out the truth you so often get the reply that it is not in the public interest to disclose certain facts. What is the public interest? By all means withhold information if to publish it is not in the public interest, but now one is beginning to see that it was not in the interest of the Air Ministry to disclose certain facts which would have proved that they were not carrying out what they said 'they were doing, and, what is even more serious, would prove that they were not able to carry it out in the future. We must face up to certain facts which we know and which must be stated, because it is replies of the kind I have mentioned which can lull people into feeling that everything is all right, and that is where there is danger.
    Of course the original blame attaching to the Air Ministry is due to the fact that when it started it was a young Ministry, younger than the other two, that the system under which it was established was a war-time system, and that afterwards when it was reduced it was not staffed as the other Ministries were, it was not aided by tradition, not aided by being entrenched in many ways with centuries of experience. Therefore, it is a Ministry which has not had an easy life. The system that then grew up is a matter of importance now, because as soon as expansion began the system should have been changed. It may be that it is to be changed now; that we shall hear later. How it could have been imagined that any expansion of the Air Force could have been completed under the old system is beyond me. The Air Ministry have two main persons, an Air Member for Supply and Organisation, and an Air Member for Research and Development. They are both serving soldiers and are at the Ministry for only three years. Neither of them is an engineer. These are two heads. There is a great shortage in the Air Force of engineer-officers. Because of the split side of the two main sections, repair and maintenance, the most vital section of the technical organisation, have no say in the ordering of spares. There are too few serving officers in the technical
    1752
    department. They are working long hours; they have to deal with very technical questions without the time in which to deal with them properly, and they are unable to give any decision. There has also been the difficulty that far too many departments had to be consulted. No one was able to give a definite ruling. It is known throughout the Air Ministry and Air Force that conferences and committees sitting at the Air Ministry are unwieldy and that they hold up procedure. Of course, if you have a system like that where everyone is working through different committees and has to apply to different people, confusion arises and you never get any one person taking a decision.
    There is one serious matter which constantly arises. It is the question of finance. There were so few financial members who had power to authorise any action that a decision was again and again held up because it was not authorised. If the Government are going to alter that system, which I presume the Chancellor of the Duchy will say is the intention, I cannot see how it can be done unless they are going to alter it completely and have an engineer civil head at the top and under him engineers who will remain in their position. There is one further really serious point. I do not think that if you reorganise the Ministry to-day you are really going to get what you want. What are we facing to-day? It is no good our blinking our eyes to the facts. Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, told us that the ideal to be aimed at was Air Force parity with any other single nation abroad.
    Mr. Churchill: Any nation within striking distance.
    Sir H. Seely: Yes, any nation within striking distance. But parity may be turned into meaning many things. There is only one kind of parity which the people of this country understood the late Prime Minister to mean, a parity which will give security, and that is parity in front-line aeroplanes as against any other nation. We are dealing to-day with Germany. Whether we like it or not she has an enormous number of aeroplanes. I believe she has some 8,000 machines at the present time. That means something like 3,500 front-line machines, and Germany has the power to produce 400 or 500 a month. Nor is she working now

    1753
    at full capacity. That is the serious matter that we have to face. We have been told and have read that within a year or less there will be in Germany something like 6,000 first-line aeroplanes. That is what we have to contemplate. What are the Government trying to do in order to achieve parity? We have had all sorts of schemes; I do not know whether the letter reached now is H or L. The latest of these schemes will bring us in two years' time up to 2,700 frontline machines. Judging from the past I cannot see that we shall be in a much better position, although the Ministry may make a spurt now. I do not believe they can achieve this object, but even if they do achieve it have they then got parity? We shall have only 2,700 front-line machines. Germany has 3,500 to-day and will then have between 6,000 and 8,000. Any scheme that the Government lay down must produce that greater number and not merely the number of aeroplanes which we are promised.
    As I have said, the Prime Minister seems satisfied. But there are other Ministers with whom one has had to deal. When the First Commissioner of Works was Under-Secretary of State for Air in this House we put the questions to him, "Why are you not getting on with these machines? What is happening with the prototypes? When are they to be delivered? "He used to tell us how much he had altered the original scheme. In March, 1937, he said:
    "The Air Ministry took the risk—a deliberate risk—of placing production orders for new types before their prototypes had been built and tested. This will meet the objection which I have often heard from hon. Members as to the length of time that it took to put a machine into production. Under this latter policy it was inevitable that some of the ' teething troubles 'which are usually associated with the prototype should manifest themselves in some of the first production machines."
    He also said:
    "This new method has proved incomparably quicker than the old. We have, in fact, more than halved the time that it took to bring a new machine into production."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1937; col. 1673, 321.]
    We were then asking him questions about certain machines, the prototype of which we knew was out, and we were put off with that sort of statement. Let me take one or two cases. Take the Hawker-Hurricanes. Seventy or 80 Members of this House were asked to inspect them.
    1754
    We had a royal inspection, with photographs in the newspapers, and there was an immense amount of propaganda, put out about these machines. We had been asking about these machines, as to when production should be given and when would they be completed? Of course, we never could get the information. What are the facts? This is a matter on which the whole of our case depends. On 3rd June, 1936, we were told that an order had been given for 340 and more. That is some two years ago. We see the news in the papers now. Can the Minister deny that there are only 28 in service? Yet we are told that everything is all right. That machine will be out of date, for it is not even now in production. At the station where it is at the present time they are still sending up modifications, and you cannot get production as long as there are modifications coming in.
    Take another machine about which I have asked questions, the "Spitfire," which is supposed to be more modern. Here again we expected something. In March, 1936, we asked, "Is it going into production? "We have been put off. What are the facts? Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that there is only one machine, that is all? Take next the question of types. This is a point about which I am certain, and so is every person who has anything to do with industry—certain that the Government will always fail if they try to produce too many types. We have said that if numbers are wanted the Government have to narrow down the number of types. I believe that the number of types which the Air Ministry have at the present time, for which jigs have been set up and plans worked out, is 93. I do not say that all these are being made, or even that it is contemplated that they will be made. The Noble Lord may answer me by giving the figure as 4o, or he may produce the figure of 27. If he does that, it will be another position, but the system of types will still be there, and even if only 27 are being manufactured, the figure is too large if we are to get production comparable with that of an enemy within striking distance.
    I come now to the question of gun turrets. Here again, we have been told that the Ministry are very much behind-hand. The Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that there

    1755
    are to-day 34 different types of gun turrets, I believe it is hoped to get the number down to six or seven, but the number I have given is the one with which the Ministry are dealing at the present time. It will take a long time to decide on the types, set up the jigs, and arrange for the factories to produce them in the numbers required. Until you have made that decision and got rid of the idea of dealing with this large number of types, you will not get the production that is necessary for the Service. There is then the question of guns, which is a very serious matter, and one on which many hon. Members and many people in the country have been led astray. The modern gun in the Royal Air Force at the present time is the 1914 Vickers. The Noble Lord may say that we have a new gun now, the Browning gun, and he may say what a wonderful gun it is and tell us of all that it can do; but is he satisfied about how it is turning out and the reports which he is receiving? If you are to get this gun satisfactory, you have to arrange for making 10,000 belt links a week. In America they are making 35,000 a day.
    That is the position which one finds throughout the Royal Air Force. At every station one finds that the demand is about four times the supply. I do not believe that that position can be met without creating a ministry of supply. At the end of the War, in 1918, I believe we were in the position of being able to turn out 30,000 aeroplanes a year. That was the scale that was wanted then. That is the scale we shall need if a war starts, but we shall never get it unless there is a ministry of supply. The Government are falling further and further behind every promise they have made. Germany is laying out in peace time what she will need when a war comes; by the present scheme we are merely building on what is a peace-time expansion. Production cannot be expanded unless it is taken out of the hands of the Air Ministry in the same way as was done before. The Air Ministry would be told by industry that industry could produce only two, three or four types, and then the Air Ministry would have to decide on the types they wanted, and having decided upon them, the industry could produce them. That cannot be done under the present system.
    1756
    We have heard complaints from the producers' side, and I do not intend to go deeply into them, but every hon. Member who has read the newspapers must be aware of them. I read a letter from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) in the "Daily Telegraph "in which he dealt with this question. I have no doubt that the Noble Lord will answer the hon. Member when the time comes. In one part of his letter, the hon. Member referred to the producers' complaints and their fear of the Official Secrets Act. He said that there has been, undoubtedly, among the producers the threat raised of the Official Secrets Act and perhaps the loss of contracts if they made known the true state of affairs in the aircraft industry.
    Mr. Sandys: In that letter, which was addressed to the Noble Lord, I did not mention the Official Secrets Act. What I said was that firms are afraid of losing contracts. No firm would want to give away anything that would bring them under the Official Secrets Act.
    Sir H. Seely: No, but they are afraid that it would be a disclosure under the Official Secrets Act if they said that the position was not satisfactory. Another matter which I wish to mention, although a small one, is an illustration of the unbusinesslike methods of the Ministry to which I have been referring; it is the question of payment. I have heard that one of the biggest firms in this country, whose financial year ended on 31st December, got their prices fixed and the money paid only last Wednesday. As they are a rich firm, they could afford to carry on. I have heard of another very large firm which had to borrow over £ 1,000,000 from the bank because the Air Ministry would not pay. In the case of smaller firms, that is one of the greatest causes of disruption; it creates a feeling of unfairness and makes it impossible for them to get on with the work. Surely, on these contracts, the Air Ministry can pay 75 per cent. when it is due and, if they like, hold over 25 per cent. until the final settlement; if they think 25 per cent. is not enough, and they want a higher figure, I advise them not to deal with those firms.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): That is what is done.
    Sir H. Seely: I could give two important cases where it has not happened

    1757
    One of the most serious results of all this is the effects in the Service during the last two or three years. Can the Minister say that training has not fallen behind, that operational training is not practically non-existent, and that it cannot be pushed forward because of the danger of wastage? Can the Minister deny that bombing accuracy is worse than before the expansion, due to difficulties with machines and to the non-turning up of the essential ancillary goods that are needed, and that instrument flying and bad-weather flying is worse than it was before? The Service has not the supplies which it has often been said in the House were being received. There is a lack of night flying and of instrument flying. The Venturi system, which we were given to understand was practically settled, is still very unsatisfactory. In armament training, which is very important, the Service is behind what it was before the expansion scheme began. That is admittedly due to the almost complete lack of turrets, which the Noble Lord cannot deny. That is the difficulty that faces the Ministry. There is a low level of operational efficiency and it cannot be properly dealt with. You will not get an efficient Air Force until those matters are remedied. The Service is not as efficient as it was before.
    There is then the question of personnel. In 1939, 1,500 pilots will go out, their four years having been completed, and those pilots, who are being trained now, will go on to the Reserve. There will be no training facilities for them in order that they may retain their usefulness and be brought up to date. The only facilities that exist are 25 hours' flying in a "Tiger Moth." That is absolutely useless if these men are to be kept as fit as they should be and trained to carry out the work which they would have to do. You have more pilots than you need in the Service. Overcrowding is complained of in the squadrons, and there are about four men to a machine.
    Another point with which I would like to deal is the balloon barrage. I raised this question two years ago, and I have taken a great interest in it. A great deal of propaganda is being made about the great balloon barrage defence, and you are trying to make the people of London believe that this defence, after two years,
    1758
    is now ready, although you know that all you have are about 330 men in training, and only 168 really trained. You have the first balloons, but you have not the men trained, and the balloons cannot be used without trained men. You are pretending that it is a real defence, but it is a camouflage and a farce; and you are trying to make people believe that there is security, when it has not been developed in the way it should have been. Either you should have done it, or you should have said that you were not going to do it.
    To sum up, can the Government deny that Germany will have 6,000 front-line machines, perhaps by the end of next year rising to 8,000? Have the Government taken the necessary steps for raw material? Can they produce the necessary plant for fabricating aluminium? They cannot deny that the present state is highly unsatisfactory among the aeroplanes to-day, and that it is worse in many regards as to armament. They cannot but admit that this scheme, which, like so many schemes, they are going to try to add on to a bad basis—that is where we differ from them—will never stand up to war conditions. That is the trial that we want to see. That is what all nations, I believe, have got to do now, when you get this intense arming in peace time for war in other countries under war conditions. That is the new factor that you have to face, and we do not believe that any scheme that you put up on this basis will really deal with that new factor. That is why we ask for a Ministry of Supply. We ask for an inquiry which will enable it to be seen how necessary it is, not only for us on these benches and on this side of the House, but for everyone in the country who realises and must realise the full seriousness of why we are moving this reduction.
    4.32 p.m.
    Earl Winterton: I am afraid I shall have to make a considerable draft on the patience and time of the Committee this afternoon, but I hope to compress what I have to say within the compass of an hour, though I do not know that that will be possible. I hope the Committee will not be discouraged by the large bundle of notes that I have in front of me, many of them dealing with subjects which may not come up in the course of the Debate.
    Sir John Haslam: On a point of Order. May we have the windows open, if we have to listen for an hour?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That will be ordered.
    Earl Winterton: I hope the effect of my argument on my hon. Friend will not be to cause him any physical discomfort. If the picture which the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) has painted were indeed a true one, it would cause pleasure to the enemies of our country, if there are any, and displeasure and discomfiture to our friends abroad. I recognise that everything that the hon. Gentleman said proceeded from a very sincere apprehension—I pay him that tribute—but I hope, in the course of my remarks, to be able to dispel that feeling of apprehension on his part. I think that in the "Times" this morning there occurred the phrase that it was hoped that the Ministerial spokesman in this Debate would not approach the matter from the point of view of either complacency or resentment. Certainly no one who stood at this Box to give the figure of the huge expansion which the new scheme that I am going to unfold will show could speak with complacency, when one remembers the call that must inevitably be made upon the patriotism, and the pockets, of the people of this country; and in regard to resentment, I, personally, feel no resentment at any attacks which may have been made on me in this matter, and I shall not show, even if I feel, any resentment which I may have for any attacks which have been made on the Air Minister, and to some extent on members of the Air Ministry itself, because it will not have escaped notice that the hon. Member, in moving the reduction of the Vote, used the phrase "not by moving the Ministry only, shall we achieve what we want."
    Sir H. Seely: I meant the system.
    Earl Winterton: I gathered, in view of the hon. Gentleman's context, that he was referring to something else, and I am glad that that should be made plain. It is my duty, which I hope to perform this afternoon, to try to disperse the cloud of accusations, suspicions, and innuendoes which has been directed from many quarters at the Air Ministry and which I will admit arise in many cases, I hope in the majority of cases, from
    1760
    genuine misapprehension, but in some cases—and I am referring to circles out side this House—from less worthy motives.
    Perhaps I ought to explain, in a sentence or two, what the situation is in regard to my personal position. As the Committee knows, I represent the military side of the Air Ministry in this House, and I do a great deal of my official work at the Air Ministry. I am Deputy-Chairman of the Air Council, and I have been brought, in the short period during which I have been there, into very close touch with all the problems of the day. I do not pretend that with only two months' experience I have the technical knowledge which some Members in this House possess, though if a personal allusion may be pardoned, I may mention that I have been flown many thousands of miles in Europe and Asia in Air Force machines, and although perhaps not more than hon. Members on all sides of the House who have had similar experience, I have had a very close and unpleasant experience of aircraft in war, both in bombing and in machine-gunning. I wish to make this further observation before I come to deal with the first part of my subject, which will be that of the scheme of expansion. I want to say that nobody will deny that the Air Ministry has encountered heavy weather in the past, which any sudden expansion scheme must involve. It will be my purpose this afternoon to try to show that we are now coming out of that heavy weather into smoother waters, and I must say that it seems an inappropriate time to wish to court-martial the captain and the officers on the bridge.
    The first thing that the Committee will wish to learn is the new programme, and I wish to state broadly what it is intended to establish by the end of the financial year 1939–40, that is, by March, 1940. Here may I make an observation in reply to something that was said by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate? In a perfectly good-natured way, he said that it was a habit of Defence Departments of all kinds to shelter themselves behind the statement that it was not in the public interest to give certain facts and figures. Whether that may be their habit or not does not alter the fact that it is obviously not in the public interest to give certain facts and figures about any Defence Department, and anyone who

    1761
    has held office in such a Department either before or since the War, will agree with what I say. In this connection I want to point out a fact which I think should be realised by the Committee. The totalitarian Powers and a good many of the Powers of Europe and the world which are not totalitarian do not publish any information about their first-line or any other portion of their Air Forces. I propose to-day to continue the previous practice of giving general indications and mentioning aggregate figures, but I should not be doing my duty by the Ministry or by this Committee if I did not mention that to some extent countries like us are hampered by the fact that public opinion and Parliament demand, and have a perfect right to demand, information which is denied in other countries. That must be so; it is obvious from the circumstances of the case.
    Let me take, first of all, in giving these figures, the case of the Metropolitan Air Force. It is not necessary for me to give a definition of that; it has often been given before. By March, 1940, the Metropolitan Air Force, that is, the squadrons at home, will, under the scheme which I am unfolding, have attained a first-line strength of approximately 2,370 aircraft. Oversea squadrons will have increased to a first-line strength of approximately 470. Provision is also made for the expansion of the first-line strength of the Fleet Air Arm, which will be increased to not less than 500 as ships and carriers are ready to take them. This aggregate of aircraft, therefore, represents a first-line strength of something approaching, but probably something just under, the number of 3,500.
    Mr. Churchill: By 31st March, 1940?
    Earl Winterton: Yes, by the end of the financial year 1939–40. It is necessary for me to say a word or two on the subject of Metropolitan first-line strength. Some complaint was made in a former Debate, I think unfairly, that we were attempting to get away from Metropolitan first-line strength and that we were trying to bring other considerations into the picture. I am not trying to get away from that factor at all. I have given the figures of Metropolitan first-line strength, but I must point out that every month that passes your total first-line strength
    1762
    becomes more important than it is, because the range of your machines, their flying range and their bombing power increase, and it would be a profound mistake to think that you ought not to bring into consideration the total first-line strength. I have not, in giving these figures, included, for constitutional reasons based partly upon the Statute of Westminster, such forces as are being formed at the present time, and will, I believe, shortly be very efficient, in the Dominions.
    The Committee will have noticed that in the case of naval strength it has been the habit in the past, when the First Lord of the Admiralty has made his statement, to refer to the Dominion Navies. I exclude Dominion strength, first-line or otherwise, from my calculations for the reasons that I have given. But I would venture to make this observation, that to me it is inconceivable in certain emergencies that we should not receive the fullest co-operation from other Governments within the Empire. Then there is the question of Egypt which comes into the picture. As the Committee will be aware, we have very rigid contractual and Treaty obligations for the defence of Egypt. At the present time, and in the present state of affairs in that country, it is necessary for us to keep strong Air Forces there, but she is forming what I hope will be an efficient Air Force, and again in times of emergency it will be possible to rely, to some extent at any rate, upon what may be looked upon as a reserve of air force in the Middle East.
    I should go on from that to say that the orders involved in this programme include far more than the figures of actual aircraft which I have given, which are only those of first-line strength. They include the whole of the reserves. Following the practice which has been adopted by my predecessors, I do not propose to mention the question of reserves, and I hope I shall have the support of the Committee in that. They also include all the aircraft of both training and service types required for the training of the greatly enlarged Air Force and the volunteer reserve. All these are entirely outside the figures of first-line strength. The figures which I have given show that the new programme entirely overshadows the programme undertaken three years ago, which was itself on a scale unprecedented in peace-time. The hon. Gentleman, no

    1763
    doubt inadvertently, gave us to understand that that scheme was hopelessly in arrears and that we had not succeeded in carrying out what we promised to do on the new date which was given some time ago. I am glad to be able to show the Committee and the hon. Gentleman that he is wholly mistaken. The programme which is commonly known as Scheme F under which a first-line strength of 1,750 aircraft was to be reached by 31st March, 1939, is well up to schedule, and the first-line strength under the programme will certainly be reached by the date proposed, and I hope and believe considerably earlier. Satisfactory provision has also been made for reserves.
    Mr. Attlee: Does that mean a first-line strength of modern up-to-date aircraft? We had some difficulty about that in connection with a previous speech.
    Earl Winterton: I was about to deal with that point later, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not proposing to represent the supply of obsolete and out-of-date aircraft as the provision of first-line aircraft.
    Mr. Attlee: That is, by April, 1939?
    Earl Winterton: I will deal with that in a moment.
    Mr. Attlee: Does this mean the provision by that time of modern up-to-date aircraft? [HON. MEMBERS "With proper equipment."]
    Earl Winterton: It is not such an easy question to answer as the right hon. Gentleman might think, but I will deal with it in a few minutes.
    Mr. Churchill: Would my noble Friend say what happened to the scheme of 1,500 first-line aircraft which were to have been ready by 31st March, 1937? We have not completely disposed of that yet.
    Earl Winterton: I can assure my right hon. Friend that we have, but I am not going to be led into any particular figures, and I hope the Committee will be satisfied with my assurance. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will give me their attention. It is a very difficult thing to deal with a complicated question of this kind. There is really no party feeling between us on this matter, and while I am perfectly ready to answer questions, it is impossible to answer three or four
    1764
    questions at the same time. Whatever I take the responsibility of stating will be completely accurate in every respect. As I say, the scheme of 1,750 first-line aircraft with immediate reserves will be ready by the date given, and I hope considerably earlier. To return to the expansion scheme, I want to impress on the Committee the size of the expansion which is involved. It will be large and progressive. The strength of the force will be progressively augmented by increasing the number of squadrons and increasing their size, and the whole expansion will be planned to maintain the Force as an efficient fighting instrument throughout the process. Care will be taken to see that it is a balanced expansion. The execution of the plans will not be easy, but the Air Council are satisfied that, with the co-operation of the country, in the measure in which it has already been given, the programme is fully capable of performance. In regard to details, Supplementary Estimates will be presented before the House rises in order to deal with the increase in personnel and the expansion generally.
    I would now like to give as an indication of the scale of this expansion the following figures of personnel. We shall require in the next two years an expansion of no fewer than approximately 40,000 officers and men for the Air Force and the greater part will be required during the next 18 months. Before the expansion scheme took place the number of officers and men in the Royal Air Force was 30,000. To-day the number is 70,000, and I am now announcing to the Committee this great expansion of a further 40,000. That makes the recruiting problem a formidable one, but I am confident that our efforts will meet with success if we have behind us the support from all political parties which we have had when we have appealed for recruits before. I recognise that this is a big figure to ask for as an addition to the recruits for the Royal Air Force, in view of the recruits required for the other Services. We know that in some cases ecruiting is not yet wholly satisfactory in certain other branches, and therefore this is a big increase to ask for over and above the ordinary increase and wastage. Training facilities are already planned in such a way as to make them capable of expansion to meet the new demands.

    1765
    It has been suggested that this expansion scheme was a sudden decision which was come to in a fit of panic—that is the phrase used by a newspaper—as a result, partly of pressure from the House of Commons and partly of the Austrian crisis. I assure the Committee that that is not so. Pending the initiation of a full review of Defence, and before authority was given for the new programme, interim authority was given to the Air Ministry to lay the foundations for expansion, and that expansion will now be enabled to proceed at the highest speed, if we get the assistance of the public, both in the matter of recruiting and in regard to labour and things of that kind. May I give a few examples of,what we shall require? I am glad to note as an old Member, from the atmosphere in this Committee that there will be general support for this new expansion scheme.
    Mr. Gallacher: Conditionally.
    Earl Winterton: From all quarters except one. I should like to mention one or two things which we shall require to do. First, we shall make intensive use of the existing flying schools. There will be eight new flying schools for elementary flying training and four new service flying training centres, the present figures being 13 and 11 respectively. Then we propose to open new training schools at Cosford and St. Athan. They are already planned under Scheme F and will be open for 2,000 and 1,500 trainees respectively during the coming summer. Under the new scheme the combined capacity will be almost doubled. This doubled capacity will become available during the summer and autumn. The new schools at Yatesbury and Weston-super-Mare each for 3,000 trainees will, I hope, be available during the winter. Under Scheme F the schools will remain at full capacity and in many cases will be increased to take additional trainees.
    Now I wish to say a word about the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. This will be correspondingly increased, and I should like to point out that the men training in this Reserve receive, not merely A licence training but advanced training as well. To-day, although the Reserve was started only last year, over 1,000 pilots have already flown solo and 464 have qualified to fly solo in Service types and will soon be able to take their
    1766
    place in Service and Auxiliary squadrons. That is the answer I think—and it is not the only answer, because I could give other figures—to one of the many criticisms which have been made of air policy, namely, that we are taking no steps to train pilots. We hope to increase those numbers. Scheme F already authorised 33 training centres. The new scheme requires further centres in all parts of the country. The Volunteer Reserve training will be extended to the training of observers, wireless operators and air gunners as well as pilots.
    Special arrangements are being made to enrol civilian men, and possibly women, to perform certain duties in wartime, and so release trained men. That is being done in co-operation with other Departments, and is, of course, a very important provision. The interim authority, to which I have already called attention, has enabled building plans to make good progress. I should like to mention that we shall require over 30 new aerodromes. Sites for some have already been acquired while sites for others have been located. Among the duties which the Secretary of State for Air has devolved upon me at the Air Ministry—subject, of course, to his final supervision in accordance with Constitutional practice—is that of deciding upon the sites to be acquired for aerodromes acting upon the advice of the advisers at the Ministry. I should like to take this opportunity of making an appeal through the Committee to the public to do everything they can to facilitate the acquirement on our part of these aerodrome sites, because it has not been as easy in the past as it might appear.
    I said rather sarcastically in reply to a question the other day, that whenever the Air Ministry wished to obtain a site for an aerodrome we were invariably informed, either that the land had a high amenity value or that it was the best agricultural land in the neighbourhood. All kinds of reasons have been given in the past why we should not acquire particular sites. In one case it was suggested to me that there was a nest of rare birds on the proposed site, and in another case we were told that we were interfering with the holiday haunts of various people from urban centres. I will do everything possible to meet the objections which are put forward, but I hope I shall have the support of the public in taking up a

    1767
    rather drastic attitude if necessary, in order to avoid unnecessary delay. It is true that this programme, like all the rest of the rearmament programme, will cause some trouble and inconvenience to His Majesty's subjects, but I am sufficiently an ex-service man to say that it is just as well that the civilian population should realise that we are not living in ordinary times. We have been told that the Government ought to give a lead to the public. Here is a lead given, at any rate by me this afternoon, in asking that every facility should be granted by local authorities and others to enable us to acquire land for the purposes of this great scheme as quickly as possible.
    I am afraid I have spent a great deal of time on this portion of the scheme, and I only want to say one other thing upon it before I proceed to deal with certain charges which have been made against the Air Ministry. Turning to the field of production, the scale on which factories have been planned and orders have been placed under the previous programme will make it possible, if the necessary labour is available, rapidly to extend output to meet the immense demands of the new programme. I, myself, in virtue of my chairmanship of the Supply Committee have gone carefully into this question and the aggregate figures which I am about to give are based upon a most careful examination by me and by my advisers of the possibilities of the situation. The industry, having reviewed the situation as fully as possible, has notified the Government that, given the necessary labour, they estimate that the output of aeroplanes and engines can be increased by over 50 per cent. during the next 12 months and, during the succeeding year, can be increased to fully three times its present size. These estimates the Government regard as satisfactory. Orders have already been given for a large part of the aeroplanes and engines needed and authority given for the necessary extension of factories.
    I should like to say a further word on the subject of aircraft production. The Air Ministry know precisely what machines are required, and they knew what machines were required in the past, but we were faced, and we shall always to some extent be faced, by two problems—to accelerate and increase the production of existing types and to bring in
    1768
    new types as soon as possible. I should like to assure the Committee, and I hope they will accept the assurance, that the existing types are very satisfactory. Speed is not the only criterion, although our types are not inferior in speed. They are in demand, though the demand can only be met to a limited extent, by foreign countries. The new types will be even better.
    Mr. Churchill: What is meant by "existing types "? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean types which the squadrons have, or types being designed?
    Earl Winterton: Types which the squadrons have.
    Mr. Churchill: At the present moment?
    Earl Winterton: Yes, at the present moment, and in production. I do not say that in all cases they have sufficient of the ones they have at the present time, but they are in production at this moment, and the new types will be even better. I categorically deny—and I ask for indulgence while I deal with this matter—what I believe to be the allegation, no doubt fairly made by the hon. Member, that the machines which the Royal Air Force have now are of an inferior character. I emphatically deny that. As far as it is possible to make a comparison, I think they compare favourably with the aircraft of other countries, and more than favourably.
    Mr. Churchill: Absolutely untrue.
    Earl Winterton: I am talking of the aircraft in use in the Royal Air Force as a whole. I will answer the hon. Member's question and the question put by my right hon. Friend. He says that it is entirely untrue. That is a very mischievous statement to make.
    Mr. Churchill: I meant untrue in the sense of being inaccurate.
    Earl Winterton: I gather that my right hon. Friend thinks that it is to some extent a terminological inexactitude. On this question of design and production of aircraft, I hope to satisfy the Committee. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree, and I hope the Committee will agree, that design and production naturally are very closely interlocked. No nation has a monopoly of scientific ability. Other countries, both in ship construction and

    1769
    aircraft construction, have their fine scientists, and we have as fine a body of scientists as any country in the world. Many of them, most clever and most patriotic men, are giving their services at the present time to assist in this question of design. They produce for the Royal Air Force the best and fastest machines in the world. We have one or two machines at the present time in production and some in use in the squadrons to which I think that phrase can be applied.
    Sir H. Seely: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of making a false statement. He stated that what I said was completely wrong, and that the Royal Air Force was equipped with modern and the best machines. When I said that it was not so, he said that I was telling a lie, in front of the whole House.
    Earl Winterton: No.
    Sir H. Seely: The right hon. Gentleman said, categorically, that what I said was not true. He cannot say that the Air Force to-day is equipped throughout with these modern machines. That is what I said.
    Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to develop and finish my argument? I will give an undertaking to answer him. I was saying to the Committee that no nation has a monopoly of scientific ability. I think we are all agreed upon that.
    Mr. Gallacher: That is the most sensible thing you have said.
    Earl Winterton: I said that we had as fine designers in this country as they have in any country and that they work to produce the best and most powerful machines in the world. Sometimes other countries get in front of us with a better type. Whatever type—and this is based not upon my personal opinion but on the opinion of one of the greatest authorities in the Air Force of this or any other country—is produced in any country, it becomes obsolescent, in a sense, from the moment that it leaves the designer's brain. There is no such thing as established equilibrium in these matters. That applies equally to ship design and construction and a fortiori to aircraft construction.
    I will deal now with the specific question as to whether I regard our machines
    1770
    as modern machines. I most emphatically do. Hinds are being gradually replaced by more modern machines. In the Air Force, as in the Navy, there are certain types which are rapidly becoming, if they have not already become, obsolete; there are other types in what I may call middle age, and other types which are the newest and best types in existence. I claim that in the Air Force as a whole we are not behind other countries in the newness and up-to-dateness of our aircraft.
    Mr. Garro-Jones: That is not true.
    Earl Winterton: That may be the hon. Member's opinion, but I make myself responsible for stating that in my opinion it is true.
    Mr. Churchill: It is not.
    Earl Winterton: I can only assure my right hon. Friend that each month more new types are coming forth for our squadrons. I am not saying that some types have not had to be replaced, but I emphatically deny that compared with other countries, we are behind them either in the type of machine or in up-to-dateness and design. In regard to numbers of types, I can assure the hon. Member that the numbers are being progressively decreased. This matter has been discussed at great length by the Committee and reasons were given which made it necessary to order further types. Firms are not necessarily producing their own types. Where we have a new and good type it is being produced by more than one firm.
    I do not know whether I need say anything more about the Supply Committee, over which I preside, except to say that it orders on a large scale, that it approves factory extensions, that each interest in the Air Ministry, that is each Department, is represented, that there is a Treasury representative, and that we have the advantage of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's help and advice. We have come to a number of decisions, which are quick decisions but not, I hope, rush decisions. I make this emphatic statement that all firms capable of producing types needed, efficiently and economically, will be given orders to keep them fully employed, and on a scale which will enable them to plan ahead. I can say that the apprehension which exists in many

    1771
    quarters that these firms are not full up with orders is not justified. The industry is in a much better position to-day than in 1935 to undertake vast expansion. It has been said that there has been an actual reduction, at any rate not an increase, in the numbers working in the industry. The number of workmen employed has increased from 30,000 in 1935 to over 90,000 to-day. We shall require further increases in the factories, which I hope, with the co-operation and patriotism of both capital and labour, will be forthcoming. That is in addition to the large numbers employed in the manufacture of materials and on sub-contracts. The industry is better organised and knows more about the problem than in 1935.
    Mr. Dalton: The Noble Lord was kind enough to say that he would say something about the very important allegation, whether true or not, of the hon. Member as to the very serious shortage of night flying instruments, gun turrets and similar accessories. We shall attach great importance to what he has to say on that matter.
    Earl Winterton: I am not prepared to give details at the moment. I do not think it would be in the public interest to do so. I can say that in regard to gun turrets the situation is far more satisfactory than it was in the past, and the production at the present time is satisfactory. In regard to night flying instruments the situation to-day is, I think, also satisfactory. I am not suggesting that always in the past in this vast expansion scheme there has not been a lag, but when I come to deal with that portion of my speech in which I defend the Air Ministry I think I shall be able to show that the blame cannot be allocated to any one person.
    Mr. Dalton: Is it or is it not the case that a very large proportion of our aeroplanes at the present time are deficient in one or all of the accessories which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned? Is that true or not?
    Earl Winterton: It is not true. The deficiencies in all these matters are being overtaken at a far more rapid rate than was the case in the past.
    Mr. Dalton: Is it or is it not the case that now, at this time, large numbers of
    1772
    our aircraft are sent up to fly without these accessories? Is that the case?
    Earl Winterton: Emphatically that is not so.
    Mr. Montague: Was not that admitted by the Air Member for Personnel?
    Earl Winterton: That has been contradicted several times and I apologise to the Committee for taking up their time in again pointing out that nothing that the Air Member ever said must be taken as meaning that he was suggesting that either in the training or operational squadrons pilots were being sent up in machines that were unduly dangerous. What he said, and he made it very plain afterwards, was that it was essential and inherent in the training of pilots for the Royal Air Force that there should be more risks taken than in the case of the training of civil pilots.
    Mr. Montague: Did he not distinctly say that there was a deficiency in blind-flying instruments?
    Earl Winterton: That is entirely another point. I explained the other day, in reply to a question, that in regard to instruments of that kind the whole of the machines were now equipped and we hope in a short time—it is being developed at this moment—to have a better safety device than any other Air Force in the world. It is an unfair reading of what was said by the Air Member for Personnel to suggest that a statement was made which was not made.
    Now I come to the question of the purchase of machines in the United States. We were pressed and, I think, properly, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and others some time ago to explore the possibilities of purchasing machines abroad.
    Mr. Churchill: Twenty-one months ago.
    Earl Winterton: Yes, but three months before the right hon. Gentleman made that suggestion we had, in fact, explored the possibilities and they were found not to be satisfactory.
    Mr. Churchill: I do not know what "we "means in this matter because my Noble Friend accompanied me when I made that suggestion.
    Earl Winterton: By "we "I mean the Air Ministry, and when we—that is, the right hon. Gentleman and I—made that suggestion it had already been anticipated by the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Churchill: And nothing was done for two years.
    Earl Winterton: That is not so. I want to deal with this point rather more fully. Investigation was made two years ago into the possibility of purchasing aircraft in the United States. It was then not found possible or feasible to do so. The United States had not the machines that we required: A body of experts was sent to reconsider the matter. I should like to say that the production of aircraft in the United States is small compared with that in this country. Certain machines that we should require to buy there were mostly of a training character. More important than that is the examination of the possibility of purchasing machines or building up what is sometimes called a war potential in the Dominion of Canada. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) who has asked me a number of searching questions on this point does not now share the opinion that we should not fully examine the possibility of purchasing aircraft in the Dominions.
    Mr. Simmonds: I did not express that opinion. What I suggested clearly was that I thought it was wrong to place orders either in Canada or in America when British factories and British workmen were not fully employed.
    Earl Winterton: I am coming to that in a moment, and I hope I shall be able to show my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in thinking that we were wrong. This is a question of seeing whether we can obtain certain machines required for certain purposes. I will not pursue the matter further, for that seems a commonsense thing to do. With regard to shadow factories, to which reference has been made in questions and to some extent in this Debate, the Committee would, I think, like to hear a word or two about how we stand in regard to them. With regard to Austins, the first machines are nearing completion and deliveries should commence almost immediately. In the case of Rootes, there has been some delay
    1774
    through a change of site in circumstances over which the Ministry had no control, but the buildings are complete and plant is being installed progressively. As regards engine shadows, all the factories are complete and in production. The numbers are rising progressively month by month and peak production is not very far distant. The shadow scheme is fully justified. The initial difficulties which were fully expected are being straightened out by the Shadow Engine Committee and we have a vast and developing field of potential and actual production.
    The balloon barrage has already been mentioned. Why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed should see anything curious in what we have done, I do not know. I can only think it is a case of giving a dog a bad name, etc., and that he is not prepared to see any good in what the Air Ministry does. We have all the apparatus required for all the squadrons which are being formed. They are to be formed from Territorial personnel, that is to say, the men will have the status of Territorials. The details have been given in reply to questions and also in a statement to the Press.
    Colonel Nathan: Will the Noble Lord be good enough to say whether the barrage force will come under the War Office or the Air Ministry?
    Earl Winterton: They will come under the Air Ministry. They will have only Territorial status in the sense that they will be asked to enlist on a Territorial basis. With regard to the Regular personnel to which the hon. Member referred, of course we have a cadre of trained Regular personnel. We cannot enlist men on a Territorial status without having Regulars for training. These squadrons will be in operation this month and recruiting opens on 16th May. What we now require are volunteers to join this force. It will number between 5,000 and 6,000 at the start. Here again we are making heavy demands on the patriotism of the public, to which we hope they will respond. With regard to the Auxiliary Air Force, I have nothing fresh to announce beyond that which was announced by my hon. and gallant Friend in the course of the Estimates Debate. I hope to be in a position before the end of the summer to make an

    1775
    announcement as to the Government's decision on the recommendations of a committee set up to go into this matter. I shall be pleased to hear suggestions from the hon. Gentleman or any other member of the Auxiliary Force in this House regarding this matter.
    Having dealt with the scale of the immense expansion programme on which we have embarked, I should like for the remainder of my speech to deal in broad terms with the major points of criticism which have been made fairly frequently in the past and which have received a further measure of publicity in the last few weeks. May I proceed to sum them up? The first criticism was made at the beginning of the expansion scheme that no proper plan of production was drawn up; second, that orders have been given on an inadequate scale and that in consequence manufacturers have been unable to make preparations for large-scale production; third, that modern speedy methods of manufacture have not been introduced; fourth, that designs are repeatedly modified with consequent delays in production; fifth, that no steps have been taken to prevent gaps appearing between one contract and another; sixth, that the resources of British industry are not being adequately utilised; and seventh, that the supply organisation of the Air Ministry is inherently deficient through the absence of trained engineers on the Air Council.
    I must start by making what I hope will not be regarded as a provocative remark by saying that I am somewhat astonished at the sweeping generalisations which have been made without first applying the first principles of criticism, which seem to me to be whether the sources of information can know the true facts, and whether any of them have motives for making allegations which are not correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I am surprised to hear those cheers coming from the opposite benches, because I always understood them to suggest that under any system of private enterprise there must be certain difficulties, and I am going to refer to them a little later. I am not suggesting that anyone in this Committee is guilty; I am talking of sources of information. It is quite certain that discussion is in some cases stimulated by observations made by
    1776
    interested parties—not using that term in any derogatory sense—who may be actuated by highly altruistic and partiotic motives but nevertheless must, by virtue of their special interest, speak with a measure of bias. Such persons are often associated, for example with organisations which would have liked to receive orders, but have misjudged their own ability to deliver the specialist supplies required for the Royal Air Force. I could, if I wished, give instances, but I think I can appeal to the sense of fairness in the Committee when I say that there must be such situations and that they are bound to occur. I would say in reply that we must organise in accordance with sound financial and manufacturing methods.
    I deny entirely that no broad lay-out of the British aircraft industry was made at the beginning of the expansion. A complete lay-out was made and a definite programme was drawn up based on the development of that industry by means of building new factories and extension of existing works within the control of the firms themselves and quite apart from the special scheme for the development of shadow factories. The amount of capital extensions which have been authorised and undertaken by the industry themselves under a modified guarantee given by the Air Ministry is surprising in its total as compared with the total capital invested in the aircraft industry The broad lay-out was formulated in 1935 and early in 1936. A considered and widespread programme was placed with the expanded industry embracing deliveries for three to four years and is now yielding its fruits and will do so increasingly in future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping used a striking phrase three or four years ago when he and I were associated before the expansion scheme. He said that the first year of any scheme like this was the sowing, the second year was the harrowing, and the third year was the reaping.
    Mr. Churchill: We are nearly at the end of the third year now.
    Earl Winterton: That is an unfair comment. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, meant that this expansion scheme must work on a long-term policy, and I should like to say, using his analogy, that some fields are reaped and threshed, some whitening into harvest, and some just coming into ear.

    1777
    There must be an ever increasing harvest from the plans laid down two or three years ago as the weeks and months go by. If the Committee accept my figures of production, they will see the truth of what I say.
    Mr. David Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if production is to increase—the number of machines next year is to go up by 50 per cent. and to increase by threefold the following year—he says that the total number at the end of March, 1940, will be 3,700 machines? In that case what has been done up to now?
    Earl Winterton: I would make it clear that the figures which I gave related to first-line strength. The number of aircraft in the possession of the Royal Air Force at any time is much greater than the first-line number, and will be infinitely greater at the end of those years. The figures of personnel required for production which I have given will indicate the extent of the expansion.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would it be unfair to ask the Noble Lord the rough proportion between the first-line strength and the total strength?
    Earl Winterton: I do not know of any country in the world which has an Air Force which gives the figures of its reserves. The House will have to accept my assurance that the reserves provision is satisfactory, and that the number of the reserves by 1940 will be on a scale commensurate with the first-line expansion. I think that what I have just said does dispose of the assertion that the industry could not plan ahead. As regards mass production, I think there is an ill-judged comparison both with wartime production and with motor car production. I will give my reason for saying that, and I think it will convince the House. Wartime aeroplanes were slow, with a small bomb load and limited armaments and they were wooden, whereas modern aeroplanes are all-metal machines, fast, with a long range, an enormous bomb load and armament designed to meet the tactics of 1938. I do not wish to give away any secrets, but I should like to say that some of these new bombers will, contrary to the popular impression, be the heaviest-armed machines of the kind that have been seen. Their
    1778
    production needs many more man-hours, detailed design work, jigging and tooling; what may be called the "teething troubles "of new types occur.
    As to the comparison with mass motorcar production, I have taken the opportunity of consulting a number of leading industrialists—more than one, some of whose names are household words in this country—and this is the result of that investigation, and indeed I give it as my own opinion. The production of aircraft calls for the highest quality of work within extremely fine limits on account of safety demands. We cannot run any risks. We cannot give an extra margin of safety, because of weight. Everything has to be balanced up to the breadth of a hair. In the shadow scheme the Air Ministry did bring in experienced mass producers like, for example, Lord Austin, yet they are now adopting the same methods as are employed in the aircraft industry. We hope that quantity production will be increased, and, indeed, it is increasing at this moment, and we have more than one factory making the same type, but there is no real hope of true mass production of aircraft in the sense that some people use the phrase, and, in fact, it does not exist in any other country. The Air Staff must be the best judges of whether it would be wise to make any sacrifices in design in order to secure quantity production. We must have the safest and the best machines which we can get, and I should not be doing my duty as the Chairman of the Supplies Committee if, in response to public pressure, I made myself responsible for ordering machines which had not the highest possible qualities from the point of view of safety and efficiency.
    The next criticism concerned modifications. It has been said that designs are repeatedly altered and that this delays production—that each technical branch of the Air Ministry has a free hand to introduce as many modifications as it wishes. Nothing is further from the truth. At the weekly meeting of the Air Council all cases in which alterations are suggested are considered, and always the principle insisted upon is that alterations are not to be made—I would ask this Committee to note this—unless they are safety modifications, or can be brought in at a stage which will not interfere with production. As allegations of the nature I have sug-

    1779
    gested persist the Air Council asked manufacturers to produce instances of any cases in which this principle has not been honoured by any branch of the Ministry, and they have so far failed to obtain an answer. I hope that in the Debate someone will have an example to give us.
    I will give a typical case of what modification means, and I do not think it will bore the Committee. In a certain machine 4,664 modifications were required. The firm's share of the alterations was 4,623; the Air Ministry's alterations numbered 41, of which 22 were made on operational grounds—that is to say, with user's knowledge, after the machine had been used—6 on technical grounds, for safety, and 13 in order to meet defects revealed by service use. I could give many other cases of the kind. We are frequently told that a leading manufacturer in the aircraft industry has stated that to his personal knowledge the production of aeroplanes is handicapped by vexatious impediments placed in the way of manufacturers by the requirements of the Air Ministry. I hope that hon. Members do not suppose that if a leading member of the aircraft industry finds production impeded by the action of some subordinate officer of the Ministry or some unnecessary regulation that his only remedy is to complain to the newspapers. The leading members of the industry are in the closest touch with the Air Council, with my Noble Friend and with me. I talk to them, and in addition we have official channels of communication through the Society of British Aircraft Constructors.
    I appeal to hon. Members, if complaints of this character are brought to their notice, not to use them as material for a sweeping attack upon the Department, because the very eagerness of some sections in the country—not necessarily in this House—to attack the Air Ministry may very well prejudice British prestige by giving an erroneous picture of the situation. If these cases occur let them bring them to me and I will investigate them—I am fully in a position to do so —but let there be no sweeping generalities.
    Another complaint has been that there have been unnecessary gaps in the placing of contracts. That is a complete travesty of the facts. The Air Ministry have been
    1780
    particularly careful to ensure that orders were placed so that gaps did not occur when changes were made from one type to another, but if for some unforeseen reason a gap showed signs of appearing additional orders were given to fill such gaps, and there have been only a few isolated cases in which gaps have not been filled. Of course, it is inevitable that in a great scheme like this there should be individual cases in which particular organisations have suffered a period of temporary contraction of work, but the labour which is temporarily stood off in such circumstances is not lost to the industry, because it could be at once employed in other firms.
    Then it is said that the resources of British industry are not being properly used at the present time. The best answer to that criticism is found in the tremendous increase in the productive capacity of the industry. There has been criticism that many small aircraft firms cannot obtain orders from the Air Ministry, but that is not a criticism at all, because obviously it would be wrong to give work to small firms, however anxious they may be to help, if by so doing the scheme in general were delayed. Then there is the question of sub-contracting. I think that a good many of the complaints have arisen from sub-contractors whose work is not on a very large scale. As to the use of skilled labour, all that can be obtained is needed. A new programme will be impossible without further additions to labour, which I have indicated will be forthcoming.
    I wish to deal now with a matter which has attracted a good deal of attention, namely, the complaints which have been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). The Committee will recollect that he asked certain questions last week and indicated that he had letters from a number of aircraft firms complaining of lack of orders. I understand—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that since he asked those questions he has been in communication with various organisations to obtain information in support of his contention that British aircraft manufacturing companies are short of orders and that aeronautical engineering works are discharging employés. Simultaneously with the asking of those questions I made further inquiries, and the result was that

    1781
    I was satisfied that my original statement was perfectly accurate. My hon. Friend evidently attaches great importance to this matter, because when he sent me a letter, which incidentally reached me only yesterday morning, he simultaneously communicated the contents of it—I make no complaint of it—to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Did he not communicate it to them?
    Mr. Sandys: If I am charged with any discourtesy—
    Earl Winterton: Oh, no.
    Mr. Sandys: Then I will not bother to answer.
    Earl Winterton: I compliment my hon. Friend upon a very novel and excellent method of calling attention to this matter, a striking method of securing publicity. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that my Noble Friend is evidently implying discourtesy, I must say that I sent that letter to him by the messenger at the door here. I understood that it was delivered to his room. I afterwards saw my Noble Friend in the Lobby and asked him whether he had received it. He told me that he had not and I informed him that it was in his room, and it was not until long after that that I gave it to the Press. The reason for it was because such tremendous publicity had been given to the denial made by my Noble Friend of the statement I had made in the House.
    Earl Winterton: The hon. Member was fully entitled to give the letter to the Press, but, in fact, it was not in my room, it had not reached me. I said that he evidently attached great importance to it and I congratulated him on a novel method of giving publicity to it. It was circulated by the British Broadcasting Corporation in their nine o'clock news.
    Mr. Sandys: I did not send it to the B.B.C.
    Earl Winterton: No harm was done even if the hon. Member did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, get on with it."] I assumed in dealing with this matter that what my hon. Friend had in mind was the production of complete aircraft.
    Mr. Sandys: No. I am sorry to interrupt, but may I read the statement in the
    1782
    question which he said he could not accept? I asked how it was that
    "in spite of the Government's aircraft expansion programme British aircraft manufacturing companies are short of orders and that many aeronautical engineering works are discharging employés." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1938; col. 879, Vol. 335.]
    The discharge of employés referred to the aeronautical engineering works.
    Earl Winterton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend would wish me to quote his letter in full. Perhaps the Committee will be content if I give the principal firms mentioned. The aircraft firms were Messrs. de Havilland, A. V. Roe, and the Gloster Company. My hon. Friend said they were firms who until recently were short of work, or that they were firms from whom he received information that they were short of work in the past. The three firms which I have mentioned all have orders from the Air Ministry fully adequate to their capacity. Messrs. de Havilland have been standing off employés recently and the reason is that the Air Ministry have been obliged to cancel the greater part of an order for a type of training machine the design of which the Air Ministry is entirely unable to accept as satisfactory. As soon as the decision was taken the Air Ministry reviewed the position of the firm, and orders have already been placed with them for a type of training machine designed by another firm and also for a machine designed by de Havilland's themselves and already in production. If de Havilland's were obliged to stand off men it can only have been for the shortest possible period.
    Hon. Members: This week.
    Earl Winterton: It is possible that Messrs. Roe had to stand off labour, and I have not been able to ascertain whether that is definitely the case. This firm has manufactured for the Air Ministry a type of aeroplane largely wooden in construction. When our requirements had been met it was impossible to order more of this type, and workmen trained in construction of the type which is purely wooden could not be utilised on metal machines at the same factory. The new scheme has made it possible for us to place a further substantial order for the type of aeroplane employing both wooden and metal construction and, as I have said, that firm is fully employed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now? "] I am giving the

    1783
    position as it is to-day. I would ask hon. Members to realise that labour in the aircraft factories must be flexible to the extent that when you have finished one process there may be periods, before you get on with another, when a certain number of men are not required and are not taken on, but I doubt if there has been any serious damage to production.
    Mr. Gallacher: Nonsense.
    Earl Winterton: If they have experienced any temporary lull in constructional activity recently it would be due to the change-over from one type of aeroplane to another. I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood to the point that the particular firm to which he referred is one of a large group of aircraft manufacturers who have never been short of orders. I must assert that, generally speaking, it is not true to say that there has been any lag in orders. None of the other firms in the list of the hon. Member is an aircraft constructor in the ordinary sense of the term. One of them, for example, is a small motor works, with one tiny shop. I have examined this matter very carefully and I assert that not one of the other firms mentioned by the hon. Member would be quite capable of aircraft construction. Some of them are being given sub-contracts. I will give an example, and read out the particulars to the Committee.
    An Hon. Member: I thought the Government were the friend of the small firm.
    Earl Winterton: We are the friend of the small firm only when they are satisfactory. I will give particulars about Messrs. J. Samuel White and Company, of Somerton, Cowes, a small company who were engaged in aeroplane construction during the War and chiefly in the maintenance of landplane and seaplane parts. In July, 1936, the chairman announced that the aircraft building shed belonging to the company, which was new during the War, was being put into service again for aircraft work. They have done a certain amount of sub-contract work, including work for Saunders-Roe, Limited. This is a typical example of a firm which, on its own initiative, returned to aircraft construction in order to take part in the expansion programme.
    1784
    In no sense can they be described as a big firm.
    Mr. Sandys: I have never suggested that these were all big firms. Some of them are big and others are small. One firm of which I sent my Noble Friend particulars had discharged as many as 500 men during this year. I think that is a considerable amount. As regards the question of aircraft-producing firms, the fact which I stated in my question was that
    "aeronautical engineering firms "—
    and that is quite different—
    "were discharging employés."
    and I ask my Noble Friend to say whether that is a fact or not.
    Earl Winterton: No. I have already denied that. I have already said that the principal aircraft firms capable of producing aircraft were now, on the whole, employed to capacity.
    Hon. Members: Now.
    Mr. Sandys: Each time my Noble Friend answers he refers to aircraft manufacturers. The point contained in my statement was that aeronautical engineering firms, which is quite a different thing, were discharging employés., and I ask him whether that is or is not correct.
    Earl Winterton: To the best of my knowledge it is not. Let me explain the situation. The main aircraft constructors are at this moment, I believe, fully employed. Let me give this assurance to the House that the full manufacturing capacity of air-frames and aeronautical engines is being employed at this moment; not only being employed but being extended every week and every month. In the case of sub-contractors and where there is, in some cases, a superfluity, that is to say more firms making a particular article than are required, there may be cases where not all are fully employed. All the firms which the hon. Member gave, with the exception of the three firms with which I have dealt fully, come within that category.
    Mr. Sandys: Does my Noble Friend suggest that all the other firms whose names I sent him are superfluous?
    Earl Winterton: I repeat this assertion and I stand by it, that the whole of the firms capable of manufacturing aircraft

    1785
    or aero-engines are, to the best of my knowledge, fully employed, and not only fully employed but are extending their activities every day. In the case of subcontractors I said that where there is a number of firms contracting for the same article, it must necessarily be, in the existing state of competition, that some firms are not fully employed because there are more of them than are required. I submit that it is clear that the Air Ministry is not in control of the construction of engines and that that matter is in the hands of the constructors and manufacturers themselves. I hope that the figures of construction I have given will satisfy the Committee that those firms are fully employed. I would now like to deal with one point in conclusion. I apologise to the Committee—
    Mr. McEntee: May I ask the Noble Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]—I merely want to ask whether he would undertake to say whether the remark which he has just made applies to firms which are competent to manufacture wood aeroplanes. I have in mind a reply which he gave to me about a week ago in which he said that the Government and himself were considering an increase in the number of wood aeroplanes that were being manufactured. No statement on this subject has been made, and I would like to know whether he would make some statement upon that aspect of aircraft production.
    Earl Winterton: I am not in the position to make an announcement on that point. The hon. Member will realise that the number of wood aeroplanes required to-day is comparatively small. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] There are reasons of strategy and tactics for it, into which I need not go now.
    Mr. McEntee: Is the Noble Lord not aware that most of the Russian aeroplanes are manufactured of wood and that in Italy they are of wood and metal? In reply to my question about a week ago he said he was aware of that fact but he now states that wood is not suitable.
    Earl Winterton: I did not say that wood was not suitable. I said that we were experimenting with certain new types of wood-metal construction of this kind. Speaking generally, 90 per cent. of our requirements are in metal aeroplanes. I have already explained that point. In
    1786
    regard to the particular firms which the hon. Member has in mind I would say that if there is need for further wood aeroplanes, they will be given consideration.
    The last point that I wish to answer— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Well, I apologise to the Committee for occupying so much time. It is very good of hon. Members to bear with me so patiently, but I have had to answer a great many questions. The last question is: "Why are there no engineers in the Air Ministry? In effect, that is a criticism that the Air Council have no engineers. That is a complete misconception of the position, and is responsible for a great quantity of ill-judged or misjudged criticism. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Air Ministry do not design or manufacture aeroplanes. [An HON. MEMBER: "They used to."]—I hope I shall be allowed a hearing now, so that I might explain my argument. The Air Ministry have three functions, the first of which is to tell the industry what they want, based upon the authority and the knowledge of the Air Council. I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Air Staff of the Ministry because there has been a great deal of indirect criticism of them outside this House. I should like to say that they are all men who have risen to the top of their profession by splendid service to this country in peace and in war. Some of them have given very remarkable War service. No Ministry could be better staffed or have better advice than the Air Ministry have on the air side. The Ministry have to see whether the designs produced by the industry will meet the needs of the Ministry, and that is dealt with by the research and development staff, who have special user's knowledge and test equipment and apparatus, such as wind tunnels, which individual firms cannot afford and which are centralised at Farnborough. Thirdly, the Ministry have to order the machines chosen as I have described.
    The Air Ministry are therefore the consumer and not the producer. I do not know whether I shall convince either this Committee or the public with my argument, but, in my opinion, the public in this country are riot yet fully aware of the position either of the Air Ministry or of the aircraft industry in this respect. I have been making investigations and I find in every democratic country that

    1787
    the point of attack in Parliament of any Defence ministry is invariably the Air Ministry. I would point out that what the industry wants from the Air Ministry is user's knowledge. The industry fully admits the value of the help of the Air Ministry. I understand there is a contention that it is absurd for you to order aeroplanes if you are not an engineer. That seems to be as bad as saying that anybody interested in the industry of house building should himself have a knowledge of the technical details of construction and should be an architect, and so forth.
    An Hon. Member: It would not be a disadvantage.
    Earl Winterton: What is required is the knowledge which is available to the Air Member for Supply and Organisation, and to the Air Member for Research, and which is based upon the best technical data available. I claim that that technical knowledge is available both within the Ministry and outside. I cannot devote any more time to this point but I hope hon. Members will realise that I am not trying to shirk responsibility. There is a very clear division of function here.
    Mr. Garro Jones: That is the most fallacious argument with which we have been presented for many years. Suppose that, owing to defects in the organisation of manufacture in the industry, the safety of the State were imperilled; do the Air Ministry reject responsibility for putting those defects right? That is what the argument amounts to.
    Earl Winterton: It does not amount to anything of the sort and that was not the argument which I used. The point has been explained on several occasions to the hon. Member and he is evidently not convinced. I cannot hope to convince one individual; all I can hope to do is to convince this Committee and the House of Commons. I should like to say a few words in conclusion. I apologise to the Committee for the length of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not your fault! "] I have certainly had a great many interruptions. One point which has been raised, and is of interest to this country, this Committee and to the House of Commons, is the question: How does our Air Force stand in relation to those of other countries? Will this extended
    1788
    and accelerated plan put us in a better relative position in the next two years? The answer is emphatically "Yes." Our actual output of machines will have increased three-fold, and our potential resources will also be greatly increased. I cannot sufficiently emphasise the fact that those potential resources are increasing every day. In the second place, have we kept pace with Continental Powers in the past compared, for example, with a year ago? We have more than kept pace with some, and here, of course, we must bear in mind many facts. We have in use and coming into use many more machines of higher fighting quality, greater range, and greater bombing power than even a short time ago.
    The air defence of Great Britain must be considered as a whole—bombers, fighters, reconnaissance squadrons, seaplanes, methods of information by physical devices, anti-aircraft guns, searchlights, the number of men trained to work all these methods, the prevention of panic among the civilian population, and the reduction of damage and casualties. All these must be regarded as measures for the air defence of Great Britain as a whole. With most of them it would not be in order to deal on this occasion, but their increase as compared with a year ago enables a much more favourable answer to be given than would have been possible then. I have shown the magnitude of the efforts we are making, but I would like to lay stress on the fact, which I think is insufficiently appreciated, that, for the first time in our history in a period of peace, we are simultaneously carrying out on a vast scale expansion, refitment, rebuilding, or re-equipment, as the case may be, in all three Services. The cost, as the Budget shows, is approaching astronomical proportions. I do not want to get on to a line of argument that would be outside this Debate, but I must, borrowing Lord Baldwin's phrase, point out with brutal frankness that no Defence Service can ever spend limitless sums of money for its own purposes, or obtain without question or negotiation all the material and personnel it would like to have, unless we emulate the methods of the totalitarian States.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We deny that.
    Earl Winterton: You cannot compare like with unlike. In some countries there

    1789
    is an attempt to make sudden demands in the shape of complete control of capital and labour, and the sacrifice of individual liberty and standards of life, such as would have been thought to be impossible in any country before 1914. [Interruption.] The Committee may laugh at this argument if they like, but it is absolutely sound. We are competing, under our voluntary democratic system in this country, and, I believe, are competing successfully, with nations which have complete control over everything that the individual does, says, and thinks. It is, therefore, fantastic to make some of the suggestions which have been made in the course of the criticism of the Air Ministry; they would involve putting opponents of the Government in a concentration camp.
    The time is past when we can consider each of the Services in isolation. Our defence rests on the Navy, the Army, the Royal Air Force, and, I must add, on the financial and economic strength of the country. I would also add another factor—the spirit of a people developed by free institutions and ready to fight for the principles which they represent. Neglect any one of these, and you imperil the whole. The assurance that I can give to the House, speaking not only as representing the Air Ministry but as a Cabinet Minister, is that our defence programme has been framed in the light of the best estimates which can be made of the forces which might be brought against us, and is designed to provide a formidable deterrent against aggression and an effective defence if we are attacked. It is all very well for us to laugh and talk with each other across the Table to-day, but this question whether we have done well or badly is hardly a subject for party controversy. I venture to say that our sense of the gravity of the situation, and our sense of our responsibilities, is certainly not less than that of hon. Members opposite.
    What of the future? The point may be taken that, in spite of the huge increases which I have announced this afternoon, further increases will be necessary at some time in the future. The answer is that the programme is, and must be, a flexible one, but I, for one, refuse to take the dark, pessimistic view that the present situation in Europe and Asia is permanent and inexorable, and
    1790
    that for all time the personnel of the defence ministries of large and small countries will be working, like the Air Ministry in this country, literally day and night to build up the most powerful engines of destruction known to history in the shortest possible time. There is still some seed-bed left in the world from which appeasement and understanding may grow, and, although His Majesty's Government are pressing on with the greatest rearmament that this country has ever known in peace time, we mean, despite criticism and misunderstanding, to try to cultivate it.
    Mr. De la Bére: Are we down-hearted? No.
    6.9 p.m.
    Mr. Attlee: I think that everybody in this House realises the gravity of the position, and there is no denying that there is widespread anxiety in the country with regard to our air defences and to the methods pursued by the Ministry. I think that that anxiety would have been lessened if the Noble Lord had met the matter a little more frankly, with some confession of past failures. He was too uniformly loyal. Loyalty is an admirable characteristic, and it is one of the Noble Lord's most outstanding characteristics; but he carried his loyalty to such a pitch that he was really quite unconvincing. This is not a question that is raised by just a few partisans; it is not raised by just a few disgruntled or interested persons. I was sorry that the Noble Lord laid so much stress on that. He seemed to think that the whole of this criticism, or a very large part of it, came from this or that firm, and that we were being led away in our criticism by interested persons. It did not seem to occur to him that many of us have a great volume of evidence on these matters, and that not one of us would take the mere word of an interested person.
    In all the criticisms that we have made, we have tried to examine and get confirmation from persons with entirely different angles, and really the Noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks that the volume of criticism of the Air Ministry needs to be supported by interested parties. There is enough in what the Government themselves have said to indicate an urgent need for inquiry. We need something more than the Noble Lord's protestations.

    1791
    You cannot meet criticism of the past with a paper programme for the future; you cannot meet fundamental criticism with mere point-blank denials. The kind of criticisms which have been made have been very widespread in the Press—not in just the party Press, not the "Daily Herald "or the "News-Chronicle," but in Government organs, in the most faithful Government organs. The kind of criticisms that are made do not differ according to people's political views; they all converge on the same points. The "Daily Telegraph "says:
    "Why have the necessary steps been so long delayed, and what is arresting progress now? On these fundamental points it is incumbent on the Government to take the public into its confidence as far as discretion permits. There is a volume of expert and nonpartisan dissatisfaction with what is being done, with the methods of the Air Ministry, and with the organisation of the country's manufacturing resources, which is too widespread to be ignored and too definite to be without foundation. The country is not getting the results which it was promised. The nation has made up its mind what it wants, and will be satisfied with nothing less."
    The Noble Lord would not admit that there was anything wrong at all; everything was well in the Air Ministry. I think he said too much, and he will not satisfy criticism by that statement. The "Times "of to-day speaks of a very general anxiety. It says:
    "The whole conception upon which this expansion programme has been based has proved to he far too small…. the plans originally laid… have proved to be incommensurate with the requirements of the case… many intervening pronouncements had given the impression that all was going smoothly."
    Now we have had another pronouncement that all is going smoothly. But these constant pronouncements are almost always followed my some drastic change, either of programme or of personnel. We can hardly wonder that the general public has ceased to accept them. After all, the Noble Lord's presence at the Ministry is certain proof that all is not well. We have had a volume of criticism, including that put in extremely moderate terms and from great knowledge by the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely). An abundance of criticism can be quoted from Members of this House who are best qualified to speak on air matters and on technical matters. Really, the Noble Lord cannot say that all these critics are disgruntled people.
    Earl Winterton: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I said that. On the contrary, I said that the greater bulk of the criticism was based on genuine apprehension.
    Mr. Attlee: I doubt whether those Members are so misapprehensive. I have found them right before. This is a matter of grave public concern, and everyone is in a difficulty in dealing with it on the Floor of the House. We do not know how much possible enemies may know. The Government say that they cannot say anything. It is difficult for us to say anything.
    I should have liked a private inquiry to be made into the whole matter. We asked for it privately, but could not get it. We asked again on the Estimates that there should be an expert inquiry by people who understood the business. It was flatly refused. The Prime Minister said that that was a court-martial on Ministers. He said things were too serious for a court-martial. It is just when things are serious that you want a court-martial. But it was not a court-martial that we were demanding; we wanted an inquiry. In the course of great wars we have had inquiries. Last time we asked for an inquiry we were amply justified. When we asked for the setting up of the Cadman Committee the Government took the same line. Everything, they said, was all right. Now we are going to ask again for an inquiry. We believe that the House of Commons has a right to an inquiry, so that we may know what the Government are doing. I do not know how much foreign countries know. I do not know whether they have secret services far better than ours. If their secret services are not better than ours, they probably know nothing of what is happening; but I give them credit for knowing a great deal about our Air Force.
    My charge is this: The Government, ever since it was first brought to their knowledge that there was a great air force being built up in Germany, have been guilty of an entire miscalculation of the situation. I deny entirely what the Secretary of State for Air said. He said that if we had been in the same position as we are now, with all our knowledge, we should have done exactly what we did then. That would have been absolute folly. It is obvious that

    1793
    there has been miscalculation from the start. Successive programmes have been found insufficient. Expansion has been haphazard. These insufficient programmes have not been realised. Again and again we have had optimistic forecasts. They have been found to be unjustified. At the present time not only have we not got air parity with Germany, on whatever formula you base it, but we are getting further away from air parity every week and every month. Despite what the Noble Lord has said this afternoon, we are not even within sight of air parity. The proposals put forward by the Noble Lord, as far as I can see on the best information we have on what they are doing over there, will not bring us, even in 1940, to the position Germany is in already. I say that the failure of these plans is due to failure to concentrate on essentials; that production has been subject to unnecessary delay, and that it is all due to the fact that the Government have never properly thought out their problem, and have never got the appropriate organisation. I say that this is due to the inefficiency of Ministers. Ministers have not been given the job they could do. The Secretary of State for Air should not be given the job of running the Air Force and being Minister of Munitions at the same time; and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence was given an impossible task, because his functions were never properly defined.
    In this matter we must look at the background of this crisis. We must look at what has been done if we want to get the thing in the proper perspective. We start with the time when Lord Baldwin was aware that heavy air rearmament was taking place in Germany. That was followed by the two years that were lost. We are not forgetting that it was that Government that, for political purposes, lost those two years. In 1933 Lord Baldwin knew the danger. I recall that phrase—it was not "brutally frank," it was "appallingly frank "—because he was not so much brutal to us as appalling to his colleagues. We have had that confirmed by no less a person than the Home Secretary, who said that if the needs of rearmament had been faced two years earlier there would never have been the disturbing events of the Abyssinian crisis. During those two years, what ought to have been done by the Prime Minister, who, although he knew, would not face
    1794
    the country with what he knew to be the right programme for dealing with the danger? You would have thought that the Air Ministry would have been put in a position to expand when the time came.
    I have been looking back on past Reports, and I noticed the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in 1933. He made some very pertinent remarks. He said that, in theory, we had a small but highly up-to-date force. He asked whether our technical superiority was being maintained. He got no reply to that question. I notice that he often does not get replies. They would have had to say that the technical superiority of this Force was not being maintained. The result was that when the time for expansion came there was nothing ready, there were no plans, no prototypes— only out-of-date 'planes and out-of-date equipment. [Interruption.] Let me recall to the Prime Minister that it was Lord Baldwin who told us that we did not need armaments. We were told not to worry. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was a sharer of Lord Baldwin's knowledge. It was he and his Government, on Lord Baldwin's admission, who were not going to tell the country this, and they must take responsibility. The Members on this side have always been prepared to support proper fighting services with a proper policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us another."] Hon. Members do not know very well what happens, because they so seldom attend. I have sat through many Debates in this House —most of them, in fact, from 1931. We have had many Debates on Defence. You can study my speeches on Defence, and you will find that I never said anything but that, whatever you are going to have in Defence organisation must be efficient and up-to-date.
    The Prime Minister said that we voted against the Estimates. I am going to deal with the Prime Minister's point. He is not a very old Parliamentary hand, or he would not have put it. He said, "You voted against the Estimates." I will ask him to go to an older Parliamentary hand than he, that is, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask him why he voted against the entire Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates in 1928? Let him ask his Minister of Labour why he voted against the Estimates, and let him

    1795
    ask his Minister of War why he voted against the Estimates. What he has said is one of those half-truths which are worse than lies, and do a disservice to the country. The Noble Lord would not say that, because he is too good a Parliamentarian. He knows perfectly what is the significance of voting against the Estimates. He knows that he and his friends have voted against the entire provision for Education, for Police and for the Foreign and Diplomatic Services. He knows that no Labour man has ever got up on the platform and said that they are opposed to all provision for education and police forces. As a matter of fact, this thing was invented by the Chancellor, and it is worthy of him. It is about time that that lie was nailed. It is untrue that a vote against an Estimate in this House means that the party which votes against it desires that there should be no provision. It is well known that it is a vote against policy. Perhaps that will save anybody who is going to reply from taking up the Prime Minister's point.
    Until I was interrupted, I was dealing with the Baldwin point. There is no doubt at all that Lord Baldwin knew perfectly well what the position was, and that he deliberately said, "I will not tell the people that they must re-arm." After he came in we had the first expansion programme, a small expansion programme, which was followed by an attack on the Noble Lord by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Then came the famous Baldwin speech, in which he said that That Government would see to it that in air strength and air power this country should no longer be inferior to any country within striking distance of its shores.
    Have the Government kept that pledge? Of course they have not. We have had a series of complacent statements. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in 1934 gave figures of German strength. He was told that he was all wrong, and it was said by Lord Baldwin that there was no cause for alarm. In March, 1935, these assurances were renewed. And then came a collapse. We had another appalling statement. Lord Baldwin came down and said he had been completely deceived, that even then Germany had obtained parity with us. And never since then has the Baldwin
    1796
    pledge been kept. When we have the Noble Lord coming down and saying we must take his word that everything is all right, we remember that we have been asked to take a great many words like those, and that they have been wrong. We know that the Air Force to-day is very largely equipped with obsolete and obsolescent material. I never understood, and I do not believe that this House understood, that when we had obtained the first 1,500 planes they would be obsolete.
    What is the good of the Noble Lord getting up and saying that our aeroplanes are equal to those of any other Forces in the world? We want to know the proportions of our strength. It is no good saying that we have some aeroplanes, and that one which is just going to be made and one which has just come in are equal to any of those of other countries. If you consider parity, you have to consider the proportions of up-to-date aeroplanes in each force and make comparisons. What is the position? The position is that we have these 1,750 aeroplanes, or whatever the number may be, and that Germany, we are told, has between 2,500 and 3,000 aeroplanes. We have been told that at the present time their production is somewhere near double that of ours. I am putting the position very moderately. I am told that all this is being done by working only one shift in Germany. I should like to know whether that is so, and whether they cannot do much more, working two and three shifts. The fact remains that with things as they are to-day, and with our present rate of production, we are not overtaking but are falling behind.
    It is no good asking us to accept a wonderful new programme. We want to know what has actually been done by the Air Ministry in the past. It is time that we got away from everlastingly thinking that somehow or other this has been a terrible rush. They have had nearly three years in which to do it, and we cannot treat Lord Swinton as still only in the position of a new boy. It is three years since Lord Baldwin awoke to the danger. Let me make a comparison. We started with an established Air Force, with an industry and a considerable number of first-line aeroplanes, and in three years we have worked up to 1,750 and are still not up to date.
    Mr. Churchill: Fifteen hundred.
    Mr. Attlee: We have a production of something like 250 a month. Look at the comparison of the Great War. I am aware that aeroplanes are now more complicated. I am also aware that in the Great War there was a terrific strain to find people to produce the necessary munitions for the Navy, Army and Air Force. Yet in the War we started with little experience and had only 113 aeroplanes, and we worked up to an output of 1,229 a month, and in four years to 2,668 a month. We built over 55,000 aeroplanes during the War. That was a terrific expansion. Why has so little been done in the last three years? There must be something wrong when the results are so puny. In the War we had a very slight start. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping talked about the seed time, but in that seed time there was the sowing of wild oats. Until you get the organisation of munitions supply you will not really begin to overtake these difficulties.
    Take the aeroplane position now. There is the initial fault that nothing is ready for expansion. When expansion was decided upon a number of different types were put in hand, and to-day there are a great number of different types in production. One would have thought that, if there was this real menace of the strongest Air Force abroad, there would have been concentration on the vital types needed to meet that menace, that is, very powerful fighters and long-range bombers. Instead, there is the production of a great variety of aeroplanes, short-range bombers, Army co-operation types and Navy types. I do not say that they are not necessary, but there should have been priority, the putting of first things first.
    I am told that some of the aeroplanes under construction are equal to German or Italian aeroplanes, but a great many of them are not. I have the figures here of their performances given in "Jane's" There are 37 different types being produced, and experts tell me that 12 would be enough. The trouble is that these types have not been simplified and standardised. I would like to take up the Noble Lord on that question. He gave a very emphatic statement saying that you could not have anything like standardisation or simplification. I am
    1798
    told that the Italian aeroplanes are far simpler than our aeroplanes, and that the German aeroplanes are more standardised than ours. I am told that the trouble is that our aeroplanes are complicated to a degree which is quite unnecessary. I have details here of a simple type of fighter aeroplane. There are 151 different sizes of bar, 147 different sizes of tube, 50 gauges of sheet, 105 sizes of rivets and scores of different screws, nuts and bolts. There are different sorts of steel and every kind of variation and specification. That is only one type. It is the same in regard to other types made by different firms. When you multiply these you get an enormous range of different types which have to be kept in stock. That is one of the reasons I am told—I am not a technical man—for the slow delivery.
    I really could not understand the Noble Lord saying that it is all nonsense about these alterations. I have heard story after story of alterations, and it would really require a vivid imagination to invent some of them. Let me give one of them. Here is the question of an order for certain aeroplanes. I am told that they suddenly discovered that there was no provision for a navigator and that the plans had to be altered in order to accommodate a navigator. When that was done they found that the navigator could not communicate with the pilot. Is that true or not? These are the kinds of stories which one hears. They do not come from irresponsible quarters.
    I hear from another quarter that there is a multiplicity of materials and specifications, and that the Directorate of aeronautical production has not been the help to the industry which had been expected. I am told that a perfect mass of officials sweep down from the Air Ministry and that all have their suggestions to make and there is no one to decide between them, and that it takes weeks for specifications to be brought out. That may or may not be true, but I have it from various quarters. I want to know whether you have the organisation in the industry that can bring about a big development if you should need it. The impression I had was that you had a peace time industry, with a certain number of firms working for the Ministry. When expansion first began all that was done was to try to accelerate and slightly widen the

    1799
    work of these peace time firms. Then you went a little further and got a shadow scheme and a shadow Minister, and even now you have not got down to the really big problem of production, the real problem of utilising the resources of this country. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson) spoke of that fact. Until you get definite, clear and quick decisions and standardisation, you cannot utilise the engineering resources of this country as they could be utilised, and as, I believe, the engineering resources in other countries are being utilised.
    I have a great number of these points to put to the Noble Lord. They all tell the same kind of tale. The point is always put with regard to the guns for the aeroplanes. We have had a definite statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Air that the gun position is quite satisfactory, but I am told that the guns in use are obsolete and that there are only a few new ones in use. They are waiting for the Browning or the Vickers K and there has been no practice with them by most of the gunners. There has been trouble about the cartridges. Is it true that the Ministry issued the wrong sort of cartridges and that the gun or the cartridge has to be redesigned? Is the Ministry being held up at all by firms holding rights in the pressure pump for revolving turrets?
    While I am on guns I would like to ask about the anti-aircraft guns. How many of these guns with the big range have we actually got? Is it true that there are only six in London? It is no good telling us that everything is all right when the specific points are put by people who know. I am told that, owing to changes, a number of categories of workers have been telescoped. The result is that there are not the staffs engaged on the production of aeroplanes that there ought to be. I am also told that the people who fly the aeroplanes should do any repairs that are necessary, that there are not proper maintenance squads, and that Air Group Commands have to improvise as best they can and ordinary repairs have to be carried out by the crews. Even men sent down by the makers often have insufficient knowledge. The result is that aeroplanes have to be sent back to the makers who have no time for the repair work, and therefore there is a loss of
    1800
    effective use of the machines. I want to know whether there has been any planning for maintenance. All I find is that it was stated in a previous Debate that they were just beginning to get on with maintenance. All these things seem to be so late; they never seem to be tackled from the start.
    Is it true that there is a great shortage of wireless operators? If so, who is responsible? The Under-Secretary said that the supply of wireless operators is very satisfactory, but I heard a story recently that a firm obtained a tender to make wave meters. Specifications were sent from the Air Ministry and found to be dated 1931 and were hopelessly obsolete. The material specified included speciality products of firms which had been out of business for ten years and could not be obtained. That might have been a slip, but it took several months before the blunder was admitted. All these things seem to show a lack of foresight. Are the shadow factories properly synchronised? The Noble Lord said that the engines were all right, but are they being held up by the air frames? Are these firms which are paid large sums for this work really putting on first-class men? I have had letters from workers which seem to suggest that they are not.
    Earl Winterton: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is asking a lot of questions, but I would repeat that, as far as I can judge, the shadow factory situation is very satisfactory, and all these matters which he suggests are arising are not giving any cause for anxiety.
    Mr. Attlee: I am very glad to hear that, but we shall know better when we get delivery of the planes. My information is that the organisation is bad and that the workers are complaining of time being wasted, not of money being wasted. I should like to ask a good many questions with regard to instruments. There is the question of blind flying. I am not in the least satisfied with the statement we have had about blind flying. We have had the definite statement that blind flying apparatus was not being fitted to obsolete machines, only to new ones, but as only a comparatively small proportion of the squadrons have been provided with new planes, and these only recently, it follows that very few pilots have had any experience in blind flying. I can-

    1801
    not understand why it should take these years to advocate these instruments. One of the complaints that has come to me is that although these things are being used in other countries, the authorities in this country took a long time to adopt them. I am told by an experienced officer that the fact is you may say that our Air Force is a fair weather force. Until quite recently it has not done any blind flying. That is extremely unsatisfactory.
    Let me come to the Ministry itself. We have had a nice picture of the Ministry, but it is not the picture one gets when one talks to people who have anything to do with it. There is war between departments. This might be got over by the Noble Lord's committee, but the very fact that we are to have the Noble Lord's committee is a proof that there is something wrong. First of all, we had Lord Swinton, then the Minister for the Coordination of Defence and his typist, and now we are to have the Chancellor of the Duchy and his committee. I do not know the exact relationship between the three, but the very fact that we have had to set up each is a confession that there is something wrong somewhere. I do not think there will be any advantage in exchanging one incompetent member of a trinity for another. Fundamentally the trouble is wrong organisation. The Government are trying to do at the Air Ministry what the Air Ministry cannot do. They have resisted steadily the plea made from both sides of the House that there should be a proper ministry of supply, which should be run by people who understand the business of supply. The Noble Lord, as one would expect, made a very fine defence of the personnel of the Air Ministry. He put up the argument that there was no need for engineers. I do not say that they need all be engineers, but they should understand engineering. He also said they are customers. If they are customers they should know something about flying, -and my information is that the bulk of the higher personnel in the Air Ministry have flown very little indeed in recent years. The actual amount is about six hours a year in a Moth. Actually they have had no experience of these high-powered machines.
    The information I have received is that technical men are not fully utilised in the Air Force. There is a kind of person, who is not a technical man but is supposed to be a great administrator, who
    1802
    got into the Air Ministry at a certain stage, and whatever happens he stays there. I am not at all satisfied with what I have heard. The inspection is being done by a former chief of the Air Staff. He may be an admirable man, but how can he inspect properly the results of his own work? Throughout it is a failure to organise this Ministry properly. Above all, there is a failure to utilise the resources of this country in personnel, and a failure to take advantage of the lessons of the past.
    Let me make one other point about the workers. When the Minister for the Coordination of Defence was appointed he told us that one of the first things he was going to do was to get in touch with labour. It was two years before he approached the trade unions. What is the Noble Lord's explanation of that? Can you wonder that there is discontent. What one finds throughout the whole story is that everything is always too late. When that occurs you want changes at the top. The Government did not envisage the task. They ought to have known that mere temporary programmes in view of their foreign policy would not get us out of the difficulty. Obviously, they would have continuously to increase their programme, and should have planned accordingly. I wonder if they asked for advice from people who had to do this kind of thing in the Great War. There were two or three. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the right hon. Member for Epping and Lord Addison had to do this thing in the War. Was their advice asked? I doubt it. Just the same kind of things which had to be cleaned up in 1915 need to be cleaned up now.
    I am not satisfied in the least with what the Noble Lord has told us to-day. If I may say so, he has protested far too much. There is far too much assertion and far too little proof. He did not deal with the point put by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely). think the House has a right to know what is happening, and although it may be that the Government cannot tell us the whole truth, yet we may be satisfied if we have a committee which we can trust of qualified people to go into the matter. It might be satisfactory if we had a proper organisation of supply, and people with drive at the head. The fundamental trouble is that throughout the whole of this business

    1803
    there was not a person with authority to say, "This must come first, and this must be done." There has been a constant struggle between Departments, and the impression upon one, despite what the Noble Lord has said, is one of continuing muddle. All the rosy pictures the Noble Lord painted of the great achievements to come in 1940 we do not see, unless the Air Ministry are going to correct the mistakes they have already made. I see no signs that the Air Ministry have yet learned the lessons of the past.
    6.54 p.m.
    Captain Harold Balfour: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has castigated the Air Ministry because we have not got to-day an air force adequate in size for our protection in the present international situation. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) said that the Air Ministry was not carrying out the duty that it should. This Debate is one on the Air Ministry Vote, and I submit it is wrong to base on the Air Ministry the plea that we have not to-day an Air Force on a parity with the air forces of any other country in Europe. The right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member must remember that if we had an Air Force to-day of much greater strength than it is, the Air Ministry could not claim the credit for it, and, equally, if we have to-day an Air Force which is not of sufficient size in relation to other European air forces, then the Air Ministry must not be blamed for it. The Air Ministry are carrying out the policy and programme authorised by Parliament and submitted to Parliament by the Government of the day. Broadly speaking—it has not been contradicted on any side of the Committee—scheme F for 1,750 first-line aircraft by March, 1939, is, generally speaking, satisfactorily completed. If the F scheme is proved now to be quite inadequate in the light of the international situation, that is a matter quite outside the range of criticism of the particular Department whose Vote we are discussing.
    If scheme F is now recognised as inadequate and has to be supplemented by this new expansion scheme I submit that the criticism that this is overdue and should have been undertaken before should be directed to high Government policy rather than to the Department
    1804
    which is not responsible if scheme L has not been put forward earlier. The right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition and his friends to-day say that we started too late, that in Mr. Baldwin's time we should have started this great expansion scheme. I submit, and I think the Committee will agree with me, that the Government of the day in educating public opinion got very little help either in speech or by vote from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends above the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman has now enunciated a new policy—that votes do not really count very much, and that it does not very much matter if you vote against most of the Service Estimates because you do not really mean anything by your vote.
    Mr. Attlee: The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that there are votes which are delivered for a particular purpose and do not necessarily carry any meaning. In the same way votes against the Estimates in July have never been held to mean that those who so vote are refusing all supplies of the country.
    Captain Balfour: That is an interesting theory, but it must be taken a little further, because even if you talk about votes which you really do not mean you have to take into account the speeches made both in the country and in Parliament at the time of the Votes. I have taken the trouble, guessing that the right hon. Gentleman would defend himself and his record of the votes of himself and his friends in this Debate—if he does not, his attack to-day is completely inconsistent—to arm myself with one or two of the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made about the rearmament programme which he now says should have been started much earlier and about which the Government were very lax, although goaded on at all times by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. In "Reynolds "newspaper in November, 1935, just the time when the right hon. Member now says that the Government were hanging back, although he and his friends were urging them on, I discover that he wrote:
    "The National Government has prepared a great programme of rearmament which will endanger the peace of the world."
    I scarcely think that a speech like that condemning the rearmament programme is consistent with what he has said to-day.
    Mr. Attlee: The answer to that is very simple.
    Captain Balfour: An answer may always be simple, but the answer that the country gave to this speech of the right hon. Gentleman made just before the election of 1935 was a very decisive one. They did not agree with his point of view because they realised what he was endeavouring to do—not to give adequate defence to the country.
    I should like to draw attention to the question the public will be asking tomorrow when they read this Debate. It is whether scheme L, which we have now, to give us 3,500 first line aircraft by March, 1940, is going to he adequate to give us parity with any air force within striking distance of our shores and, if not, what augmentation of scheme L should be considered at this time, and by what method could we increase scheme L should the international situation demand that that should take place now or later. There are three ways to increase our production. The first is to overhaul the procedure of peace-time administration of a supply department which is difficult to adapt to the expanded conditions, and has obvious faults which as we are told to-day are being tackled. The second is to see whether we can standardise production to a greater degree. The third is to see whether we can build up a potential war production overseas. A fourth is a means I shall speak about in a few moments. As regards the first possibility, that is mixed up with criticisms heard to-day of the Department. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Attlee) that there are naturally things that are not all right and that faults can always be found, particularly when a Department that is expanding from comparatively small proportions and is taking on a gigantic scheme having to carry it through with a minimum of interference with our peacetime domestic life and our home and export trade. If I thought that an inquiry would do any good or help to solve difficulties I should support the proposal, but an inquiry would divert those very people who, the right hon. Gentleman and others say, should be kept upon their technical job because, being serving officers, they have all too short a time, and because the longer they are at their job the more perfect they become and the more useful —it would divert, perhaps, 50 per cent.
    1806
    of their time in the next few critical months away from getting on with their job on to preparing masses of evidence to justify their Department and their actions in front of some committee.
    Mr. Simmonds: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that any diversion of officials in connection with the Cadman inquiry was thoroughly well justified?
    Captain Balfour: Certainly I do, but the importance of getting on with Service aviation is infinitely greater than that of getting on with civil aviation. Whereas we can afford to take a risk with civil aviation, we should be taking a grave risk with the machinery, the wheels of which are now turning with increasing force, if we adopted the proposal of the Committee. I will leave the second alternative, the question of standardisation, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) who will deal with it, but any great standardisation involves a great deal of tooling up and jigging, and it would take two years before we got the increased production through designing what I would term the mechano type of aeroplane. As to the third alternative— the building up of production overseas. It would take three years before we got production in Canada, what with the building of the factories and the securing of labour and materials, problems which we face here, and when we had done it we should have the weak link of having to rely for a large number of our supplies on the crossing of the Atlantic always being free for freighters carrying supplies in time of war.
    Nothing that I have said so far helps us under two years, but I believe there is one further course which I urge on the Air Ministry to undertake with a much greater degree of boldness than has hitherto been the case. I refer to a large and wholesale reversion to wood construction. I shall be told that there are great technical difficulties, but they have been overcome in Russia and Italy, and to some extent in Czechoslovakia, which are to-day all building first-line fighter and bomber aircraft of wood construction. Anyone who travels by some Imperial Airways or the Railway Air Service and Empire Service to-day travels in wood construction air liners. I know that the Ministry is experimenting and is using wood for training machines on a large

    1807
    scale, but this is far from the drastic adoption of wood on the enormous scale which I believe will be necessary if we are to catch up the lag of some 5,000 aircraft which I can foresee between our total production and that of a certain country across the sea as the gap by the time that the 1940 L Programme is finished. Given the necessary decision and powers, and provided engines were available— there is no hold up as regards engine production—one could guarantee a large number of first-line high efficiency aircraft in 12 months if some programme such as this were adopted. Call the designers together and tell them in six weeks that they are to produce simple mass-production designs for a bomber and fighter type with performance as near as possible to that of existing metal types. Meanwhile, the available labour in the carpentering, joinery and wood-working industries would be assured and a schedule of floor spaces for manufacture and erection would be prepared in order to plan the potential productive forces. The prototypes could be produced in four months after the receipt of the design and production would start in the various factories, wings in one, fuselages in another and metal components in others. Assembly would start some six months after the prototype testing was finished, and we could work up to a production of 1,000 a month, which is considerably less than the production we were carrying at the end of the War.
    I should be much happier if I felt that scheme L was going to give us parity by March, 1940, but it seems to me that the situation overseas is so serious—it is not the blame of the Government; it would be much more serious if it was not for the policy of the Government—that scheme L, which is to give us 3,500 first-line aircraft, is not adequate in view of the risks that we have to face, unless we are so fortunate as to be able to bring about a general limitation of armaments. It is for that reason that I ask the Committee to consider whether the scheme is adequate and, if it is not, what means can be adopted to bring into existence the much greater and wider scheme which, I am afraid, it will inevitably be necessary to adopt and to put through successfully.
    7.11 p.m.
    Major Lloyd George: If any justification were needed for our action in raising
    1808
    this question, it is to be found in the Noble Lord's speech. In saying that, I am not criticising him personally, because he has been at his task only for a short time, but we are entitled to say that it is a very good reflection of the attitude taken inside the Ministry towards the criticisms that have been made. He referred to the apprehension that was evident in all parts of the country. It is an apprehension that is very readily understood when one considers how necessary it is for the safety of the country to have an adequate Air Force. Not only has it the task of protecting our sea communications, because after all that was the most serious thing in the last War, but a new danger has arrived from the air, and there is no doubt that the Air Force has taken a big part in meeting that danger. There is also the task of the defence of our shores, and particularly of London, and of course of our possessions overseas.
    Having regard, therefore, to our responsibilities, the question has been asked, What is our relative position with regard to the air forces of other countries? Reference has been made more than once to the definition given by Lord Baldwin, that we should, at any rate, have parity with any country within striking distance of ourselves. How do we stand in that respect? We have not got parity to-day. Indeed I think it is true to say that disparity is increasing. It is all very well for the Noble Lord to say we shall be increasing threefold, and shall be in a better relative position in two years' time. If he means that that will give us parity, it means that whatever country is within striking distance will remain at the same rate of output as to-day. Judging by the figures that one can get from fairly reliable sources, that is not the case. There has been a rapid increase of production in a country which is certainly within striking distance. In view of what has happened in the past, it is not easy to accept the Noble Lord's assurance. It assumes that there is to be no increase in the production of whatever country it may be.
    The Noble Lord said the Air Ministry had brought the ship into smooth water after a very rough passage, and it was a singularly inappropriate moment to get rid of the captain. I am not suggesting that, but it is surely not an inappropriate

    1809
    moment to consider whether the ship's construction is responsible for the delay in arrival every time it comes to port. We want to see whether the construction is right and whether it is responsible for the delays that we are suffering. In a speech in another place a few days ago, the Secretary of State for Air said that the test of any system is whether it works. That is the test we ought to apply. Does any hon. Member suggest that the system of developing the Royal Air Force at the present time is working? I think the Noble Lord must be the only one who suggests that. The only way in which we can judge is by the results—
    Earl Winterton: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeds to develop his argument, may I ask him whether he means that the aircraft industry in this country is not developing?
    Major Lloyd George: I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that, judging by the test of whether it has been efficient, the system is not working satisfactorily.
    Earl Winterton: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but what does he mean when he talks about the "system "? We have all this vague talk. Is the hon. and gallant Member referring to the system of ordering or to the industry itself? To what is he objecting? My claim was—and I repeat it—that the aircraft industry is now producing and increasing in the most satisfactory manner.
    Major Lloyd George: I apologise if I was vague, but I must have caught it in the afternoon. I am not suggesting that the aircraft industry is not efficient. When I speak of the system, I mean the Ministry, which is responsible for giving orders. I repeat that we can judge only by the results up to date. The Noble Lord has given us plenty of assurances, but I would remind him that his are not the only assurances that we have had from the Government Front Bench over a long period of time.
    Earl Winterton: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman again, but I would point out that it is not simply a case of giving assurances. Assurances were given in the past regarding the time at which the scheme would
    1810
    be finished. I assured the Committee to-day that, in fact, the scheme will be finished earlier than was anticipated.
    Major Lloyd George: That is another assurance, but in any case it does not alter my point. We have been given assurances, and we cannot be blamed now if we do not accept them owing to the record in the past. There is a good deal of apprehension in the country about what is going on, whatever the Noble Lord may say about the aircraft industry. Several questions were asked this afternoon, but the Noble Lord did not answer them. Certain statements were made which, to the best of our knowledge are correct, and the Noble Lord did not deny them. There can be no question but that there is serious apprehension as far as production is concerned. With regard to equipment, the Noble Lord talked about the wonderful new machines which we have. Are all of them fit to go up into the air if an emergency arises? Are all the wonderful bombers, which we have—admittedly they are some of the best in the world— in a position to go up into the air at the present time and fulfil the purpose for which they were built? Those are the sort of things about which there is a good deal of apprehension in the country. It is no good simply saying that everything is all right. If everything is all right, why is it suggested that we should get aeroplanes from America? Is this country incapable of supplying the amount of aircraft, whether it be training, fighting or bombing, which it requires, especially after three years in which there has been development? We have the equipment; certainly, we have the organising ability—no country could beat us in that respect—and we have the labour. Whatever the Noble Lord may say, there is a good deal of unemployment among people who could be utilised to do this work to-day.
    Earl Winterton indicated dissent.
    Major Lloyd George: The Noble Lord does not agree, but I go by the figures of the number of people engaged in the trades concerned. Surely, they could be utilised in the aircraft factories. We had to do that during the War, and we did it successfully.
    Earl Winterton: No.
    Major Lloyd George: As a matter of fact, the present situation and the speech of the Noble Lord are extraordinarily reminiscent of the early days of the War. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I read of what happened. The same sort of questions were asked, the same doubts were expressed, and the same assurances were given, and of course, it was not in the public interest to tell anybody anything. The situation came to a head in 1916. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) referred to the delay that an inquiry would cause. One of the worst things in 1916 was that time was wasted by the Cabinet in trying to get some sort of co-ordinated method of supplying aircraft; there was a great deal of delay, not in examining the position, but in deciding what should be done. That was the position in the spring of 1916. In May of that year, the Air Board came into being, but it was not functioning properly until February, 1917. It coordinated various services. Everybody remembers the battles that went on between the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. The result was that by June, 1917, a very short time afterwards, more machines were produced in a week than had hitherto been produced in a month, and by the end of the year 10 times as many machines were produced as in the year before. As we have heard to-day, it was possible to produce 30,000 machines at the end of 1918. Let hon. Members compare the increase in the production of aeroplanes which took place between the appointment of that Board and 1918 with the increase which has taken place since 1934, under this programme. The Noble Lord said that we cannot work under war conditions. Nobody has suggested that we should. I would remind him that that argument cuts both ways. During the War, there were about 5,000,000 men in the Services. We had to accelerate the Naval programme, we had greatly to accelerate the Mercantile Marine programme, we needed people for the land, people for munitions, and drafts were constantly being sent to the Front. Raw material was much more difficult to obtain then than it is to-day. Despite all those things, once they got down to the task, they increased production.
    Earl Winterton: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has entirely missed the point of my argument. I did not say that we could not work under war conditions. In the very interesting speech which he is making, although it is slightly critical of the Air Ministry, I ask him to address his mind to this point. I challenge anybody to deny the statement that one cannot compare conditions in this country with conditions in a totalitarian State. [An HON. MEMBER: "War conditions."] Not war conditions. I assert that certain countries in Europe to-day are asking their people to do in peace time far more than we were asked to do in war time.
    Major Lloyd George: I will come to that matter later. I believe that this afternoon the Noble Lord said, in reply to an interruption, that the machines of to-day are much more complicated than the machines during the War. I was comparing the increase in production at the present time with the increase which took place after the setting up of that coordinating body in 1916. After all, despite the fact that the machines were simpler in 1916, we were not getting the necessary production, but when that body was set up, production was increased tenfold in the first year and there was an enormous increase in the following year. That was because they had what was, in effect, a ministry of supply, and it is that which we want to see set up to-day. It is not only aeroplanes which we have to get, but machine guns, bomb-carriers, and bomb-loading apparatus. That is a matter of supply.
    I am told, for instance, that there is a shortage of certain types of raw material, such as aluminium. Is there any committee sitting which decides how aluminium shall be allocated among the various Services? We were told the other day from the Government Front Bench, in answer to a question, that the Navy has priority, but that the Air Force has priority over the War Office. I should say that the Air Force ought to have priority over the other Services, because there is no question about the safety of our shores, as far as Naval defence is concerned, for some considerable time to come. But if we have to wait until 1940 before we can get a three-fold expansion in the Air Force—which even then does not ensure us parity—I feel that the time

    1813
    has come when there should be priority for the Air Force, until some considerable advance has been made on the present position. As I have said, all we have had is assurances, but we cannot overlook the fact that so many things have not been fulfilled after similar assurances have been given in the past.
    The Noble Lord talked about the efficiency of the dictatorship States, and said that things could be done in dictatorship States which cannot be done here. This country has proved once, at any rate, in the greatest trial of strength, that it could do better than dictatorship States. But there must be certain conditions, and the last War showed what those conditions are. The people should be told what the position is, and should not on every occasion be told that it is not in the public interest to tell anything. This country showed during the last War that when it NA as told what the true situation was, it could not only stand up to dictatorship States, but could go far beyond their efficiency—and it saw the struggle through to the end. I wish to make a suggestion to the Noble Lord. I fully appreciate that there are occasions when it is impossible to give information, and that there may be great difficulties about a secret session of Parliament. The Noble Lord appealed to us to-day in a nonparty spirit, and I accept that, as I think every hon. Member does, because all of us want to do something to put this matter right. But it is of no use our putting forward constructive criticism if every time we do so we are told that the things we say are not true, but are given no explanation of why they are not true.
    Would it not be possible for a committee of representatives of all parties in the House to go to the Ministry, to put forward their criticisms, and to be given answers? It is very difficult if we are simply to be told that it is not in the public interest that we should be given information. Criticisms are made, and if they are not true, it is in the public interest that it should be made clear that they are not true. Such a thing as I suggest has been done before. When the Disarmament Conference was about to meet, the then Prime Minister took into his confidence representatives of all parties and placed the information available to the Government at their disposal. I do not see why something of that sort
    1814
    should not be done to-day, in order that we may satisfy ourselves that the safety of this country is secure. I am certain that if the public is given the chance of knowing what the position is, we need not worry about the dictatorship States, for the people of this country would stand up to them and defeat them. But the Government must take the people into their confidence, and give democracy a chance to show what it can do.
    7.28 p.m.
    Mr. Boothby: The Committee will be relieved to know that I do not propose to detain it for more than four or five minutes, for there are many experts who are far better qualified to take part in this Debate than I am. I have risen solely for the purpose of making one or two definite proposals which I hope are of a constructive nature, and to which I wish to call the attention of the Noble Lord. I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must have felt that we are debating to-day in conditions of the greatest difficulty, because whatever hon. Members may say, however dissatisfied they may be, there are many vital facts about aeroplane production which must be kept secret, and which cannot possibly be debated in public in this Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), who made a very interesting speech, wants to set up a small committee of hon. Members who have special expert knowledge; and I have no doubt that the Noble Lord will be prepared to consider receiving them at the Air Ministry at a later stage, and placing before them certain facts which they may wish to find out, but which cannot be given in public.
    When the time comes to discuss air-raid precautions and air defences, no doubt strong criticisms will be made about our apparent lack of preparation in certain directions. The Government will have to face some fierce and open criticism in these fields. But we do not know, and the Government cannot tell us, exactly what is happening in regard to aeroplane production. All that we know is that producing aeroplanes is rather like getting almonds out of a bottle. The first one is almost impossible to get out at all, and the second is very difficult to extract; but afterwards they come out in a steady stream. That

    1815
    is what we hope will happen with our aeroplane production.
    There is another thing that we know, that is not quite so encouraging, and that is that German production is now running at a very high rate. Indeed, I said the other day in this House that German production was running at an average of 500 machines a month, and that it would shortly rise to 600, and those figures have not been contradicted. This is pretty formidable. I agree with my Noble Friend that they are working under conditions under which we cannot work, and here they enjoy an immense advantage, because in the last resort Goering, in Berlin, can ring up anybody and tell him to get on with a particular piece of work or he will be in gaol that night, and he gets on with it. An hon. Member says it can be done here, but he would not like it, and there are very few people in this country who would like it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that my Noble Friend and Lord Swinton have got to be measured as administrators against Field-Marshal Goering, who is, I submit, whatever one may think of his politics, one of the greatest administrators of modern times. He has created, to begin with, under conditions of secrecy, the most tremendous weapon of war the world has ever seen. That is the standard we are up against, and we have to do our very best to come up to it.
    With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), in his very able speech, of a Ministry of Supply, I hope my Noble Friend will not rule this out as impossible in the long run. I have long believed that sooner or later it is inevitable, if we are to continue rearming on the scale on which we are rearming at the present time, and so far there is no reason to suppose that we shall be able to let up on it. I think hon. Members on both sides will agree that we cannot have the organisation of our supplies run indefinitely by officers on the active list, serving temporarily in the Air Ministry, the Admiralty, or the War Office. In the long run it is not their business, it is not their job, and they cannot settle—ought not to be asked to settle—the vital questions of priority. I maintain that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Coordination of Defence should have his
    1816
    hands freed from the details of supply admnistration, so as to be able to concentrate all his energies upon the larger questions of strategy. Therefore, I beg my Noble Friend not finally to rule out the question of a Ministry of Supply, because I believe that in that proposal, or in something like it, lies the ultimate solution of a good many of our problems.
    The last suggestion that I want to make is this: It is agreed on all sides—and I think my Noble Friend agrees—that we must have adequate machine tools for mass production, that we must have standardised engine manufacture, and that we must have uniform designs, for any particular class, which need not involve frequent changes in specifications. I therefore want to put this constructive proposal to my Noble Friend and to ask him what he thinks of it: How would the Government consider the setting-up in Canada, far away from any danger of bombing, a big factory for the construction of aircraft, with standardised engines, of uniform design and of modern type? Would the Government consider the possibility of setting up such a factory in Canada with the assistance, if possible, of the skill and experience of some of the manufacturers in the United States of America? I believe that this commission of experts that has been sent out to the United States will come back and say that it is going to be impossible to buy aeroplanes on a large scale in the United States, and there may be some disappointment caused by that. I am informed that the Americans themselves want all the military aeroplanes they can lay hands on; but I submit that there is no reason why a constructive scheme should not be worked out whereby we could benefit from the technical skill of some of their aeroplane manufacturers and constructors, which is very great—in some directions, I believe, even greater than our own—and use some of their knowledge and some of their skilled labour and, if necessary, some of their designs for engines and frames, in a factory to be constructed across the border, in Canada, where machines can be built in absolute security.
    I believe that this would do more to inspire a feeling of apprehension and dread in the minds of the Germans than anything else, because this is one thing we can do which they can never hope to do. We can build aeroplanes in absolute security, which they cannot do, and have

    1817
    an almost unlimited reserve. In the last resort, if we constructed long-distance bombers, they could be flown over to this country in a time of emergency; and thus you would get that feeling of reserve powers of production behind this country which in the end, I believe, was the psychological cause of the defeat of Germany in the last War. When they knew and felt that we had behind us the whole resources of the United States and of. Canada, and that there was no end to those resources, it was then that the spirit of the German people broke. I think that this is one of the most hopeful lines that can be adopted at the present time. I believe we could get production going in eight or ten months' time in a factory in Canada, with American assistance, and using, as necessary, American designs, American tools, and American skilled labour.
    May I read out, in conclusion, a short passage, for the guidance of my Noble Friend, from a volume of memoirs by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), which I was reading the other day? He describes how, shortly after the War broke out, Lord Fisher was summoned back to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, and the hon. and gallant Member was in charge of our submarine service and was himself summoned to a conference at the Admiralty. Lord Fisher presided over the meeting, and the hon. and gallant Member says:
    "He opened by telling us his intentions as to future submarine construction, and turning to the Superintendent of Contracts, he said that he would make his wife a widow and his house a dunghill, if he brought paper work or red tape into the business; he wanted submarines, not contracts. He meant to have them built in eight months; if he did not get them in eight months, he would commit harakari."
    The hon. and gallant Member goes on:
    "It seemed absurd; we had not been able to wring submarines out of Vickers and Chatham Dockyard under two and a half years. He fixed me with a ferocious glare, and said, ' If anyone thwarts me, he had better commit hara-kari too.' "
    The result was that the submarines were produced, and the hon. and gallant Member adds:
    "There was no need to commit hara-kari; everything he set out to produce, even submarines, sprang into being under the spell of his forceful personality. If he approved of a policy, it was carried out on the instant, nothing and nobody had ever been allowed
    1818
    to stand in his way—until he clashed with Churchill "
    I can only beg my Noble Friend to follow that example.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. Stokes: I understand that the duty of this Committee is to exercise its efforts towards getting the maximum efficiency and the maximum output at the minimum cost under existing circumstances, and I hope, therefore, that what I am going to say will not be misinterpreted into the belief that I have suddenly come out in favour of the private manufacture of armaments or in support of the profits made in connection therewith. Listening to the Noble Lord to-day, I rather gained the impression, as a manufacturer, that the manufacturers as a whole were given a free rein and that the Ministry hovered over them like a guardian angel. I want to put in a word on behalf of the manufacturers and to say that I do not think the relations between the manufacturers and the Ministry are anything like as good as they might be—I do not mean in spirit, but in interference.
    The Noble Lord indicated that in the case of change-notices, they nearly all came from the manufacturers to the Ministry and only a very small number from the Ministry to the manufacturers. That is not my experience, and I have here an instance where change-notices running into many thousands have come up in connection with aircraft production. I am not suggesting that all supervision, inspection, and approval of designs should be abandoned by the Air Ministry, but I submit that we have very capable brains and engineers on the staffs of the companies and that they are capable not only of equalling but of beating the conditions in totalitarian States, if you get the proper co-operation. But the manufacturer does not want to be treated as a criminal, and I submit that there is a great deal too much interference, resulting in delays and in greatly increased costs of production. That is a general observation which I suppose ought to be supported by facts, and I should like to quote a case which I can myself authenticate.
    In the last few months a firm was approached to build two special machines to be ready for this summer's manoeuvres, and the firm was asked whether it could do it. The answer was, "No, absolutely impossible; we cannot do it in nine

    1819
    months." It was pointed out that the machines weighed only 14 tons and that it was ridiculous for a firm of their capacity to say that, and the answer which the firm gave was, "If this were merely a commercial transaction, we should have no difficulty at all. If I were selling direct to you, the job could be done." I am glad to say—I like to give credit where it is due—that the official concerned at once turned, round and said, "What are your conditions? "The answer was, "No inspection except on test at the works and on performance after delivery." The O.K. was given, the design was approved, the price was agreed upon, and work was started, but to the firm's consternation, within six weeks a spate of inspectors descended on the place, and it was stated that the arrangement which had been made had not got the authority of the inspection department of the Ministry, and that all parts had to be inspected at the makers' works and everything handled in the usual way. Consternation reigned, because the firm knew that the job could not be done in the time in those circumstances and that instead of delivering in June this year, it would be at least Christmas before delivery could be made. The responsible person in the company was approached, and in due course he saw the Ministry.
    There are two points arising out of this instance. First of all, there would have been a six months delay, and on top of that it was known inside the firm, though I do not say it was said to the Ministry, that one of the chief difficulties was that the price quoted did not allow for all this interference and finnicky inspection. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the extra price of that particular machine would undoubtedly have been 5 per cent. had they known that detailed inspection was to take place. I am glad to say that on proper representations to the Ministry the terms of the contract were adhered to and the watch dog, in the form of inspectors, was withdrawn. I submit that, if greater reliance could be placed, as I think it could, on the integrity and the capabilities of the manufacturers, it would lead to a great deal of speeding up, of economy, and of saving of taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Fleming: Does the hon. Member mean that as far as private enterprise is
    1820
    concerned he objects to any State interference?
    Mr. Stokes: Oh, no; that is far from what I want to say. All that I am saying is that the duty of this Committee under the circumstances is to save money and to maintain efficiency as far as possible, and that it can be done without losing in any way on the quality of goods delivered. Especially in the aircraft industry, highly scientific and recently developed, there are better manufacturing brains probably than in any of the Ministries, though I say that subject to any correction that anybody likes to make. I want to say also, in regard to design, that it is not my experience that new designs are approved with any celerity by any Ministry, I have known of cases when it has taken as much as nine months or a year to get approval of a new design, and having got it, there followed correction after correction in the course of manufacture.
    The people in the inspection department will admit that there is not one responsible man at the head who has sufficient engineering knowledge or sufficient time to be able to say "This is right; get on with it." I agree that the organisation is much larger than that of a small firm but it is the large number of people who seem to meddle in details and who have a say as regards any definite decision which leads to appalling inefficiency and a corresponding rise in costs. Having made those remarks, may I say that I am not criticising the capabilities of any members of the Ministry's staff who come my way. They do their job admirably and a great number of them would support my contention that there is much unnecessary detailed inspection.
    As regards the shadow factories, I, personally, have never agreed with them. It has always seemed to me that the chance of getting six different factories to walk in step was very remote. There are two points involved in this matter. First there is the difficulty, as I say, of getting six factories to go in step. Secondly, if you succeeded in that and if you segregated the manufacture of the parts in different factories and then assembled the parts somewhere else, the result would be that if one place were bombed, the whole system would be thrown out of gear. It staggers me that that system should have ever been put

    1821
    into force and, personally, I doubt whether in time of war it would prove successful.
    I come now to what seems to me to be the very serious question of the purchase of aircraft in America. I do not propose to deal with the actual numbers because I do not know the position, but it is astonishing to learn that during recent months between 25 and 30 Bristol Blenheim bombers have been sent to Belgium; that in the early days of May the first of a consignment of 28 machines of the same type was despatched to Turkey and that the remainder will be despatched before the end of May. I am prepared to give the Minister the facts privately. That seems to be an astonishing state of things. I understand that we have not sufficient Bristol Blenheim bombers, yet we are able to supply Belgium and Turkey and, apparently, we have to go to America to make up the deficit.
    I am glad to see the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in his place, because I wish to conclude with some remarks on the old question of profit, especially in view of two public statements which the right hon. Gentleman made last week in connection with the offer with which I was concerned. I am glad to know that he considers that 10 per cent. profit is a great deal too high. We seem now to have the right hon. Gentleman "bracketed." He considers that "nought" is too low and that 10 per cent. is a ridiculous figure. I should be interested, however, to learn what firm is working on a 5 per cent. margin. I doubt very much whether any engineering firm is prepared to do that. It seems to me that fabulous profits are being made in the aircraft industry. One has only to look round to see what is happening. Without making any offensive references to any person, who can now afford to race for the America Cup? The profits seem to come from aeroplanes, but they may all come from civilian aircraft—I do not know. I saw the other day a rather extravagant story which I will not repeat, but undoubtedly the general feeling is that extensive profits are being made in the matter of rearmament.
    Now that it is, apparently, agreed by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that 5 per cent. is the right figure I ask him to see that steps are taken to ensure that firms work to that figure all
    1822
    round, not only for the finished machines, but for raw materials and all component parts to be supplied under the rearmament programme. I think that in that way a great deal of the taxpayers money could be saved and the uncomfortable feelings which, if my fan mail is any indication, a great many people are sharing about this matter, will be set at rest. I ask the Minister also not to pay any attention whatever to remarks made in the technical accountancy Press. Manifestly their objections are inspired. If I had shares in any industrial concern, and I found that proper costing accounts were not presented by each department monthly to the managing director, I should quickly sell out my shares and quit. There is no difficulty whatever in arriving at what is a reasonable margin on any particular contract. Doctrinaire people who want to be pedantic and who say it cannot be done, are obstructionists and are not behaving as reasonable people. As the Noble Lord has referred to the purchases which are to be made of land for aerodromes, factories and attendant buildings, may I submit that if land purchase is to be made, it should be made on the equitable basis of the rate-able value as it is to-day, and that fabulous sums should not be paid to the landed interests?
    7.51 p.m.
    Major Sir Ralph Glyn: I support what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has just said in regard to the purchase of land for aerodromes. Most of us have in our constituencies aerodromes, which were established during the War, and were evacuated after the War and are now lying derelict. I know of three such aerodromes where services are laid on and, presumably, these could be used again without much difficulty. I hope the Noble Lord will realise the feeling among our constituents when they hear stories about the exorbitant prices charged by wicked landlords for land for this purpose. They think that there is also something to be said in favour of the Air Ministry using its own property which is at present lying derelict, and which has been prepared at great expense to the country, instead of making new aerodromes, perhaps within a few miles of existing aerodromes. Nobody minds paying taxes, but obvious waste of money is extremely annoying to the hardly-pressed taxpayer.

    1823
    I also wish to mention a matter in connection with a very small company which has been engaged in sub-contract work for the Air Ministry. It is a branch of a shipbuilding company of which I am a director, and it may interest the Committee to have the actual facts as to what we have suffered—not in loss of profits, for there is no profit in it, but, what is much more important, in the difficulties we have had to contend with regarding labour. The Noble Lord did not mention the fact that the real central point in this expansion programme is that of having your skilled men in the right place working continuously. The firm to which I refer works in the Isle of Wight some distance from the main centres of manufacture. It has some excellent men, but on 1st February of this year it was found necessary to dismiss men, because there was no work to offer them. That is something which will, I think, merit inquiry by the Ministry. It is true that this is sub-contract work. At the same time these men are there, and they have houses and they cannot be offered work. Urgent representations have been made, but no information can be obtained which would indicate when they can be put back into work. I do not pretend that it is a large factory. It employs some hundreds of men, but that some hundreds of men, who are highly skilled, should be treated in this way when we are told that there is an emergency for production, seems very strange. I can give the names of the firms for which the sub-contract work was being done, and they state that the reason why they could not pass on any more of the work —which previously had been efficiently carried out in this factory—was that they could not get from the Ministry the certificate which would enable them to push forward the orders. We then asked the Air Ministry to suggest any other work which could be done to employ these men.
    I would like to support what was said by the last speaker as to the officials of the Air Ministry. They are always courteous and anxious to help, but in engineering business of this sort something more than that is wanted. It is necessary to establish the confidence not only of the manufacturers, but of the
    1824
    workers that the scheme is being run on businesslike lines. This sort of "stop and go "arrangement is extraordinarily bad for labour, and is very discouraging to managing directors. As far as I know, the workmen are more than anxious to fall in with any suggestion that may be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, but they say to their employers, "How can we have any confidence if we are suddenly ' stood down ' and we do not know where to get any work? "I feel that this is a matter which ought to be mentioned. It is ridiculous to be debating the urgency of expansion when you have a definite example like this of hundreds of men being stood down— men who are ready to work if only somebody will provide the necessary link, and ensure that their skilled hands and the machinery which has been used for only 18 months are once again employed to advantage.
    It is those small things which are, I venture to say, destroying confidence up and down the country. Other practical examples could be given. Vague speeches help nobody, but the presentation of concrete facts may help us to realise the situation. I am sure we all hope that the Noble Lord in his capacity as chairman of the special committee will have the assistance of technical people who really understand engineering practice. If we had some confidence that at the Air Ministry proper methods were being used, that the people there, at any rate, were talking the same language in the way of trade, we would get on much better. I know that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is having those conversations of which we have heard, and I am sure there is not a representative of a trade union or employers' organisation who would not be delighted to learn that something was to be done to have technical assistance and not interference in these matters. We all recognise that a vast scheme of this sort representing the rapid expansion of the industry and the still more rapid expansion of the Air Ministry itself, presents great difficulties. We know it is difficult to get highly skilled technical people, but if that can be done and if we can have consistency of practice instead of perpetually changing from one gadget to another, it will produce good

    1825
    results. Otherwise the results can only be disheartening and perplexing to the taxpayers of the country.
    7.59 p.m.
    Wing-Commander Wright: I wish to refer at the outset to the suggestion of the Noble Lord that many people who presume to criticise the Air Ministry and its methods are influenced by being concerned either directly or indirectly in the industry. I would like to say that, as far as I know, I am not in the least interested in the aircraft industry in any way. It seemed to me that this was part of a rather obvious attempt at muzzling, and I want to say that I do not intend to be muzzled beyond refraining from referring to such matters as it would not be in the public interest to mention. I feel that I ought to refer to certain statements which were attributed to me in yesterday's Press, and which received rather sensational publicity. I can best explain my position in this matter to the Committee if I say, that when one has striven for a considerable period for something which one considers to be vitally necessary for the good of the country, when one has, so to speak, lived with that subject, has talked it and thought it, and even dreamt it, and has rightly or wrongly formed the opinion— I will not put it any stronger than that —that there really was a very great chance that the object for which you have been striving was likely to come into being, and then, when someone comes to you and says: "This object for which you have been striving is a fait accompli,"the House will understand that in a moment of real gratification, joy and enthusiasm one might think that the one great and important thing was a fact, that the object for which one had been striving was a fait accompli, and in these circumstances one might have thought that any remarks one might make were comparatively of small significance. That is the explanation of what happened, and I suggest that what might probably be referred to by some hon. Members, as, shall we say, the indiscretions of a somewhat obscure back-bencher, are not likely to ruffle the minds of anybody very seriously, and possibly least of all the mind of the obscure back-bencher.
    But such indiscretions as can possibly he allowed to the hon. Member for Erd-
    1826
    ington take rather a different form if they are permitted by the Minister for the Coordination of Defence, and I am sure that he will be just as sorry as I am to realise that what I cannot but think was a rather hasty and possibly unnecessary denial of something, without having really found out exactly what the true position was, has been regarded by a great many people in this country, people who matter, as something in the nature of, shall I say, an unfortunate indiscretion in that it appears once again to have put a rebuff on a man who might be of great service to the country at this time.
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I had not proposed to take part in the Debate, but this seems to me to be a suitable opportunity for making a short statement. When the hon. and gallant Member made his statement to the Press about some matters within his cognisance, I had no information, but I can assure him and the Committee that there is no possibility of Lord Nuffield misunderstanding what has happened. I think I may properly say that Lord Nuffield himself took the initiative of communicating with me after the statement in the Press was published last night, and he and I arranged that a correction should be made of what was probably an unintentional misunderstanding on the part of the Press in regard to this matter. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not suggest that there is any difference, or misunderstanding, or friction between Lord Nuffield, myself or anybody, because Lord Nuffield is rendering service in connection with the rearmament programme and is willing at all times to render it, just as we are willing to receive it.
    Mr. Dalton: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a correction of the statement in the Press.
    Sir T. Inskip: A correction of what my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested, namely, that there was some sort of coolness and some rebuff to Lord Nuffield. I can assure the Committee that there was no rebuff at all. He suggested to the Press that I had made some special appeal to Lord Nuffield to help the Government out of its difficulties. It was that statement which I found it necessary, with Lord Nuffield's consent, to correct.
    Wing-Commander Wright: If the right hon. Gentleman had the time to read what was published in the Press he would see that never at any time was it really suggested that I had personally made that statement to the Press. I am very grateful to him for what he has said.
    Mr. Fleming: There is a great deal of talk about some statement in the Press. Are we not entitled to know what the statement was, so that we may know what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Gentleman are talking about?
    The Temporary Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Member has explained, and I think the matter is now disposed of.
    Wing-Commander Wright: The House will probably realise that my sole reason in mentioning the matter to-night was due to the fact that certain people held the view to which I referred, and it was to give my right hon. Friend the opportunity of making the announcement which I expected from him, in order to clear the air when people read it in the newspapers in due course.
    We have many more important things to discuss than the subject to which I have referred. Every hon. Member will agree that there is to-day a state of very real anxiety in the country about the whole question of our air defence. Many of us who have been in the past and are at present staunch supporters of the Government, and have been so staunch that we have been prepared to accept everything that we have been told with regard to rearmament—realising as we did the difficulty of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench giving the facts to the House—began to think that certain things had happened which made us feel anxiety ourselves. The first thing that really caused us anxiety was that the Government deserted the old yard stick which had always been used in this House in discussing the question of parity. We had always considered that, whatever else was happening, the efforts of the Air Ministry were definitely in line with the statement made by Lord Baldwin that this country should not be inferior in air strength to any possible adversary within striking distance of our shores; but when a short time ago there was a discussion on the question of parity it seemed as
    1828
    though the real issue was being avoided, and it made one wonder what the true position was.
    One began to wonder, in considering the question of parity, whether the conception of the Air Ministry of the number of machines which we should require to make this country absolutely safe was an adequate one. From the figures that we have had to-day I am rather doubtful. Time after time when these Debates come along we get a new plan, and always an increased plan. I do not understand why this country, with all its resources of wealth, far greater resources than the dictator countries can possibly call upon, should always be dragging at the heels of those countries, and why they should set the pace. If we really mean what we say, namely, that we want to make this country so strong that no other country will think it worth while to attack us, surely we should use our resources to the utmost and set such a pace that the other countries will not only think it not worth while to attack us but will not think it worth while to continue this mad race of armaments.
    The second point which caused us some anxiety was the statement which was made by the Noble Lord in the House just before the Recess that the Government had definitely decided to send a mission to America to investigate the possibility of the production of machines in that country. That certainly, from one point of view, showed considerable determination to get machines at whatever cost, but it seemed to lend colour to the growing cloud of rumour and anxiety which we were meeting in our constituencies and elsewhere, particularly when, as a serving officer, one realised that buying machines from America meant the hopeless condition of the further multiplicity of types, involving more multiplicity of stocks, stores, and spare parts in order to keep the machines properly maintained, and, on the top of that, extra training for the personnel so that they would be able to carry on. We have already a great deal too much of that in the Service to-day.
    The third thing that really shook our confidence was another statement made by the Noble Lord when he told the House that the capacity of our aircraft factories could be enormously increased if we could only get more skilled labour.

    1829
    That was an astonishing thing. He said that if we could get more skilled labour —and he hoped arrangements would be made so that we could get more labour— then in two years' time we might reach the peak output from those factories. I can understand that that might be a reasonable explanation for not getting the output from the factories to-day. If a really competent man who had really studied mass production methods had been called in and asked for his advice, the first point that he would have seized upon would have been the point that has been made to-night by the Noble Lord, that we are employing 90,000 men in the aircraft industry to-day. I have stated in correspondence that we are using 1,000 men to produce one aeroplane a week. I should be very happy to think that we were producing 90 aeroplanes a week. It seems to me perfectly obvious that there is something wrong with our production methods if it is necessary to use 90,000 men to-day in order to produce the output of aeroplanes which we are actually getting.
    I do not want anyone to get the impression from what I am saying that I should like to put in somebody to interfere with what is happening in those factories to-day. That would be absolute madness, and it would be impossible. I am not even criticising the work that is being done in the factories. I have been to see them and am full of admiration for the work that they are doing and the class of machine they are producing, but it is obvious that if we are to get a state of parity we cannot go on using man power at the present rate and expect to get the machines we require. Obviously our policy should be to carry on with what we are doing, helping the Air Ministry and the industry in every possible way and letting them get on with their plans. What absolutely astonishes me, however, is why there should be any objection to the reasonable suggestion that we should call in men who have brains, who have men with brains in their organisations, and that we should merely ask their advice. What lies behind the objection?
    Mention has been made to-night of the greatest exponent of mass production we have in this country—Lord Nuffield. What is the objection to asking him for his advice? If he tells us after he has been into this matter that it is impossible
    1830
    to produce satisfactory aeroplanes at a more reasonable cost, and at a bigger speed than we are producing them to-day, I shall be the first to say I have been barking up the wrong tree. Until he has given that opinion, and given it as his considered opinion, I shall continue to believe that what he did to the motor trade 25 years ago he might do to the aircraft industry to-day. I remember when, about 25 years ago as a comparatively young man, I went to see Lord Nuffield in his office. His programme was looked upon then as colossal. He was actually going to make 500 motor cars a week. All the great motor magnates of Coventry, all the heads of the industry, who, after all, are very comparable to the heads of our British aircraft industry to-day, were laughing at him and saying that within a few months he would have reached saturation point, and that, indeed, he would probably ruin not only himself but all those other firms that had extended their factories in order to give him the supplies of materials that he wanted. I remember having the temerity to tell him that, and saying, "I presume you realise what they are saying about this venture of yours? "I suppose it is because the remark he made was so remarkable at the time, and that it has always stuck in my mind, that I have made Lord Nuffield a sort of hero. He said "For every £5 I can take off the selling price of my motor car I shall enormously increase the potential selling market for that car." All the magnates of Coventry laughed at him, and now, within 25 years, what has happened? There are at least three factories in this country which not only can produce 500 cars a week, but have a capacity of at least 2,000 a week; and there are many other factories with a capacity of 1,000 or more.
    That is the man who revolutionised the motor industry in this country. He is a man with a marvellous organisation, and he employs the finest brains both as designers and production engineers. Why cannot we then discuss the matter with him? I am not suggesting that in a few weeks' time all the Morris motor factories will be turning out aeroplanes. I would be crazy to make such a suggestion. But why cannot we have his advice? What is the fear that is preventing it? I cannot believe that the Secretary of State for Air and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence

    1831
    are really responsible. They have both very great capabilities, but I do not believe that either of them would set himself up as able to dictate what was a production system. Where does this objection come from?
    The Noble Lord to-day referred to the fact that only main firms could be entrusted with the supply of aircraft today. I presume that by "main "firms he means firms which are members of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, which are members of the society which pays the salary of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner who as far as I can see, sits in the extraordinary position of being on a Supply Committee of the Air Ministry and, therefore, has apparently become both buyer and seller. Is it possible that that is where the obstruction comes from? Is it possible that that is where the advice comes from which says that we must not consult Lord Nuffield, that we must not take advice from those people who, I am convinced, could help us to set us on the right way of producing aeroplanes, not only in quantity, but, as a consequence, at a much lower price? I am convinced that we shall not, as Members of this House, have done our duty to our constituents until we have insisted that we should call in these great brains to give their advice and to say, "This can be done," or "This cannot be done."
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I want the House to be good enough to recall a remark which was made by the Noble Lord when I interjected a question during his speech. The Noble Lord said, "I know the firm which the hon. Member has in mind." That conveyed to me the impression that the Noble Lord held the opinion that I was speaking for some particular firm. I want to say emphatically that I have never written to or spoken to any firm. I have not been written to or spoken to on the telephone, or in any other way by any firm; nor had any communication of any kind from any firm; nor am I interested in the slightest degree in any firm; nor do I know what was in the mind of the Noble Lord when he made that statement. I am interested in the production of aeroplanes from one point of view only. That is, the point of view which was stressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition
    1832
    when he was speaking to-day. It is that if we are going to do a thing let us do it as efficiently as possible.
    I do not think anybody who knows anything about the production of aeroplanes will dispute the fact that there are other countries to-day manufacturing from wood aeroplanes which are in every sense satisfactory. I put a question to the Noble Lord during the last fortnight and he replied that he was well aware of what was stated in the question. The statement in the question was that Russia is manufacturing aeroplanes almost entirely of wood and that metal is used very little in the construction. They are regarded as some of the best aeroplanes in the world. A further statement was made that Italy is producing aeroplanes partly of wood and partly of metal and that they have also given the utmost satisfaction. In our country we have practically dropped the use of wood in the production of aeroplanes. The Under-Secretary informed me in a reply that the Air Force was using them for training purposes and that they were considering their production for other purposes on some scale—he did not say on what scale. I take it that what we want is to approach parity with other nations. If that is our object—and everyone will agree that it is—are we using all the power that we have under our control to attain it? That appears to me to be the simple question we ought to ask ourselves. When the production of wood aeroplanes in this country was almost entirely dropped for service purposes, the reason given was that it was difficult, and would become increasingly difficult in future, to obtain suitable wood.
    A statement has also been made to-day, and on several occasions recently, that there is a shortage of labour competent to make aeroplanes. I want to deal briefly with both those points. I know something about wood. I have spent a great part of my life in buying and examining it, and I know it. During the War I spent some of my time employed— on a request by Government Departments to the people with whom I was working— in giving an expert opinion on the suitability of certain woods for aeroplanes. At that time the woods in general use were English ash and other ash—English ash principally—and silver spruce. Silver spruce is imported, English ash is not. I say definitely and on information

    1833
    obtained from the importers of wood and from the people who control the greater part of the home-grown wood necessary for the manufacture of aeroplanes, that there is no shortage at the present time.
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Is the hon. Member certain that there is no shortage of English ash if we had to produce aeroplanes in large quantities, because in the War I found great difficulty in getting English ash?
    Mr. McEntee: I spent a great deal of my life in buying English ash. I travelled all over the country in buying it, and I bought it for other purposes than for the manufacture of aeroplanes, for what are known as hook ladders used by firemen—and they must be perfect and I did not find any shortage then. I would not say that there is no shortage but that there is a considerable quantity available. There is no shortage of silver spruce, which is available in considerable quantities. But even if there were a shortage of either of those woods, there is on the market to-day a new wood product of which the Minister and other Members are well aware, and that is laminated wood. It has reached such a stage of perfection that every expert whom I have been able to consult says that there is no question about its suitability for wood aeroplanes. I want the Minister to explain why wood aeroplanes have gone entirely out of production, because the wood is there.
    We have been told that there is a shortage of labour, but is there? I can tell the Minister that there are 500 members of the trade union to which I belong, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, out of work. Many of them have experience in the production of aeroplanes; they made them during the War and are competent to make them to-day. In addition, there are thousands of cabinet makers and other wood workers who would be competent to make aeroplanes with practically no training at all. It is absurd to be told that there is a shortage of labour when there are all these men begging for employment and signing on at Employment Exchanges day after day. Why are not these resources of labour and material used? The Minister says, "We are inquiring." They have been inquiring for years. How long will they go on inquiring? When will they do what the right hon. Member for Car-
    1834
    narvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) did during the War, and that is bring the men and the materials together in the factories which are idle and make the things which are needed?
    Is it suggested that there are no factories? I could give the right hon. Gentleman the names and addresses of scores of factories where they are competent in the use of wood, with machinery lying partially idle. The owners of those factories would be only too anxious to convert them to the manufacture of aeroplanes if they got the opportunity. Only to-day I interviewed a firm which employs 200 to 300 men, and has space in which to employ 200 or 300 more if necessary, with a modern, up-to-date factory and all the necessary machinery—I know it, I have worked in it—ready to make aeroplanes, begging for the opportunity to do so. Yet with all these resources available we are told that the matter will be considered. Three years we have been considering it, and are still considering it, and I want to know when we shall do something.
    I see that the Noble Lord has just come in. I hope that what I said at the beginning of my speech will be conveyed to him. I hope he will take it from me that his statement that he knew the firm which I had in mind when I put the question was not correct. I had no firm in mind. It is a myth as far as he is concerned. I represent nobody except myself in this matter. All that I have in mind is a desire that if we are going to do a thing we shall do it well, and use all available resources at our command.
    8.32 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I should like to comment for a moment upon the speech of my right hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) this afternoon. I did so admire his courage in carrying the war into the enemy's camp, always a very wise thing to do, but I cannot help reflecting what a wonderful place is the House of Commons. Only a month ago the House was very upset about the position we were in with regard to air power, and it was through the misgivings of the House that the Prime Minister appointed my Noble Friend. His qualifications were, first, that perhaps he was weaned in the House of Commons, and that he had engineering experience by virtue of a

    1835
    certain contact with the Camel Corps; but such is his dynamic personality that after a month he sets up a committee, and everything is too marvellous for words. He was put there to clean the Augean stables; he turned out to be, with his electrical personality, a modern Hercules with a Hoover. I do not want to make points about this and that in the position in which we find ourselves to-day— I have done it in the past—because I think there is a realisation that perhaps everything is not altogether as it should be.
    The last time I addressed you, Captain Bourne, I gave an example of what I have termed an assenting negative. One was "Oh yeah," another is "Sez you," and to my right hon. Friend I add a third one which I have now discovered, "You're telling me."
    I know that politicians have to carry the blame for their Departments, as if it was all their fault, and that tradition is an honourable one, and one which I hope will long be maintained, but when we get to the bottom of this trouble I think it will be found that it is due to a lack of long-range planning. It was the same in the Navy. When the War came there was no long-range planning. We had no base from which to operate against Germany. That showed a lamentable lack of long-range planning. If we had put to the country the fact that we had in Europe an opponent with a Navy twice as strong as ours, with whom we could not catch up in building for at least two years, that would have shaken the country to such an extent that no Government would have lasted a fortnight; yet the position to-day is even worse than that. In the Navy there are powers of defence which would give us the time factor, which is always to our advantage, as we live in an island, within which to rebuild and re-organise, and get our strength to work. Until we are on a par with any foreign Power, our great industrial resources stand open to direct attack; that is the position in which we are to-day.
    I want to supplement what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on a point which I have tried to stress as much as I could in the public Press. It is the possibility of building in Canada. If in this country
    1836
    we possess an ability to strike and not to let anybody strike back at us, it is a geographical advantage which we should exploit. No country in Europe stands in that position, and the fact that we have a potential manufacturing centre in the Dominions which cannot be attacked by the enemy, puts us in a unique position in Europe. That is a position which I want thought about and examined. I am not merely pleading for a stunt buying of aeroplanes from Canada or the United States, and I do not want to take away from our manufacturing resources in this country, but I want to remind the Committee that, however much we manufactured and planned in this country, we should be planning with works which could be destroyed by enemy aircraft. If, on the other hand, we manufactured in our great Dominions, we should be safe. Our great manufacturers admit this. They say that they are prepared to put down plant abroad, in Canada, and make machines there.
    The brains of the aircraft industry have to remain in this country, the actual design of new machines, the making of prototypes and the testing out of those first types of new machines; but once you have got the production designs it should be the policy of this country that there should be the potential producer in quantity in Canada. With my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen I believe that such a policy would have an enormous psychological effect in Europe. They would know that however much material damage was done in this country we must win in the end. They could never hit us in the country which was pouring over by air long-range bombers which, in the end, would beat them. I ask my right hon. Friend that when he gets the report he will not be discouraged because he does not find great industries already built on the other side. They have to be built up. This is a long-range project. Do not let him stop for a moment his manufacturing programme in this country, but if he can at the same time organise this potential power in Canada his name will long be remembered as someone who planned wisely for the future.
    8.39 p.m.
    Sir Arthur Salter: The Committee this afternoon listened to the Noble Lord with a mixture of hopeful expectation and anxiety, which is rare in our Debates.

    1837
    I am bound to say that the expectation was disappointed and the anxiety increased by his speech. True, he told us that there would be changes in production and increases, but they seemed completely inadequate in face of the very grave danger with which we are confronted. What added to our anxiety as much as the realisation of this inadequacy was the satisfaction which the Noble Lord seemed to feel—and he presumably reflected a similar satisfaction on the part of the Government—that the kind of change and the kind of policy which he announced were sufficient for our needs.
    Let us think for a moment about what emerged from his speech, as much from what he did not say as from what he did. He did not tell us—he did not dare tell us—to what extent our position falls behind that of our principal competitor and falls behind the solemn pledge of parity which, for a long time, left this country in a fool's paradise from which it is only just awakening. He told us indeed that he hoped the new programme would see some diminution in the disparity, which he admitted, of course, and which we know to exist and to be very grave; but I wondered, when he expected even that, whether he realised what we must certainly expect, and that is some increase in the present German production. Had he allowed for a margin of un-utilised German capacity that already exists in her present plant? Had he allowed for the prospective increase that we must expect from the addition of Austria to Germany? Have we really any expectation, on the plans that the Noble Lord announced, that our disparity will be eliminated or even that it will be reduced? May it not even be increased?
    The Noble Lord gave us good reasons why we should not expect a degree of standardisation equal to that attained in the manufacture of Ford or Morris cars. But he did not say—I suggest that he could not say—that we have reached or approached the limit of the standardisation that is practicable, or have equalled the measure of standardisation that has been attained by our competitors. Worst of all, we were left with the clear indication that he thinks the present organisation adequate and that no fundamental change in organisation is needed. We have still one more scheme now. The
    1838
    schemes have now gone all the way from A to L; half the alphabet. Captain Bourne, you will remember that in the schools at Oxford the examinees were divided into two equal halves at the letter L and when we entered we were greeted by the janitor who said, in stentorian tones: "This way, HA to Hell." That is the letter of the alphabet that we seem now to have reached.
    I suggest, in spite of what the Noble Lord says, that the case for a more fundamental change is overwhelming. It is not enough to say that there have been biased criticisms here and there; on this matter the weight of expert authority outside Government circles is overwhelming. The whole of the Press from the Left to the Right is there, including the "Times "this morning, the "Observer "and the "Daily Telegraph." I need not cite others. There is the weight of all those who have had war experience and experience of war organisation. There is the very definite wording of the Cadman report which described as "contrary to all sense "the system which still exists. The case for a fundamental change of organisation is overwhelming.
    One change that we have suggested is that a ministry of supply be formed. I speak for myself and for others, in saying that whatever criticisms we may have, and they are many, of the Air Minister and the Air Ministry, our case for the ministry of supply does not depend upon them. No possible change of personnel would destroy our case for a ministry of supply; nor does our case depend upon the view that a separate ministry of supply is, in all conditions and at all times, the best way in which the Fighting Services should get their materiel.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I must warn the hon. Member that his suggestion would require legislation and that more than a passing reference to such matters is out of order.
    Sir A. Salter: I bow to your Ruling. Do I understand that the whole question of a ministry of supply is out of order? I was following on a discussion which took place at some length in the House—
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is quite obvious that anything more than a

    1839
    passing reference to it must be out of order, because it could not possibly come about without legislation, and we cannot discuss legislation in Committee of Supply. Such hon. Members as I have heard earlier have only dealt with it from the point of view of administration.
    Sir A. Salter: Perhaps I may say, then, that I consider the present organisation to be gravely defective, as a ministry of supply would not be, because it hampers the development of large-scale aeroplane manufacture by the multiplicity of types which it demands and the frequent changes in design. There are times when that form of organisation is useful, when the fighting department is not rapidly expanding its forces and when it is more important to experiment in order to obtain minor improvements. But there are other periods, such as the latter half of the Great War, when what is essentially necessary is a great production at the cost of working on the basis of the best machine already available, without bringing into the main stream of production every minor improvement that may come along. That, I suggest, is imperatively necessary now.
    I must not discuss, as I should have wished, the form of organisation that I should like to see set up. But I may refer again to the experience of the War when we had such an organisation. We are now in a period in which the need is very much like what it was in the latter part of the War. We are speaking as if a difference of 100 or 200 machines a month is the difference, as it may well be, between life and death, but we were then producing 2,000 planes a month. And at that time we were actually at war and, as has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), our industry was depleted by war losses and by the enlistment of a large Army in France, and was burdened with the strain of supplying equipment to the whole of that large Army and the whole of a large mobilised Navy. It is perfectly clear that, with proper organisation, we could utilise and adapt the great industrial resources of this country in a way in which we are not beginning to do now, and the Noble Lord's right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) could tell him how to do it. If we did that, I am not suggesting that
    1840
    we should have a figure as great as the one I have just mentioned, but we could demonstrate our productive capactiy sufficiently to enable us, in combination with a suitable foreign policy, to negotiate a stoppage of the armaments race.
    I suggest that what is wrong is the complete lack of a proper sense of proportion in the whole of our Defence programme arrangements. I believe that our vulnerability to air attack is for us by far the most important fact in the world at this moment. After nearly 900 years of immunity from external invasion, during which we have fought our wars upon all the Continents and throughout all the seas from an inviolate island, it is difficult for us to realise that the next time war will be here in this country, and here in this city. We must realise and translate into all our programmes and all our work this fundamental fact. As the Noble Lord said to-day, we are now hampered in our programme because we are simultaneously, and, he might have added, equally, expanding all our Services. But is it not more important that we should remedy this vital deficiency in the air than that we should increase an admitted superiority of our Navy? Is it as important that we should build battleships with a view to the much smaller risk, with much smaller stakes in the Far East, as that we should first remedy this vital deficiency? I suggest that the whole of our proportions are wrong.
    I must not, on this Vote, say that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has not done his essential job of distributing our effort in proportion to the nation's present needs, but perhaps I may say that the Air Minister has not exercised that equipollent pressure upon the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence without which, we know, the latter will never do his job. The proportion is all wrong, but it can be corrected. The danger is great; but the single instance I have given shows that we can handle this task if we take proper measures, and I believe we can also handle the other and, in some respects, more difficult tasks which are the responsibility of the War Office and the Home Office. It can be done, but I am not sure that it will be done. If the Government will themselves take the proper measures, and disregard any kind of personal resistance or personal interests

    1841
    or repesentations that may be made, they can secure national unity on this basis as on perhaps no other basis.
    We all of us realise, whatever may be the objectives nearest our hearts, that if we do not reduce our vulnerability from the air we can realise none of them. And we can solve that problem. I do not say that we can make London invulnerable; we cannot; but we can so reduce its vulnerability that the possibility or prospect of wholesale civilian massacre and wholesale civilian demoralisation will neither paralyse our policy nor offer a tempting and dangerous inducement to those who otherwise might not make the venture. We can do that, but to-night the Government have not shown that they are ready for the changes that are required. And if they fail again, then, indeed, the judgment of our folly and our failure is likely to come, and it may come soon. And when it comes, it will be swift, it will be shattering, it will be irrevocable. It may be that, after all the years of our long history, we who are now in this House may see that history closed. It may be that strangers from distant lands and of alien races will stand upon the desolate site of Westminster, and, whether in exultation or in sorrow, will chant the words of the Apocalypse:
    "Alas, alas! that great City, Babylon, that mighty City. In one hour is thy judgment come."
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick: I could, if I desired to do so, follow the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) on the question of a ministry of supply, but I want to raise, very shortly, one or two simple, non-technical points, purely from the point of view of the civilian. The Debate has been largely technical in character, but I want to speak very much from the point of view of the man in the street. Like, I suppose, every other Member, I came to the House to listen to this Debate with feelings of very considerable anxiety. The speech of the Noble Lord brought at any rate some reassurance as to the future, but, unfortunately, we are all of us concerned with the present, and it is with the present that we have to cope. I think that anybody who tries to estimate the odds at this moment against peace or war wastes his time; the factors are too complicated and doubtful; but I do not think that any sane person could feel any
    1842
    certainty that war may not come, and may not come very soon.
    If that is so, surely we have to-day occasion for very serious anxiety, particularly, it seems to me, in one respect which was touched upon by the hon. Member who preceded me, that is, the defence of London. Public opinion has one or two very strong convictions. The first is that we do not yet possess, except in very small numbers, single-seater fighters able to cope with the fast-medium bombers which might stream over the North Sea to attack us. Although it is not strictly in order in this Debate tonight, perhaps I might mention, as they are part of the same problem two other points. There is an acute shortage of anti-aircraft guns, although there is not a shortage, I am glad to say, of Territorial volunteers, ready and anxious to use them. Public opinion is convinced that two aspects which would in an emergency prove more important than all others are those of defence against high explosives and gas bombs.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister cannot deal with that.
    Mr. Patrick: I will say no more about that. The question of importance at the moment is that of attack from the air. The only effective defence of London against attack from the air is the threat of retaliation, and, although I do not possess accurate information, and the public do not either, the position seems to be that our Air Force, even if we regard the French Air Force as an integral part of ours, is still far behind that of a possible antagonist. When we realise that London plays an almost unnatural part in the life of this country, and that the huge conglomeration of people in London is put down in such a position as would render it ideal for attack by any enemy, close to the North Sea, with the River Thames as a signpost to the heart of the City on the darkest night, I think public opinion is very rightly concerned. My conclusion is that at present, and at any rate for some considerable time to come, the most vital part of this country and of the whole Commonwealth is exposed to the danger of destructive attack. That cannot be remedied until an effort is made to guard against it on different lines, or at any rate on a much larger scale, than hitherto. It is the plain duty of the Government to make a very great effort—it would cost a

    1843
    great deal, but that should not weigh— without regard to economic dislocation. In fact, a war basis is the most actuate description of what I have in mind.
    Two points occur to me in that connection. In that effort, we have no chance of success unless it is backed by unanimous public opinion. It is the duty of the Government to make an effort, and the duty of every one of us to back that effort. Criticism is necessary, but there should be nothing in the way of recrimination. It occurred to me, while listening to this Debate, that newspapers like the "Angriff "and the "Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung "will carry very long quotations to-morrow from the Debate, and that those quotations will afford very lively satisfaction to a large circle of readers. That brings me to a second point. Almost everything will depend, in my view, on the attitude of hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It depends on the attitude of the Government! "] If the hon. Member will let me finish my sentence I will say what I have in mind. I do not suggest that hon. Members have hindered operations so far. That would be a false charge. It seems to me that we are entering on a new phase. It is not a matter of toleration; it will be a matter of active assistance. We on this side are very often asked by hon. Members opposite what are our arms for? —In this case what are our aeroplanes for?
    That question carries one implication with which I find myself in agreement. It is perfectly true that this country will not make a great effort—will not make any effort, perhaps—unless it is convinced that the cause is just. But one must remember that there is a converse to that. In modern conditions, a cause, however just, has scant prospect of success unless it is backed by modern armaments. A modern crusader in the international sphere, whether he proceeds under a collective system or in alliance with other democracies, faces only prostration and defeat unless he has modern artillery and modern aeroplanes. That may be a sad commentary on the state of things to-day; but everybody who reads the papers must admit that it is just. A demand has been made by hon. Members opposite for arms for democratic Spain. I cannot discuss that; I can only state the fact that the demand is made.
    1844
    Whether that demand is justified or not, there is something much more important, and that is that there should be arms for democratic England.
    After all, this country is a democracy, and not the less so because, by the luck of the draw, so to speak, hon. Members opposite were not successful at the last Election or the Election before. Because one body rather than another is in power at any time, that does not alter the fact that this country is a democracy. Judged by its influence in preserving democracy in Europe and the world in general, it is of much more importance than any other country, except possibly the United States. This country is in a position now of very great danger, which we shall not escape without an effort on the part of every one of us. It would be a most profound mistake, profound lack of common sense, if we allowed party feeling, engendered perhaps by events abroad, to prevent unity. If we stick together we shall get out of the wood, and if not we stand a very good chance of going down.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. E. Smith: As one who has been employed in one of the largest engineering works in this country, I welcome this opportunity of making a few observations upon the question now being considered. Without being egotistical at all, but as one who has taken a great interest in the engineering industry and who knows it as well as anyone in this House, I take strong objection to the putting upon a pedestal the alleged industrial giant of whom we have heard so much this evening. The gentleman referred to happens to be engaged in the manufacture of a product which has lent itself to the latest methods of production, and mass production has also played its part. The demands of industry have brought about a situation which has thrown this individual into the forefront. It is most unfair for anyone in this House to place such a man on a pedestal when there are also great captains of industry in this country responsible for the manufacture of huge turbines, alternating generators and all the rest of the mechanism which is manufactured in the electrical industry.
    I want to approach this question upon the basis of being employed on the shop floor for about 25 years. I speak as a man who has been engaged in production

    1845
    and who has been of use not only in theoretical discussions, but in applied theory in a concrete form in respect of production in the shops. I appeal to the Noble Lord, if I should make a statement with which he disagrees, to be good enough to interrupt, although I have documentary evidence here to prove every statement I intend to make. The Noble Lord stated that in 1935 there were 30,000 employed in the aircraft industry, and that at the end of this year they were hoping that there would be 90,000 employed in the industry. He went on to say that they were hoping to have 40,000 officers and men and that that would bring about a formidable problem. He said that 30 new aerodromes would be required, and then proceeded to deal with the needs of the shadow factories in regard to the highly skilled labour which is required. It is upon these points in particular that I want to make my observations.
    As to the concrete charges made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), I know it is a fact that in at least two of the manufacturing firms men have been on short time, and that some of the most highly skilled employed in the aircraft industry have had to sign on. The Noble Lord should realise that there is an agreement between the trade unions and the engineering employers which suggests that when necessary systematic short time should be worked in preference to discharging men. All good employers in the industry work on that agreement, but, owing to the lack of organisation, many aircraft manufacturers have not yet applied that principle. I take strong objection on behalf of the people of this country, and of the organised workpeople in particular—and I say it with all the strength at my disposal—to the statement which the Noble Lord made that we must emulate the totalitarian States.
    Earl Winterton: I have never for one moment suggested that we should do anything of the sort. I repeat what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that I have no sort of complaint to make of any kind in respect of any section of labour.
    Mr. Smith: We must leave it to the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning to show what was said in regard to that. It is true that I cannot produce documentary evidence of what the Noble Lord has said
    1846
    this afternoon. I want briefly to refer to the way we were dealt with in the last War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who I wish had been in his place, Lord Addison, Mr. Asquith, as he then was, and others appealed to the patriotic emotions of the engineers of this country. They guaranteed to the organised work-people of this country that they would be prepared to do this, that or the other, and that after the War the status of engineers would be increased. These gentlemen gave an undertaking that the rights and privileges interfered with owing to war conditions would, without exception, be fully restored after the War. They agreed that the workpeople of the country had grievances in regard to workmen's compensation and promised that, after the War, a new Workmen's Compensation Act would be passed and that there would be a revision of the scales of benefit. The Government gave the men's organisations an undertaking with regard to the dilution of work.
    Is there any one in the House who doubts these statements? If they do I have the speech made by Mr. Asquith in 1915 appealing to the Tyneside workers, and speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. The men of this country responded to an extent unheard of in the world's history. Our men were prepared to agree to schemes of dilution, to give away their hard-won rights of many generations and to increase their output and work 70 and 80 hours a week, and, after all these sacrifices, we found that exorbitant profits were being made on the one hand, and that food price prices were going up on the other hand, in spite of the fact that the trade union movement in this country had agreed to forego any application for an advance in wages. While food prices were going up, exorbitant profits were being made at the expense of our men. These promises were made but were not fulfilled, and our people were betrayed. Despite the fact that we cannot forget all that, our men will prove in these serious times in the international situation that they are again prepared to be true to the country and to rally to the country's need. But we cannot agree to give that undertaking

    1847
    unless an undertaking is given by the Government with regard to the position of the organised trade union movement in this country.
    This is a problem of policy and organisation. The British engineering industry, owing to its historical development and owing to the fact that we were the first in the field of industry, has accumulated an experience and knowledge among manufacturers and workpeople which are the admiration and the envy of the whole world. The aircraft industry is but a section of the engineering industry. As we know, it is the most highly organised industry in the world. It is efficient in production, and it has applied the latest scientific modern methods to production, so that employers if they are asked to give deliveries at certain dates can be depended upon to perform their contracts. My first conclusion there is that if we are in a serious position—and we are, as regards aircraft—it is not the manufacturers' fault, it is not the responsibility of the manufacturers. If the Government had had a plan and had told the manufacturers what they wanted and when they wanted delivery, I guarantee that the delivery dates would have been kept.
    A prominent friend of the Prime Minister made the sort of remark which causes a good deal of suspicion among ordinary people like myself. He is a close friend of the Prime Minister weekend after week-end, and he said that this country could not produce results as good as any other country. I deny that, I repudiate it; and I say that this country is as well organised and is capable of producing as good results as any other country in the world. I see one or two hon. Members opposite who are shaking their heads, and in case there may be any doubt as to whom I am referring to, I am referring to a speech made by Lord Londonderry about 12 months ago. Let me deal with this question from the point of view of the working people. A leading article in the "Evening Standard "in April of this year dealt with the situation in this way:
    "There is a deficiency to-day of several hundred planes which British manufacturers cannot make good until negotiations with the engineering trade unions for the speeding-up of production have been concluded."
    That statement is most unfair, that statement is not true. Whoever was
    1848
    responsible for a statement like that evidently does not understand the situation and is not in touch with the industry. The Air Ministry have discouraged trade unions during the past few years. Time after time when questions have been raised in this House, when representatives of the trade union movement have made approaches to the Air Ministry, they have been discouraged, so far as co-operation is concerned. If that is doubted I have here the minutes of meetings of the National Council of Aircraft Workers, where time after time responsible trade union officials have related their experience to their fellow representatives in the aircraft industry, and where also questions which have been raised in this House have been taken up. Therefore, my second conclusion is that, in the first place, it is not the manufacturers' fault that we are in the present position; and, secondly, that it is not the workpeople's fault. I have documentary evidence here of the proceedings at a meeting between representatives of the employers and the various trade unions. These documents prove that the production per man employed in the engineering industry is greater than it is in any other part of the world. Therefore I say that there is an ample supply of highly skilled men available for the industry.
    Some time ago a firm received an order for 250 aeroplanes. Fifty of these were completed and then the men were suspended; some were discharged. No one knows the difficulties better than I of changes in designs and in the technical needs of production, but while making that admission let me say what is done in other sections of the industry. If men cannot be found employment on one particular product they are transferred to another or are put on to some other part of the product, and the result is that no friction is created by an unnecessary discharge of workmen. For the first time this week the trade unions have been consulted with regard to the supply of labour. For the first time since this country has been in the serious international situation in which we are, for the first time since it was realised that all was not well with the Air Ministry, the trade unions have been asked to cooperate. I see hon. Members opposite inclined to smile, but I was taught to avoid overstating a case, to be cautious

    1849
    in what I said, and I have always tried to produce evidence to prove what I have to say. I was taught early in life, among as fine a set of men as you can find, never to say a thing unless you know it is so, and if you are at all doubtful about it to qualify it when you say it. I want to speak on behalf of the trade unions whose position has been misrepresented. I have before me the latest report of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and this is what they say, speaking of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence:
    "Sir Thomas stated that the Minister of Labour and his officers have carried out a careful examination both of the available labour at the present time and the amount of labour which will be necessary. This may be so, but up to the time of writing no information of the kind here indicated has been placed before this Union. Referring to the joint machinery of these industries as mentioned by the Prime Minister, Sir Thomas said: Both sides of the joint machinery will be furnished with all the information that we can obtain as to the numbers and types of skilled labour that are wanted, and the places where they will be wanted, and the local conditions, as far as it may be necessary to ascertain them. Here again, despite the definite statement that we would be furnished with all the information, etc., nothing has yet come to hand. The policy of this Union is one of co-operation. We cannot be expected to co-operate unconditionally. Several newspapers have done less than justice to the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Nothing that was said by the Union spokesmen in discussion with Sir Thomas Inskip and his colleagues and nothing that has appeared in this Journal or has been said by responsible officers of the Union on the public platform indicates or implies that the great body of engineering workers enrolled in our organisation are indifferent to their patriotic duty. There is no ground whatever for the suggestion that, as trade unionists, we are hostile or apathetic on the question of national Defence. The very idea is simply absurd."
    They go on to state their position. It is most important that this should go on the records of the House so that the country may know the truth and not only the misrepresentation that has taken place during the past few weeks.
    "As the controversy has developed, the union has been placed in a false position. It has been made to appear that we are obstructive on the question of the available skilled labour. The contrary is the fact. With our knowledge of the state of affairs in the engineering industry we say without fear of contradiction that the available resources of skilled labour in the industry are not being properly utilised."
    Now I want to deal with the industry itself. There is an agreement between the engineering trade union and the in-
    1850
    dustry which provides for a two-shift system to be put into operation. It also provides for a three-shift system and, despite the fact that the country has been in a serious position, the firms are still working only the normal eight-hour day with a little overtime. The time has arrived when the three-shift system should be put into operation. There is ample skilled labour available and I want an undertaking that there is no intention of introducing dilution. In addition they have a right to know what the arms are going to be used for, in view of the suspicion that prevails in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his "Memoirs "showed the need for national factories. He said that during the last War the problem was not one of labour but of lack of policy and the need for planning and drive. That equally applies at present.
    The Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Armaments said the time had arrived when national factories should be set up. At the end of the last War there were three. Why cannot they be re-established? Measured by the test of output and price those factories of the War period were a huge success. A number of new Government factories are now being built for the manufacture of high explosives and other requirements of the Army, Navy and Air Force. If it is right to set up national ordnance factories, surely it is right to set up national aircraft factories. In the modern technique of warfare it is our men, women and children who will suffer more as the result of bombing than any other section of the community. In Spain certain areas have never been touched. It was the East-Enders who were touched in the last War and it will be the East-Enders throughout the country who will be touched. We want adequate defences for the whole of the population and balloon barrages for the whole country and not only for London. I repeat the declaration of the President of the Trade Union Congress at Plymouth in 1936:
    "I am confident that, difficult and dangerous though the situation is at the moment, world peace could be preserved if the British Government would adopt a thorough-going League of Nations policy and all that it implies. If the Soviet Union, France and ourselves framed a pact of non-aggression and mutual assistance based on the League Covenant and open to all, it would in our judg-

    1851
    ment, as we have said elsewhere, unquestionably preserve peace both in Europe and in Asia. Such a pact would without doubt gain the adherence of the Scandinavian countries, the Baltic States, the Little Entente and Turkey. It must not I repeat, be exclusive. It should be open to all, including Germany, but if Germany, because of her aggressive policy, refuses to enter we should make it clear that our policy is to go without Germany's co-operation to develop the system of mutual guarantees within the framework of the League and in conformity with the principle of collective security. From this platform I would warn both the British Government and the German Government that British Labour will never acquiesce but will fight strenuously against any policy which secures temporary peace in Western Europe while giving Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe and against the Soviet nation."
    What the President said two years ago applies equally to-day. The Prime Minister has a great background. He belongs to a great family. He has behind him a great tradition for social development. I wish to make an appeal to him. He is coming to us to ask for this, that and the other thing to be done. Surely, it is not fair to ask one small section of the community to make sacrifices unless the whole of the nation makes similar sacrifices. Our people are organised because of years and years of struggle and sacrifice. Considering how well protected the legal profession is, considering how well protected the professional classes are, and considering how we were let down in the last war, I appeal to the Prime Minister to help to restore confidence in this country by introducing some great social measures, such as the abolition of the means test, an increase in unemployment benefits, and a new Workmen's Compensation Bill. If the Government are not prepared to do that, then I say that, owing to the serious position in which we are and the need for the maximum amount of unity to prevail, the people should elect as soon as possible a real people's Government which will restore confidence in this country and help us to play our part in the international sphere.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. Perkins: I wish to join in the protest which has been made from various quarters of the Committee against the suggestions thrown out by the Noble Lord in his speech to the effect that many hon. Members are financially interested in the aircraft industry, and that the pressure
    1852
    which had been brought to bear by those Members was due to their interests.
    Earl Winterton: I did not make that suggestion. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I never for one moment had at the back of my mind the suggestion that any criticisms made in the Committee were due to anything but the purest motives and to genuine feelings of apprehension. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the serious charge which he made against me.
    Mr. Perkins: Of course, I completely withdraw that statement. I am afraid that I got a wrong impression, and I would like to apologise to the Noble Lord. I feel that this is no time for mud-slinging or for raking up the past. The situation is far too serious for that. It is the duty of every hon. Member to put forward any constructive suggestions which he may have for improving the present position. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has been consistently right for the last three years, and that the Air Ministry have been consistently wrong.
    I wish to make two or three suggestions as to how the present position could be bettered, but before doing so I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to what I believe to be the present position. I believe that, as far as personnel is concerned, the position is very satisfactory. As to equipment, we have the Noble Lord's assurance that the delays are being overcome and that the position is rightening itself. I believe that to be correct. I think the position is getting very much easier every day; but I hope that the Noble Lord will not forget that there are squadrons in the Service now which would be unable to shoot a hedgehog if it were to run over the aerodrome, because they have not got a gun. Although the position is improving, and although new machines are coming out fully equipped, I hope the Noble Lord will remember that there are squadrons in the Service to-day which are not properly equipped with guns.
    There is then the question of the numbers of aircraft. I have often stated that I do not believe it is possible to measure our strength with the French, German or Russian strengths in first-line aircraft, because no one knows what a first-line aircraft is. It may be one

    1853
    machine, two machines, two and a-half machines, or three machines. The only way in which one can measure our strength against the strength of another country is by comparing the manufacturing capacity of this country with that of the other countries. I have been informed that at this moment we are producing in this country about 175 aeroplanes a month. Let us assume that I am wrong, and that the production is 200 a month, which is the top figure. According to the figures which have been given to us by the Noble Lord to-day, that means that in 1940 we shall have increased the output from 200 a month to about 600 a month. The information which I have received from various friends is that at this moment Germany is producing about 350 aeroplanes a month. But she will not remain idle during the next three or four years. I am informed that there has been a tremendous influx of apprentices into German factories during the last three or four years, that schools for apprentices are attached to every factory, and that in 1940 Germany will have increased her output from 350 to about 1,200 machines a month. If those figures are anywhere near the mark, then in two years' time we shall be in exactly the same comparative position as we are to-day. The Noble Lord rightly said that our programme is flexible, and that at any time we could increase or reduce it; but I believe that during the next 18 months, or possibly 12 months, the Noble Lord will ask us to authorise a further increase in the Air Force.
    I wish to make one or two suggestions for meeting some of the difficulties that have arisen. I believe that the technical staff in the Air Ministry and the Air Inspection Department, people who are anxious to see British prestige upheld, have in fact acted as a brake on the production of aircraft by insisting on too many unnecessary modifications. The Noble Lord said that not a single aircraft manufacturer had complained, but surely he realises that no aircraft manufacturer would be such a fool as to complain against the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry is his only customer. No aircraft manufacturer would be such an idiot as to put his head into the noose and wait until somebody pulled the string. If the Noble Lord really wanted to get to the bottom of the problem, surely the right way would be to have some form of
    1854
    purely private, impartial inquiry, such as the Cadman Committee, to which these men could take their grievances. If that were done, I think the Noble Lord would find that the situation is not quite as he thinks it is.
    I wonder whether it has occurred to the Air Ministry to provide area committees, such as we had during the last war. Manufacturers have told me that they are continually being, I will not say obstructed, because that would suggest deliberate obstruction, but held up by the technical staff of the Air Ministry. I wonder whether it would not be possible to have area committees to which manufacturers could appeal in order to get a quick decision? I would like to see such committees have the power to override both the technical authorities at the Air Ministry and the A.I.D. If a manufacturer found that he was being held up for some trivial reason, he would then have a court of appeal to which he could go and get a quick decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) got into considerable trouble with the Noble Lord. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe our aircraft manufacturing industries could have produced more machines last year if the manufacturers had been given bigger orders, if they had not been chased from pillar to post by the technical people at the Air Ministry, and if—and this is the most important point—the orders had been stable and had not been varied from month to month. I know of one firm— I will not mention its name for obvious reasons, or give too many details—which received a substantial order from the Air Ministry for, say, 500 machines. It so happened that after two or three months a scare occurred, and the order was increased from 500 to 700 machines; but then things looked better in Europe, and the number was reduced to 500, then to 400, and finally settled at the original figure of 500.
    No manufacturer can plan mass production on those lines. When he does not know where he is, when he has not a definite and firm order, there is then this atmosphere of uncertainty in the industry, and I suggest to the Air Ministry that what they ought to do is not only to give larger orders to the individual manufacturers, but that they should guarantee those manufacturers against modifications. Suppose a manufacturer is given an order

    1855
    for 500 aeroplanes. Surely it should be possible to guarantee him that there would be no modifications, no alterations whatever, for the first 250 of those machines. When he had delivered 250, the experts of the Air Ministry could settle on the last machine and suggest and insist on all kinds of modifications, and when the new model had been approved by the Air Ministry, once again the manufacturer should be allowed to go ahead and produce the last 250 to that model, without any fear of alterations or modifications being required.
    Then there is this question, which has been referred to again and again in this House, of the position of our aircraft factories. I believe that we ought to regard the defence of this country as part of the defence of the Empire as a whole. Our factories in this country, and particularly our engine factories, are, I believe, at the mercy now of any hostile enemy force in Europe. I believe they' could be knocked out, and if I am right, if our factories could be knocked out in the first 24 hours of war, it means that we should quickly lose control of the air and that we should be defeated. Surely the right policy for this country to adopt, the right line of action for us to take, is to start up new factories, one in Canada, one in Australia, one in South Africa, right out of the range of any hostile bomber. If that could be done, and if we could get some proportion of our aircraft supplies flown to this country from the distant parts of the Empire, particularly from Canada, we could never lose a war. It would be impossible for us to lose a war, because once again we should be an island, once again, whatever happened in this country, however much our works were knocked about, we could still draw unending supplies from over the ocean. I believe that that is a vital point in the defence of this country, and I think we ought to regard the Empire as a whole and make the Empire our arsenal rather than make this country the arsenal of the Empire.
    Lastly, there is this question of an inquiry. Hon. Members who have tried to find out facts from the manufacturers have met many difficulties. Manufacturers are bound by the Official Secrets Act, and manufacturers are frightened, very naturally, of revenge being taken on
    1856
    them afterwards. I am told that pressure has been brought by the Air Ministry on certain manufacturers in order to shut them up. I do not know whether that is true, but it is obvious to anyone that it is very difficult to get at the facts as to what is happening in the British aircraft industry at the moment. What I would like to see is a purely private inquiry set up, consisting of private business people, three or four, not with the idea of stirring up trouble or raking up the mud of the past, but with the idea of putting forward constructive suggestions for the future, with the idea generally of smoothing out difficulties that have arisen, of suggesting alternative methods of delivering the goods, and generally of making far-reaching recommendations, which would be of the greatest benefit, I believe, to this country. If an opportunity is granted, as I understand it might be granted in the near future to have a Debate on that point and to have a Division, I, for one, have every intention of voting against the Government and voting for some such inquiry.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I could not help feeling a good deal of sympathy with the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy in the very gallant forlorn hope which he was leading from the Treasury Bench this afternoon, because it was clear from the beginning that he was trying to prove the impossible, and, of course, he was quite unsuccessful. I had the more sympathy with him because he is not personally responsible for any of the events of the last few years; he was only attempting to defend somebody else's misdeeds. Unfortunately, he proved too much. In attempting to prove that there never had been anything wrong in any action taken by the Air Ministry during the last three years, he drew too largely on the credibility of the Members of this Committee, and when he said to us that we must accept his personal assurance that now everything was all right, I could not help thinking that the confidence in the Government is not such as would enable us to accept a statement of that kind. Why is it that we are in this terrible mess, because it is a mess, at the moment and that we are in a position of grave national peril? No doubt it is partly, as has been said, due to the failure of long-distance planning, but it is also—and here I make only a brief

    1857
    reference—due to the foreign policy of the present Government, and the present Debate is a measure of the failure of that policy, as we are now on a basis of purely national armaments.
    Something has been said about obtaining aircraft from abroad, and I entirely agree that it would be most wise to make such arrangements as we can in Canada and other places for the setting-up of factories to build aircraft. But, after all, we are not dependent on such a long-distance remedy. What about the highly efficient aircraft that is available in the world at the present moment and that could be relied upon to come to our aid? I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has made definite arrangements for the use of French aircraft in supplement of our own aircraft here, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said the other day, why stop there? I think it is the duty of the Government, in addition to going on with this programme, to see what opportunity there is of obtaining the co-operation of such highly efficient Air Forces as, say, those of Czechoslovakia, Russia, and others, and I do not feel that they will be performing their full duty to the nation unless they follow up that line of inquiry, where you have aircraft all ready, in addition to setting up factories in the Dominions and extending the production in this country.
    I certainly do not wish to go over any of the ground that has already been touched upon in this Debate, but I will just say, with regard to a Ministry of Supply, that I heartily support that idea. I think it is an essential step, which we must take at some time, and I think that aircraft production should have priority in such a Ministry of Supply. There is one matter that has not so far been referred to in the Debate, in the matter of production, and I would like to ask the Minister to be good enough to give his attention to it, if he will. I quite believe that it is a fact that all the large factories are busily occupied at the present time, but that certainly does not apply to the smaller firms. I believe they have been to a very considerable extent neglected. I think the resources of the smaller firms, employing perhaps 50 to 300 employés., have been a good deal neglected. They are sub-contractors, and they do not take, from the necessity of the case, direct contracts from the Ministry, but there is
    1858
    a very large number of them anxious to place their resources at the disposal of the country.
    I happen to know that in my own constituency, to take an example, there are something like 20, many of them no doubt not suitable, but certainly some of them suitable. The reason why these small firms are not being made use of is partly because the large manufacturers are anxious to keep the business in their own hands, to keep it in the family, as it were, to put the business through their subsidiaries, and not to take the trouble and inconvenience of going to firms that they do not know and where there would have to be some fresh organisation and sharing of the profits. They have a feeling that this is their harvest time, and they want to reap as large and lucrative a harvest as they can. I would like to give the Noble Lord two examples. There is a firm, one of the larger firms, which has four-and-a-half years' orders for tanks. One of the sub-contractors went to that firm and offered to help them. Obviously there was great urgency.
    Earl Winterton: I have nothing to do with tanks.
    Mr. Mander: I am referring to aeroplane tanks. As I say, one of these smaller firms offered to supply the original contractors with help if they were pressed. At first the firm was glad to accept that offer, but when the proposal went to the board it was turned down, because they wanted to keep the contract within their own organisation, even if it meant taking a longer time in production. The second case, which is well-known to me, is that of a firm who have been waiting for two years. They have passed the A.I.D. test. They are manufacturers of aeroplane tanks, cowling, fairings pilot seats and things of that kind, but they can get no orders. That may have been all right in the past, but one would imagine that, under present conditions, the assistance of such firms would be required. Indeed, inquiries are now being made through merchants for articles of this kind. Surely those inquiries ought to be made directly to the manufacturing firms. In the case to which I refer, the necessary buildings are ready at a time when new buildings are being erected and the trained men are ready at a time when other men are being specially trained for the work. Skilled workmen are available owing to

    1859
    the fact that the motor industry is rather slack. The view of the Air Ministry on this subject in the past is represented by an extract from a letter to a firm which wanted them to go in for a scheme of organisation of the smaller units:
    "While such a combination of small engineering shops would in certain circumstances, as it did before, constitute an important means of expanding production it is not considered that the Department's requirements for accessory supplies under the programme will necessitate setting up any such combination at the present time."
    I ask the Noble Lord to review the situation with his advisers and to make a survey of the possibilities of utilising the smaller firms as was done during the War. I ask him to make direct contacts with these firms; to send his representatives round, to find out what supplies are short and what is causing delay and to obtain the necessary supplies where necessary from the smaller people, so as to ensure a steady flow. I understand that some of the contractors for aerodromes are in difficulties at present because they never know what to quote. They never know what the successful tender has been. I realise that it is not desirable to publish these figures to all and sundry, but I suggest that the amount of the successful tender should be conveyed, in confidence, to the unsuccessful competitors. I believe the result of doing so would be that the Air Ministry would probably get lower and more efficient tenders.
    The last point which I want to make arises out of the remarkable peroration of the Noble Lord in which he made a rather mystifying reference to dictatorships and democracies. I believe you can get better results from democracies than from dictatorships, but you cannot force an unpopular policy upon a democracy. To carry them with you, you must convince them that your policy is right and that it appeals to the idealism of the nation. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) made an admirable speech on the situation of the trade unions and I agree entirely with what he said. The trade unions are concerned mainly with the manufacturing and production side. An hon. Member who sits on the other side of the Committee said to me the other day, "This has nothing to do with the trade unions; it is a matter for Parliament policy." I ventured to say,
    1860
    "Imagine if you were working in an arms factory and being pressed to do overtime and night work, knowing that the result of your efforts would be used for the spread of Bolshevism throughout the world. Would you do it? "His answer was, "You must not ask me a difficult question like that." That applies both ways. You will get the best results from the trade unions if your policy, if the object for which you are manufacturing the arms, has their wholehearted assent. Otherwise, you will never get that reciprocity which you desire. I believe the people in this country, of all parties, are prepared to make every conceivable sacrifice for a policy in which they believe. I think it is essential that the Government, while doing all they can in connection with this extra production, should, at the same time, endeavour to obtain national unity by making it clear to the nation that the object of rearmament is to help the collective system of the League of Nations and nothing else. That is the only way in which they will ever obtain national unity in this land.
    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. Wakefield: The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) drew attention to the untapped resources of the wood-working industry in this country, and from his great experience in that industry pointed out that skilled workers, premises and machinery were available which could be utilised in this emergency. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) said that certain Continental countries were utilising wood construction for aeroplanes, and suggested that the Air Ministry might devote some attention to that matter. I should like to describe a personal experience in this connection. I am interested in a wood-working factory in the West of England which, during the War, produced many aeroplane parts. It has skilled men and premises which could be utilised now. Two or three years ago the services of the firm were offered to the Air Ministry. An inspector came down and was satisfied. As far as I remember, he paid a second visit a little later and appointed somebody in the factory to do the necessary inspection. He paid a further visit and brought a rubber stamp down with him, and that was the last the firm heard of any orders. That was some i8 months ago. I give

    1861
    that illustration to reinforce what the hon. Member for West Walthamstow so eloquently said. I, too, believe that we have great untapped resources at our disposal, and I ask the Noble Lord to give his special attention to the wood-working industry, and to see whether it would not be possible to utilise wood construction in this country as it is being utilised in Continental countries. We may well hope that skilled workmen in that particular industry, if that is done, will find employment in the very near future.
    There is one further matter with which I should like to deal, and that is the subject of pilots. The Debate has dealt almost entirely with the mass production of aeroplanes, how to increase that production, and what is the best way to get the quickest and most efficient supply. It is my considered opinion that if war broke out the real difficulty with which we should be faced would be in regard to trained, skilled pilots. The losses of pilots immediately on the outbreak of hostilities would be very great. In a few weeks you can replace machines lost, but you cannot replace skilled pilots in a few weeks. Skilled pilots need a degree of skill which we did not require in the War. They must be able to fly machines at from 300 to 400 miles an hour and be able to utilise instruments of a very difficult nature. You cannot in a few weeks learn how to do this sort of thing. We must, therefore, be careful not to lose our sense of balance and our sense of proportion in going in for this rapid production of machines. I know that we have more pilots now than we have machines for them to fly, but we must not lose our sense of proportion, and every effort must be made to give the very fine reserve of pilots that we have available, which is growing rapidly, opportunities of flying up-to-date, modern machines.
    There is another way in which we can greatly increase the reserve of highly skilled pilots, and that is to develop to a greater extent than has been done in the past, our civil aviation. True, we have not great inland routes as they have in America or in Central Europe, but we have something far greater than that, because we have a great Commonwealth. For us, communications are more important than for any other country in the world. The best and cheapest way to
    1862
    get reserves of highly skilled, trained pilots, who are accustomed to blind flying and flying at night in all kinds of weather, the reserve of pilots who will be required should war break out, is by extending as rapidly as possible our civil aviation services.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I intervene in the Debate not on its merits but merely to inform the Committee that in view of the highly unsatisfactory statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster my right hon. Friend, myself and my hon. Friends, being deeply impressed by the grave dangers of the present situation, have decided to put upon the Order Paper of this House a Motion in the following terms:
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the growing public concern regarding the state of our air defences and the administration of the Department concerned, calls for a complete and searching independent inquiry, conducted with despatch, under conditions consistent with the national interests."
    We take it for granted that the Government will be prepared to provide an early date for the discussion of this vital Motion.
    10.9 p.m.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: We are coming to the end of a very interesting day's Debate. The chief interest of the Debate has been the statement which the Chancellor of the Duchy has made on behalf of the Government. I shall be expressing the views of everybody when I say that the whole House welcomed the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to his position at the Air Ministry, and I am sure that no one welcomed it with greater enthusiasm than those in the Air Ministry itself, not because my right hon. Friend has hitherto been known as an expert on this subject, although he has told us of his experiences in the air, but because he is known as one of the most experienced and resourceful debaters in this House, and there is nothing that a public department likes more than to have an effective champion in the House to defend it. He certainly defended it with loyalty to-day. Many of us who take part in debates often find a little difficulty in expressing ourselves, when we are carried away by the strength of our feelings, and are anxious not to be rude to our opponents and to cause offence, but

    1863
    my right hon. Friend has an immense advantage because he may be as rude as he likes to his opponents without causing them any offence at all. Therefore, knowing his skill and resource as a debater I am afraid that we were the more depressed by the speech and impressed by the badness of the case which he had to present to the Committee.
    The anxiety which is felt on this matter is no party affair. There were one or two speeches in which the old Adam of partisanship came out but, generally speaking, hon. Members have tried to approach this grave question, affecting as it does the safety of the country, without any party spirit. The anxiety that is felt is felt in all parts of the Committee, and I think that anxiety was deepened by the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody would deny that the air expansion scheme has encountered heavy weather in the past; but every Minister who has been responsible for the Air Ministry has denied that, in repeated Debates. My Noble Friend kept on saying that he hoped the Committee would accept his assurance. We accept his assurance of his good faith and his desire to put these things right, but not the assurance that these things are such that the production will work out in such and such a way and that these things are being effectively tackled. We find it difficult to accept that assurance, having in mind that the assurances in the past have not been trustworthy.
    I find some difficulty in following my right hon. Friend's figures. I hope that he will explain his figures as to our first-line air strength in the future. He said that in March, 1940, we shall have 3,500 first-line machines, and he told us how we are going to attain that. He said that this year we should increase our productive capacity by 50 per cent., and that in the following year we should treble it. That only works out at 3,500, assuming of course that the proportion of machines in reserve is the same now as it will be in 1940 if our present first-line strength is 800 machines. We have reason to suppose—it has been stated across the Floor of the House— that our present first-line strength is approximately 1,500 machines. If that be so, and if the figures which the right
    1864
    hon. Gentleman gave are correct, we must be very deficient in reserves at the present time. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this figure of 3,500 may not be very satisfactory. If it is believed that the Germans will have 6,000 machines by the time we have 3,500— that was the figure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) and was not denied by the right hon. Gentleman—the right hon. Gentleman said that, after all, we can call in the Dominions. Egypt was building up an air force. Their strengths were not included in his figures, he said, but were additional. We might be able to call in help from Egypt, he said. That works both ways, for we may have to give help to Egypt in time of trouble, and I think the Government would be very ill-advised to set any store by the prospect of receiving help from those distant countries.
    Then he went on to tell us that the production of turrets and instruments was satisfactory. We have heard that so many times before from that Box. He went on to tell us that the shadow factories were working well. He stated that the shadow factories for air frames were, going well and that the shadow factories for air engines were going forward well. He did not tell us whether they have shadow factories for instruments. They will be equally vital. We must not only have in war time an immensely increased output of machines and of air engines, but we must have instruments to put in the machines. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can assure the Committee that the Government have also considered our potential output of instruments in the event of war.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that the necessary skilled labour for this expansion programme would be forthcoming. There was no mention of the negotiations with the trade unions and how they are progressing. The Committee naturally will attach importance to that. All too late have these negotiations started. They ought to have been set on foot months ago. The Committee would welcome some information about the way in which they are progressing. He went on to indicate that he was going to strike a comparison between the rate of output in this country and that in Germany. He gave us some figures to show

    1865
    how fast the rate of output was expanding in this country, but he sheered off the comparison with Germany, and he gave us only a comparison with the rate at which we were expanding this time last year. He said there was a very satisfactory increase. The Committee knows that and would, indeed, have been startled if the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to say that there was an Increase as compared with last year. The assurance the Committee wants is that there is a satisfactory rate of increase as compared with the rate of increase in Germany. That is a point on which the Chancellor of the Duchy has been very silent.
    He dealt on more than one occasion in his speech with the difficulty against which he had to contend in building up a great Air Force in a democratic country. How much easier he said it would be to do it in a totalitarian country. He said in effect to the Committee, "You say that Lord Swinton and I are not as good at the job as General Goering, but think of his advantages, think of the totalitarian State. The dictators in the totalitarian States are not hampered "— that was the word he used—" by demands for information." I cannot for the life of me see how our demands for information can hamper the Government. They have a means of escape, which, it seems to me, they use only too often, of saying that it is not in the public interest to give the information. When they do so they are never pressed; they may be chaffed, but they are never pressed to reveal what is not in the public interest. Do we hamper them? I say we help them, and I observe that the newspapers, representing the feelings of the people, representing, too, instructed opinion in this country, newspapers not only of the Left but of the Right, newspapers which support His Majesty's Government, were appealing this morning to the House of Commons to put pressure upon the Government in this Debate so as to produce the results which have hitherto not been forthcoming.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that if we had agreed to adopt totalitarian methods it would mean that the Government would have put their opponents in concentration camps. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman "licked his chops "at the idea of putting some of us in concen-
    1866
    tration camps, and no doubt thought with some glee of the prospect of putting me there, but I am sure that he would most of all welcome the opportunity of putting the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) there if he had the chance. But I think that all this talk is much too pessimistic. I agree with what the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), I think it was, said just now, that we have great untapped resources in this country, untapped material resources, untapped productive resources, untapped resources of men and women who are willing to put their backs into this business of building up a great Air Force.
    In the last year of the War, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) said, we actually had 30,000 machines produced and there were 40,000 more on order. It may be said that it is easier to do things in war time, but as against that remember all the other calls which we then had upon our resources—the maintenance of 1,000,000 men in the field, the building of tanks, guns and all the other war material, our vast Fleet. Think of all the calls we had upon skilled labour for the munition factories, and of all the men who were fighting abroad. If we could produce so many machines in 1918 surely we can within the next two years produce more than 3,500 first-line machines.
    The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) said that Parliament had approved the scheme upon which the right hon. Gentleman was working as sufficient, and therefore it was unfair for us to blame the Department, because it was the responsibility of Parliament. It is not the responsibility of Parliament. I think that is putting the measure of our responsibility too high and the responsibility of the Government too low in a matter which affects national Defence, for the very reason that when we try to get information which it is vital to have in order to form a complete judgment on the situation, we are met, and, of course, often very fairly met, with the reply that it is not in the public interest to give the information. Indeed, in Session after Session when the right hon. Member for Epping was telling the Government that there ought to be a greater effort at rearmament and that we ought to build up a greater Air Force, the Government were replying that accord-

    1867
    ing to their information it was quite unnecessary. It is not right for the Government to turn round, as the Home Secretary did in a public speech a few days ago, and say the responsibility is upon the public, who would not agree to rearmament earlier. But he added, "The public would not support us." That is not true. It was the Government who would not make the demand upon the public.
    I am not trying to be wise after the event. When the right hon. Gentleman made that speech he was answered by Mr. Baldwin, who was then head of the Government, and I naturally thought that the Prime Minister's answer was correct. I supported the Prime Minister against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. That was a very natural course for a private Member to take when given information from the Government Front Bench. That is why I say that there is an immense measure of responsibility of which we cannot relieve Ministers in these questions of national emergency. I say that we cannot relieve them; but there is one way in which we might help them in some degree, and that is why I press the demand which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend at the beginning of this Debate and which has been put forward from the Front Opposition Bench. I refer to the demand for an inquiry. If we could have an inquiry, representative people in this House might be informed of the true facts and might be able to appreciate the true position.
    The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet said that an inquiry would divert 50, 60 or 70 per cent. of the time of the Air Ministry from useful productive work to the mere answering of questions by the committee. But that is not a fair estimate and was very well answered by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), who said that the Cadman Committee was no waste of anybody's time. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet said that increased standardisation would mean increased jigging and machine tools, that it would take two years to do and was hardly worth starting. Not at all; the answer to it is, "Start now."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman came to the concluding passage of his speech, which was one of the greatest gravity.
    1868
    The House naturally judges the performance of the Government by the criterion which was set up at the beginning of this rearmament effort by Mr. Baldwin, who was then Prime Minister, and who said:
    "Any Government of this country, a National Government more than any, and this Government, will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position of inferiority to any country within striking distance of our shores."
    It is apparent that the Government have abandoned that criterion. The right hon. Gentleman said to-night that air Defence must be considered as a whole, with bombers, fighters, seaplanes and searchlights, the prevention of panic among the civil population and the reduction of damage and casualties. The Prime Minister had prepared us for this abandonment in the speech which he made on the Estimates for the Ministry of Co-ordination of Defence. He had an even longer category of the factors that you must bring into account before you get a true estimate of air power and strength. It was longer, but the Noble Lord added one factor to-day, the prevention of panic among the civilian population, the importance of which none will dispute, especially after the speech which the Noble Lord delivered.
    Mr. Gallacher: Why do you not pack up?
    Sir A. Sinclair: He went on to say:
    "No defence service can ever spend limitless sums of money for its own purpose, or obtain without question or negotiation all the material and personnel it would like, unless me emulate the methods of the totalitarian States."
    Unfortunately, one thing which we criticise very strongly is the fact that this Department has not obtained a large enough share of the money which is spent on Defence in this country. As I said only a few days ago in this Chamber, we are all concerned about the air. We all know that a great effort has to be made in the air. And yet we find that a large proportion of the effort has been and still is being diverted to the Navy, which, before this effort started, was stronger in relation to all the Powers of Europe than it was in 1914. Yet in that Service the output has been quadrupled; the tonnage under construction has been quadrupled in the last few years. We are told, too, that the Air Ministry has priority over

    1869
    the Army, but it has not priority over the Navy.
    Surely it is clear that our greatest relative weakness at the present time is in the air, and we ought to be putting the maximum effort of which this country is capable into strengthening our Air Force. There are, too, questions of supply. It would, of course, be out of order for me to argue now the case for a ministry of supply, because it would require legislation, but besides all the factors I have mentioned there are a great many more, such as that mentioned just now by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins)— the importance of getting, if we can, greater production in the Dominions, and making a greater effort there relatively to our effort here, because our factories here are so exposed to hostile air attack.
    That is a very difficult question, on which I am not going to pronounce in face of the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Stroud, but it occurs to me that there are very great difficulties with regard to skilled labour and raw materials in the Dominions concerned, and there is the question of the transport of the aeroplanes from the countries in which they were manufactured to this country. All of these are very difficult questions, but I do not believe that this Committee is satisfied that they are being vigorously tackled at the present time, and I think we ought to have a committee of inquiry representative of all parties in the House to satisfy us on these points. There is the question of the supply of raw material. My hon. Friend asked about sheet aluminium. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are supplies adequate for all the purposes of the programme he has in view? The Royal Commission on the Manufacture of Arms reported strongly in favour of a ministry of supply, and I think there is a great case for it. Therefore, I certainly support the demand which has been put forward. The right hon. Gentleman who put it forward from the Front Opposition Bench to-night made no speech in favour of it, because he desired to allow other Members to speak, and did not want to take up the time of the Committee. It seemed to me that the proposed Motion was couched in very moderate terms, and I would express the hope that it may commend itself to the House, and even to the Government.
    1870
    The hon. Member for Stroud spoke just now of the possibility that he foresaw of having to vote against the Government on such a Motion. For my part, I should view that with no partisan exultation; I would very much rather that there was no difference of opinion. I do not want to make party capital out of this desperately serious issue; I would very much rather hear the Government say that they would accept this inquiry, and that no Member of the House should be placed in the embarrassing position of agreeing with the proposal and yet having, out of loyalty, to support the Government. I must explain to the Committee that my hon. Friends and I are dissatisfied with the speech of the Noble Lord, and, having moved a reduction of salary, feel bound to carry the issue to a Division to-night. We know there are a good many people in other parts of the House who agree with the merits of our Motion and who feel that unless we receive assurances that this committee of inquiry will be set up—that would certainly alter the situation—they would like to support us. I regret that they should be put in that embarrassing position, but we feel that, having put down this Motion, it is necessary that we should not run away from it, but should vote for it. I hope, indeed, that the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned will be accepted unanimously when it comes to be discussed.
    10.36 p.m.
    Earl Winterton: I certainly do not complain of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I do not think that anything I could say in defence of the Air Ministry or in explanation of the scheme I have referred to this afternoon would alter the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that he and his party should vote against the Government. I have already spoken at length, but I want to make some general reply to the Debate, as I think I am entitled to do. Before I do that, I want to go very briefly into certain points which have been raised. Every one of them is of a perfectly reasonable character, but there are certain questions which, in the public interest, I do not think I should answer.
    I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) about shortage of aluminium.

    1871
    I am glad to be able to assure the Committee that there is no shortage of aluminium, and that, therefore, no question of priority between the Air Ministry and the War Office arises. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) referred to certain matters. I do not agree with what he said, and I think his attitude was prejudiced. Certainly, the accusations which he made against certain members of the committee were not justified. With regard to the negotiations in progress with the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the hon. Member will realise that that is not a matter which falls to the Department which I am representing, and it is doubtful whether it would be in order to discuss it on this occasion.
    During the Estimates Debate a number of questions were asked which my hon. and gallant Friend undertook would be answered on this occasion, on the subject of accommodation for airmen. It was suggested that not sufficient is being done in regard to recreational facilities for airmen or for their feeding and accommodation generally. The Committee will agree that this is a very important question. [Interruption.] Well, is it not? Surely it is one of the most important questions that could be dealt with. I myself made certain investigations into this matter, and, while the recreational facilities in some cases are not satisfactory, they are steadily improving, and I think that, generally, they compare favourabiy with those of other services.
    A very important question was raised by more than one hon. Gentleman on the subject of the wooden construction of aeroplanes. I think three hon. Members raised it. I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite thought I was, in vulgar phraseology, "getting at him "on this, but I assure him that that is not so. The use of wood was abandoned for this reason. It was impossible to make wooden aircraft with modern performance owing to the comparatively low strength of the wood available, and consequently metal construction was resorted to. I am glad to say that a recent development in compressed wood—a process of a technical character which I do not wish to describe—is being encouraged by the Department, and an order has been given to Messrs. Armstrong Whitworth
    1872
    for a bomber to be made with this wooden substance. With regard to wooden aeroplanes generally, we still use them for training.
    A very important question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the types of machine guns, and he asked a perfectly legitimate question whether we were still using the machine guns used in the War? That is not quite the position. It is true we are using types of guns, but improved types, that were in existence at the end of the War, guns like the Vickers and Lewis. But on the newer machines we are bringing into operation—and supplies are coming forward—two new types of Browning and Vickers which, I think, are equal in performance to any other guns of the kind in existence. I have no time on this very interesting technical matter to discuss the question of turrets which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. The matter is still in some ways in the experimental stage, but the information which reaches the Air Ministry is not quite as unsatisfactory as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. There are three types in the Service, but there are variations so that they can be accommodated in the different machines. The power-operated turret is a very exacting requirement, but early deliveries are coming about. Without giving away any secrets, I might say that I saw one of these types the other day, and, with the limited experience gained during the War of the machine guns that were used, I should say they were extremely effective. A question was asked about blind flying, and the answer is that blind flying instruments are available on all training machines. Therefore, no one passing through the training course is denied the use of blind flying instruments. There are other machines as well, but the allegation was that people were being trained who were not having blind flying instruction, and that is not the case.
    The last specific point to which I want to refer is that of the question of the purchase of aircraft in the Dominions. I have personally been impressed by the amount of opinion, not confined to one quarter of the Committee, and by the very interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on this subject. I want again to make it clear that one of the main

    1873
    objects of the Commission that has gone to Canada is thoroughly to examine the possibilities of this scheme. There are reasons—and I am well aware that in saying this I may be off my guard and that someone may say, "Why was this not done before "—which I cannot indicate to the Committee, but things have advanced in matters of construction considerably more than they had a short time ago. The obstacles were greater then than they are now. This matter is being investigated, and in due course the results of the investigation will be communicated to the House.
    Sir A. Sinclair: What about the shadow factories?
    Earl Winterton: The answer about shadow factories is that they are in step, that is to say, the production of frames and the production of engines are synchronised, and in regard to the other matters which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, there will be no lack of any of them. They are synchronised with production elsewhere. The shadow factory scheme is going forward well and the production from it will be on a large scale indeed within the present financial year.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Will there be shadow factories for instruments?
    Earl Winterton: It will not be necessary because instruments will be obtained from other factories. They are being produced. Let me now come to my general answer to the points raised in the Debate. It must necessarily be short. I know there is anxiety in the House of Commons and in the country on this subject, and I do not want to suggest for a moment that no mistakes have been made in the past. But I want the Committee to be fair to the Air Ministry in this matter. It must be remembered that there has been a stress and strain in regard to this vast expansion unparalleled in any Defence ministry in peacetime.
    The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has paid a friendly tribute to the Secretary of State for Air and myself, but suggested that while we were good politicians, we had no experience of business. I apologise for mentioning this personal matter, but I happen to have been connected with more than one business in the past which
    1874
    rapidly expanded, and I can assure the Committee that it is the experience of all business men that there is a great stress and strain when an organisation is expanding. Human nature being what it is, I suggest that to think you cannot carry out a great scheme of this kind, whether by a Government Department or by private business, without mistakes occurring, is ridiculous. I do not suggest that there have not been mistakes in the past, but what I do say is that the proportionate increase in the strength and scope of the Defence department has never been exceeded in peacetime, that matters are proceeding much more smoothly and that difficulties have been and are being overcome. If the Committee does not accept my assurance on that point, I can only tell them that they will do so when they see the results in the future.
    The second point I should like to make is that the forecast of production which I have given to-day was made not by the Air Ministry but by the aircraft industry in response to a request of the Air Ministry to bring forward a programme of production. It has been carefully scrutinised by the best opinion at the Air Ministry. I believe it can be carried out. I must add this, that where disappointment has occurred, as it has occurred in the past, in regard to the production of aircraft, it would be a profound mistake to think that that disappointment has been due always, or indeed frequently, to mistakes made by the Air Ministry. What has happened is that estimates have been made by the aircraft industry after they have received orders, there has been no question of modifications, which they have not been able to fulfil. There, again, that is a common experience of industry.
    By the general sense of the whole House the country for years pursued a policy of disarmament. [Interruption.] Was it the fault of the Government that the "News-Chronicle "three years ago described members of the aircraft industry as "merchants of death." Time after time hon. Members opposite voted against all expenses.
    Mr. Churchill: The Government eventually assured the House that there was no emergency.
    Earl Winterton: I say this plan is the best calculated to produce the maximum of effort within two years.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: The Noble Lord has informed the House that the estimates of production now are based on estimates that they have received from the industry and he proceeds to admit that former estimates of the industry have not been fulfilled. What guarantee is there now that the new estimates of the industry will be any more fulfilled than in the past, and why does not the Government take responsibility for forming their own estimates?
    Earl Winterton: What I said was that the estimates were the estimates of the aircraft industry. They have always been the estimates of the aircraft industry, but on this occasion there is improved organisation and the exercise of closer scrutiny than ever before over the estimates, and, in my opinion and that of my advisers, they are satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman asks why if on previous occasions in some cases the estimates of the aircraft industry have not been fulfilled we should trust them to-day. I will give a frank answer. Because the industry is better organised to-day than it was, and there is closer relationship between the industry and the Ministry. I hope that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman. Plans have been made and are in successful operation to simplify the system of ordering. [Interruption.] I do not in the least object to interruptions but I want to make this quite clear. These are questions in which the whole world is interested. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to object to my opinions, but I suggest to some of them that in a Debate of this moment I am entitled to be allowed to put my arguments to the Committee. This is a matter that is being watched outside this country and the impression given to some foreign observers would not be that hon. Members are blaming me or the Air Ministry, but are objecting to some features in this new scheme.
    My last point is this. [Interruption.] I can well understand that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is not interested in seeing this country made more strong, or he would not have adopted the attitude he has done. I wish to make it clear that this is no sudden and panicky plan, as has been suggested in some quarters. It is the natural extension and acceleration of an already rapidly-growing force. Earlier
    1876
    in the Debate, one of my hon. Friends, in very eloquent terms, said that he hoped this would not be a post-mortem on the past, but would be rather consideration of the present and the future. I entirely agree. In passing, I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that if the Archangel Gabriel stood at this Box and produced an expansion scheme for the present Government, I do not think it would satisfy my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Churchill: Considering the many, many months my Noble Friend and I struggled to galvanise the present Government, I think that a little hard.
    Earl Winterton: I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this compliment from me, that if he sees any good in the present plan, and in so far as I have assisted in a humble way to produce that plan, as a result of my right hon. Friend's galvanisation, I am convinced that he will give it his support. It will produce a steady improvement in aircraft production and a general improvement in equipment. There will be, I hope, a steady intake of recruits, better and faster machines, which are already coming forward in satisfactory numbers, newer types, simplification of the system of giving orders, and consideration of a still further widening of the area of safety. However much criticism there may have been of the Air Ministry or of the Secretary of State for Air or of myself, I suggest to the Committee, not on behalf of the Air Ministry, but on behalf of the country, that the Government and the Ministry should be supported, and the appeal which I make from this Box is for the fullest possible support for this new scheme. In the matter of recruitment, I have already said that there is a satisfactory intake of recruits, and I hope that it will continue. I hope hon. and right hon. Members in all quarters of the House will use their influence to that end. I hope they will use their influence to continue what is, on the whole, a most satisfactory labour position, and that they will continue to encourage people to assist in that way, and in other ways. I am convinced of this, that if this scheme is given proper opportunities, it will be a successful one, and it will constitute the greatest single expansion scheme ever put forward by any Defence Ministry within a given period in peace time.
    Question put, "That Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages, etc.) be reduced by £100."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 299.

    Division No. 200.]

    AYES.

    [10.59 p.m.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Groves, T. E.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Poole, C. C.

    Amman, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)

    Price, M. P.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pritt, D. N.

    Attlee, Rl. Hon. C. R.

    Hayday, A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Ridley, G.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ritson, J.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benson, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Bevan, A.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    John, W.

    Silkin, L.

    Buchanan, G.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cape, T.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

    Cassells, T.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stephen, C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leach, W.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Daggar, G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Dalton, H.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Summerskill, Edith

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Day, H.

    McGovern, J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Maclean, N.

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walker, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Evant, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Marshall, F.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Maxton, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Milner, Major J.

    White, H. Graham

    Frankel, D.

    Montague, F.

    Whitaley, W. (Blaydon)

    Gallacher, W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Muff, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Olivar, G. H.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Owen, Major G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Paling, W.

    Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parker, J.

    Seely.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Bossom, A. C.

    Christle, J. A.

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Clarks, Frank (Dartford)

    Allan, Col. J. Sandsman (B'knhead)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Apsley, Lord

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Assheton, R.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.

    Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

    Bull, B. B.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Butler, R. A.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Crossley, A. C.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Cary, R. A.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Channon, H.

    De la Bére, R.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Denville, Alfred

    Kimball, L.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Doland, G. F.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Remer, J R.

    Dower, Major A. V. G.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Eokersley, P. T.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rowlands, G.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Emery, J. F.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Salt, E. W.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Errington, E.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Everard, W. L.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Scott, Lord William

    Findlay, Sir E.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Selley, H. R.

    Fleming, E. L.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdech (Inverness)

    Shakespear, G. H.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Furness, S. N.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    McKie, J. H.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Gledhill, G.

    Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

    Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Magnay, T.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Maitland, A.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Goldie, N. B.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Spens. W. P.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Markham, S. F.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Granville, E. L.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stuart, Lord C. Criehton- (N'thw'h)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Thomson Sir J. D. W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Hambro, A. V.

    Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

    Touche, G. C.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Harvey, Sir G.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Munro, P.

    Turton R. H.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Nall Sir J.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Hepworth, J.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. E

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Heare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Peake, O.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Peat, C. U.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Petherick, M.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Plugge, Capt. L. F.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Hunter, T.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hit hin)

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W H.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Purbrick, R.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wragg, H.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Wright, Wins-Commander J. A. C

    Janet, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'ft'R)

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montross)

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kerr. H. W. (Oldham)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Mr. James Stuar and Captain

    Duģdale.

    Resolution agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Sir Percy Harris rose—
    It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceed
    1880
    ing, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) [MONEY].
    Resolution reported,
    "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the remuneration of persons employed in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road, and with respect to the making of recommendations and reports, and the settlement of disputes, relating to matters affecting such transport, it is expedient to authorize—

    (a) the payment into the Exchequer of all fines imposed in respect of offences under the said Act; and

    (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Labour in carrying the said Act into effect and of any expenses authorised by him with the consent of the Treasury to be incurred by any Central Board or by any area board established under the said Act."

    SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
    Resolved,
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Brentford and Chiswick, which was presented on the 4th day of May, 1938, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Watford, which was presented on the 4th day of May, 1938, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Aylesbury, which was presented on the 4th day of May, 1938, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Rickmansworth, which was presented on the 24th day of March, 1938, be approved."—[Mr. Lloyd.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    SPAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. R. Acland: I would like to call attention to a question arising out of compensation to British ships damaged by bombing in Spanish ports. I would like to put the following facts of record. On 20th January, the "Thorpeness "was subject to deliberate bombing and several British lives were lost. In January also the "Endymion "was torpedoed and ten lives were lost. On 4th February the "Alcira "was deliberately bombed, with loss of the ship and British lives. On 15th March several lives were lost when the "Stanwell "was deliberately bombed. On 25th April several were injured on the "Stanland "; the Government claimed that the bombing was not deliberate but the captain said that it was. On 5th May the "Stanhope "and the "Stancroft "were deliberately bombed, but no damage was done.
    When I asked why the Government presses for claims for compensation for damage done by the Japanese immediately and do not press for claims for compensation for damage done by insurgent forces in Spain, I get this answer, "The circumstances of the Civil War in Spain are so different from those of the present conflict in the Far East that it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to take identical action in both cases." I am aware that the circumstances in the two cases are in many respects different. May I draw attention to some respects in which the circumstances are the same? There is in both areas a conflict supported by the use of arms. In each case war has not been declared and there have been deliberate attacks on British property which has been damaged and on British lives which have been lost. That is the extent to which the circumstances are the same, and yet we get a wholly different treatment in the two cases with substantially different results.
    Whereas in the case of Japan, taking it on the whole, deliberate attacks on British property and lives have diminished under His Majesty's Government's pressure for compensation, the attacks on British ships by the Burgos authorities are steadily increasing. The Government in this case are being laughed at and mocked. The Government must have seen the telegram from the six British captains from Barcelona. The British flag is held there in lower esteem than the flag of Panama. That is something the British

    1883
    Government are proud of. There is here a prima facie case for an explanation from the Government for this widely different treatment, and the answer we get is "Trust the Government." This is the Government which, acting contrary to our advice, has brought the world to its present state. [Laughter.] Let me omit, then, any suggestion of cause and effect and say that after six years of the policy of this Government the world is in its present state, and we are asked to trust that Government.
    If it is a case of public interest the House is always willing to accept the Government's request not to press for information if the Government will only say anything or give any hint why it would not be in the public interest. But here we are simply asked by the Government, "Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what grandmother will give you. Take what is handed out and trust us." There are hon. Members, and, more important, there are people in this country, who are not prepared to accept that attitude from the Government. There must be some solid reason locked up in the very different circumstances of these two wars for this completely different treatment of the two cases. We should like to know that reason unless we are told that it is not in the public interest to give the reason. If that is done I can be satisfied. Otherwise are we not forced to the conclusion that if compensation is pressed for and obtained British ships can continue to go to Spanish ports, but that if compensation is not pressed for, and if there is no indication whatever that any compensation is going to be obtained by His Majesty's Government for these outrages on British life and property, then, sooner or later, those ships will cease to go? In that case, those Spanish people who are doing no more than defend a Government which they have elected, and who are now being battered down by the guns, bombs and aeroplanes which His Majesty's Government pretend are not there, will also be starved out, because His Majesty's Government, by its feebleness, its unwillingness to protect the British flag, will be reinforcing this campaign of deliberate outrage upon the British flag, British lives and British property.
    11.21 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): This has been a difficult subject to deal with by way of question and answer, and we are obliged to the hon. Member for providing us with an opportunity of giving a slightly fuller explanation of what I have found while I have studied it to be an extremely complicated and technical problem. I feel sure that the hon. Member will find that British interests are safe in our hands. I think that he will find that he is wise to trust to our discretion in this matter, and to believe that we have no other motive than to look after British interests.
    The first question is, Why are claims presented at different times in the case of Japan and in the case of Spain? Let us first clear our minds about this first consideration, that, save in quite exceptional cases arising out of circumstances which distinguish them altogether from the ordinary claims on behalf of British nationals, the payment of claims would be made after the end of hostilities. That consideration reduces to that extent the actual importance of the moment of the presentation of the claim itself. At whatever moment presentations are made, they are usually settled after the end of hostilities. That is not surprising when the great complication of many of the claims is considered. It is often not possible to obtain the actual detailed information with which to back the claim during the progress of hostilities. The hon. Member would find it difficult to assess the actual total damage done to a factory in an area of hostilities, while those hostilities were proceeding, and in many cases it would be equally difficult to come to a decision in respect of damage to ships.
    We come now to the actual dates for presentation. The ordinary practice, as far as I have been able to study it from precedents, is that in an ordinary war the presentation of a claim is sometimes made before the end of hostilities, but is usually made after it. Some of the claims in the course of the war in the Far East have been made before the conclusion of hostilities, but in the vast majority of cases those claims have not been made or paid.
    What is the position in the case of an ordinary war between two national States? The reason for the presentation of claims

    1885
    after the end of hostilities, which is the normal and usual rule, is that claims presented during hostilities very often have to be revised and supplemented at the end of the war, as it is impossible to check them accurately during the course of it. It is also necessary to arrive at the principles to be applied to the particular cases and the machinery by which the claims have to be examined, and it is very often important, considering the claims as a whole, to divide them into different categories or different types. It is therefore difficult during hostilities to make a presentation.
    These considerations are particularly applicable in the case of a civil war. In an ordinary war it is clear against which Government claims have to be made. For instance, in the case of the Sino-Japanese dispute, it is clear that in one case claims have to be made against the Government of Japan, and in the other that the claims must be made against the Government of China.
    Mr. Mander: Has war been declared?
    Mr. Butler: In the case of a civil war, such as the war in Spain, the position is that under international law claims lie against Spain as a State. In fact, the legal grounds for and the validity of a number of claims depend upon the outcome of the civil war itself.
    Mr. Acland: It has already been decided that these claims lie against Franco.
    Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will allow me to pursue my argument, he will realise that this is a much more difficult and complicated question that his interpretation of it would suggest. In a civil war, only one side wins, and it is to that side that the claims are made. If there is a stalemate, there is all the more reason for keeping the claims in reserve till we see to which authority they must ultimately be made. Therefore, in a civil war there is all the more reason for keeping the presentation of the claims until the conclusion of hostilities, so that it may be quite clear as to the authority to which the claims shall be made.
    In his original supplementary question to me, the hon. Member tried to make out that we were discriminating in Spain in favour of General Franco by not pressing claims upon him. The answer to that is
    1886
    that our practice followed to-day both against General Franco and against the Spanish Government has been identical. We have, in cases in which we considered there was a claim—and that is the case with those vessels where we have acknowledged that there was a deliberate attack and to which reference has been made—notified the authorities concerned that we considered that they were responsible. We have further notified the existence of a claim and we haveprotested. I consider, therefore, that we have done our utmost, according to the legal exigencies of the position, to protect British interests and to reserve the rights of the owners to payment, which, as I have said, it is the usual practice to make at the conclusion of hostilities. Both sides have been treated exactly alike, and by notifying our intention to press for a claim, we are doing, I maintain, all that we can to protect British interests. If we sum up the position, the hon. Member will see that, although the legal position is complicated, and, naturally, can be misinterpreted, we have taken the usual course according to precedent. I have gone into the precedents in this matter in the American Civil War. We have reserved our final presentation of the claims until after the end of hostilities, but have notified, during those hostilities, the intention that we have of making a claim, and have thereby preserved the interests of the owners.
    Mr. Mander: It is not a civil war.
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member says it is not a civil war, but I must disagree with him there. I think I have proved that there is no difference in practice, such as the hon. Member may have supposed to exist, between our treatment of the authorities at Burgos and the Spanish Government. We have treated both sides exactly alike. That is a typical example of the attitude of impartiality which the Government have shown towards the Spanish conflict. I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member to whom we certainly bear no ill will for raising this complicated matter. I hope I have succeeded in clearing up some of the difficulties.
    It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

BRITISH ARMY.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  COLONIAL ALLOWANCES.
  COLONIAL ALLOWANCES.
  TAX OFFICE, HARROW.
  TAX OFFICE, HARROW.
  MOTORING OFFENCES (CONVICTIONS AND APPEALS).
  MOTORING OFFENCES (CONVICTIONS AND APPEALS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ALIENS (MARRIAGE WITH ENGLISHMEN).
  ALIENS (MARRIAGE WITH ENGLISHMEN).
  PRISON COMMISSIONERS (CONTRACTS).
  PRISON COMMISSIONERS (CONTRACTS).
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  HOUSING, GLASGOW.
  HOUSING, GLASGOW.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS).
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS).
  OIL DUTIES (POWER ALCOHOL).
  OIL DUTIES (POWER ALCOHOL).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  NON-COMBATANTS IN WAR (BOMBING).
  NON-COMBATANTS IN WAR (BOMBING).
  WATER SUPPLY, DRIFFIELD.
  WATER SUPPLY, DRIFFIELD.
  ACQUISITION OF LAND (MANCHESTER).
  ACQUISITION OF LAND (MANCHESTER).
  DAY NURSERIES, LIVERPOOL.
  DAY NURSERIES, LIVERPOOL.
  PUBLIC WORKS (FIVE-YEAR PLAN).
  PUBLIC WORKS (FIVE-YEAR PLAN).
HOUSING.
  WORKING-CLASS FLATS (COST).
  WORKING-CLASS FLATS (COST).
  RURAL AREAS (STATISTICS).
  RURAL AREAS (STATISTICS).
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  ANCIENT COTTAGES PRESERVATION.
  ANCIENT COTTAGES PRESERVATION.
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
AGRICULTURE.
  ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
  ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
  LIVESTOCK (SLAUGHTER-HOUSES).
  LIVESTOCK (SLAUGHTER-HOUSES).
  POULTRY INDUSTRY (CHICK-SEXING).
  POULTRY INDUSTRY (CHICK-SEXING).
  DROUGHT DAMAGE.
  DROUGHT DAMAGE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) ACT.
  RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) ACT.
  FARM WORKERS (STATISTICS).
  FARM WORKERS (STATISTICS).
  MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).
  MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
  COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.
CIVIL AVIATION.
  AIR TRANSPORT (RAILWAYS' BOOKING BAN).
  AIR TRANSPORT (RAILWAYS' BOOKING BAN).
  OLLEY AIR SERVICE, LIMITED.
  OLLEY AIR SERVICE, LIMITED.
  WEST INDIES AIR SERVICE.
  WEST INDIES AIR SERVICE.
  INTERNAL AIR TRAFFIC (FOREIGN COMPANIES).
  INTERNAL AIR TRAFFIC (FOREIGN COMPANIES).
  AIR SERVICES, SCOTLAND.
  AIR SERVICES, SCOTLAND.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  NEW FACTORIES (STATISTICS).
  NEW FACTORIES (STATISTICS).
  IRON AND STEEL PRICES.
  IRON AND STEEL PRICES.
  SILK RIBBONS (IMPORTS).
  SILK RIBBONS (IMPORTS).
  DOMINION PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  DOMINION PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  SHOES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  SHOES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  TRAWLER'S ARREST (EIRE).
  TRAWLER'S ARREST (EIRE).
  JAMAICA.
  JAMAICA.
  TRANSPORT (LONDON-OXFORD ROAD).
  TRANSPORT (LONDON-OXFORD ROAD).
  TRADE DISPUTE, COVENTRY.
  TRADE DISPUTE, COVENTRY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDGWATER EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
[The Notice standing in the noble Lord's name was as follows:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether a statement can be made as to the expansion and acceleration proposed in the Royal Air Force and the steps which the Government intend to take to give effect to such proposals; and to move for Papers.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having put this Question on the Order Paper, because it is obviously right that when important Government decisions are taken your Lordships should be informed as early as possible both of what those proposals entail and what steps are to be taken to give effect to them. The decision of the Government which the Prime Minister announced shortly before the Recess involves two things. It involves in the first place acceleration of the existing programme and it involves a considerable expansion of that programme, a programme itself on an unprecedented scale. In those circumstances I think it will probably be convenient if I remind your Lordships of the character and extent of

1043
the existing programme on which we are engaged and the progress which has been made. I will then come to the expansion of that programme and the steps which have been taken to carry that expansion into effect.
The present programme entails increasing the Metropolitan first-line strength, that is, the squadrons at home, to 1,750, which is more than trebling the Metropolitan Air Force. There are of course also increases in the Fleet Air Arm, and increases in the Air Forces overseas. It is, I think, important to mention those, because it would be entirely wrong to treat the Air Force in water-tight compartments. Nobody ever speaks of the Navy as being divided into sections, and with an Air Force, and particularly with the increasing range of machines, which is always getting larger, it would be entirely erroneous to suppose that an Air Force ought to be divided in that way into water-tight compartments. An expansion on that scale of course implies a great deal more than the numbers I have given for first-line strength. It carries with it all the reserves, and it carries with it all the training machines. Orders on a large scale were placed to meet the requirements of that programme, existing factories were enlarged, new factories, in-chiding all the shadow factories, were created.
On the personnel side the increase has been arcery great. I can most conveniently express it, I think, if I take the normal pre-expansion entry into the Force and compare it with the entry in 1937. When I use a year I follow the ordinary convenient practice of taking the financial year running from April to March. In the pre-expansion days the entry of pilots was approximately 300 a year. Against that, more than 1,850 were in training in 1937. Before the expansion the average intake of airmen was about 1,000 a year. Last year that intake, which includes, of course, men for training in a great variety of trades, had gone up to over 11,000. In apprentices and boys, the number before the expansion was about 600. The intake last year was 3,200.
That of course has meant a very great Increase in training establishments of all kinds. Before the expansion there were no civil training schools. It has been
1044
found possible to use, and use very effectively, officers who had passed through from the Air Force and could do the whole preliminary training in the civil schools, incidentally thereby giving not a little help to a number of civil aerodromes. Thirteen of these training schools have been established and are working at full strength. Flying training schools—Service schools—have been increased from five to eleven, and the capacity for trade-training airmen and boys has been increased sevenfold. I need not deal—your Lordships are familiar with it—with the very great increase that has also been necessary in operational stations, depots, and stations of that kind, but that of course has involved the creation of aerodromes on a corresponding scale. Finally, in that connection, I should mention the creation of the Volunteer Reserve, the new plan for bringing training to young men who are willing to give their spare time, with ground training in the great towns and flying training as near the towns as possible. Twenty-two centres are now operating, and over 1,200 of these volunteer pilots were entered for training last year and are doing extraordinarily well.
The House is well aware that there were serious initial delays in the output of aircraft. The scale on which orders were placed—and the industry had never had large-scale orders before; it could not have them—was such that much time was necessarily spent in constructing new shops and in arranging for the supply of jigs and tools necessary for large-scale production. Expansion also coincided with the development of an entirely new technique in manufacture in which British industry had had little, if any, opportunity of taking part—the development of large all-metal skin-stressed types of aircraft. Also, as the House is well aware, there was a great shortage of skilled labour, a shortage all the more serious because the great demands of the aircraft industry coincided with a great expansion of ordinary civil industry, both alike making demands on the same kind of labour; and the policy was being pursued at that time, and reasonably pursued, of interfering as little as possible with the ordinary trade of the country which was then entering upon its expansion.
But the Air Ministry, in making their plans, looked forward, and were indeed

1045
bound to look forward, to the probable need of a larger programme and of acceleration, whether the larger programme or the existing programme held the field. They therefore planned on a large scale. Factory extensions, new factories, shadow factories were created of a size which would not only cope with orders which were then given, but which, with little further extension, would be on a scale and of a size to cope with a much larger output. If that had not been done it would not be possible to-day to place orders and get going immediately a much larger programme than that on which we have been at work. I emphasize that because it was that preparation, that laying-out of factories on an extensive scale, which alone makes possible much that we are putting in hand at the present time.
The industry itself has expanded enormously. The numbers employed have gone up from something like 30,000 in 1935 to well over 90,000. I see it said that here and there men are leaving employment in this or that firm. These things are not very easy to check, but there is surely one test which one can apply in seeing whether employment in an industry is changing, and that is the aggregate number of people employed in that industry. The threefold increase in the amount of labour employed in the industry is, I think, a very solid answer on that point. It will always happen here and there that a firm cannot employ the same number of men at all times, and inevitably, when a firm is changing over from the manufacture of one type of machine to another, it cannot employ to the full the same number of men as it employs when it is in the full flow of production on a particular type. But particular care has been taken so to place orders that dislocation during a changeover may he reduced to the minimum. That figure of 90,000 that I gave, which was the return early in this year—I have no doubt the figure is considerably more now—does not include a large number of sub-contractors and suppliers of material working indirectly for aircraft, nor does it include a number of workers in many firms who are engaged on armament and equipment.
And just as the Air Ministry planned the factories on a larger scale than was required for the initial programme, so
1046
they also planned to have the training establishments within the Air Force larger. A second Halton will come into being at Cosford in Shropshire in the course of this year, and the great training establishment at St. Athan, also started a considerable time ago, will come into being. The Air Ministry also planned the orders which would be necessary if the programme were extended. The result of that preparatory work—preparatory work which it obviously was the duty of the Air Ministry to undertake—was that, when a decision was taken that the expansion should go further, it was possible to take immediately effective action.
The objective of the Government in the decision that has been taken is twofold. It is both to speed up and to enlarge the programme. The House would not expect me to give—there never have been given—detailed figures of numbers of aircraft. I think it would be a very good thing if every country in the world would agree to the most complete publicity about strength and programmes. The greater the publicity there could be in that respect the better, arid, if every country would agree to do that, we would be among the first to respond. But disclosures of that kind cannot be one-sided. I can, however, give, and I ought to give, a reasonable indication of what this increased output means in general terms. In aircraft the acceleration of the new expansion orders which have been given should mean an increase in output in this financial year of well over 5o per cent., and doubling this year's output during the next financial year. That is a very great increase of production, which is already substantial, and it is the considered opinion of those in the industry that that production can and will be obtained, on one condition, and that is that the necessary labour is available.
I ought to explain how that output is estimated. It is based on careful estimates made within the industry, both the regular aircraft firms and the shadow firms, estimates based by them on the definitely known capacity of their factory in plant and equipment and on output which they have obtained and on the labour possibilities which they think ought reasonably to be realised, given, as I am sure it will be, with greatest good will, wholehearted co-operation to

1047
meet the labour requirements both in the main aircraft works and also in the many works which are engaged in sub-contracting for aircraft factories. I have explained the method adopted to assess the capacity; I have shown how the Air Ministry and the industry have prepared and planned factories on a scale to take a much larger output, and to take that output in the great majority of cases with no further extensions and in other cases with relatively small additions which can be and will be rapidly put in hand. We also knew precisely the types of machines which it was desired to order and which firms could produce within the period.
And let me just say this in passing, though I think it is unnecessary to say it in your Lordships' House. It would indeed be entirely wrong to suppose that the aircraft which are on order and which are coming out are not highly satisfactory in quality. They are, and the best evidence of that is the keen desire of foreign countries all over the world to purchase these very machines even if they have to wait until the great proportion of Air Ministry orders for a particular type have been met. The firms in the aircraft industry have presented their careful estimates of capacity, and these have been checked by the Air Ministry. All the material was, therefore, ready for prompt executive action. In order to combine such prompt action with proper Treasury control, which I agree is very important, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to a new departure, but, if I may say so, a most wise, practical and helpful one. He agreed that a senior Treasury officer should, if I may use a colloquial expression, "sit in" with the Air Ministry with full authority to approve of orders required to fulfil the programme and to approve any financial assistance properly needed, and justified, for further extensions and plant.
Moreover, in order to ensure that the Air Ministry requirements over the two years were fully appreciated, and that the capacity of the industry—and this was most important—was fully but fairly assessed, and that the plan was therefore thoroughly practicable, we invited Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner to work throughout in the closest touch with the Air Ministry. The aircraft industry had
1048
appointed him to be the independent Chairman of the Association; he is, therefore, able to bring in individual and collective knowledge of what the industry can do and, if I may say so, he adds to that a very unique and valuable industrial experience of his own. Combining the Treasury officer and Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner with senior officers of the Air Ministry, a small Committee was formed, under the Chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, which is in continuous session. This Committee thus embraces in an executive body all the elements for effective action—the operational requirements of the Air Staff, the technical and supply organisation of the Ministry, the authoritative assessment of the capacity of the industry, and complete financial control. The plans which we proposed have been fully checked by that Committee and discussed with the firms concerned, the Committee has been satisfied and the approved orders have been issued.
As a result of the preparation which went before, and that practical method of giving effect to the preparation, firms which can produce the aircraft required by the programme—and it is the right kind of aircraft which it is necessary to have and not just any aircraft which you can order anywhere, as your Lordships will fully appreciate—have received additional orders which will fill them to the maximum of their capacity in plant and labour for the next two years. The great production must come from the factories of a size and capacity to work on that scale. Large-scale orders running into hundreds in a factory of a single type must be placed with factories which have both the experience and the works capacity to execute them. Smaller works can perform and are performing most valuable services in sub-contracting, and I know it is the policy of the firms to sub-contract wherever they possibly can, and can get good results, in order to increase the output of the works. We are also using some of these smaller firms to do repair work and that is proving successful. It obviates the expense and the delay of creating additional repair facilities within the Air Force itself; it keeps the main firms in a steady flow of production; and it enables the smaller firms to undertake repair work on damaged machines—one particular type going to one particular factory

1049
—work which they are doing very satisfactorily. It is a system which we should wish to expand. I have shown, I think, that there is no case of placing orders in driblets. The policy has always been to give the largest orders which are authorised by the programme. That policy has been and is being fully carried out by my noble friend's Committee, and I would invite any of your Lordships to visit the great aircraft firms and to see for yourselves the scale on which these orders have been placed.
We are also steadily avoiding and reducing the multiplicity of types. I will give your Lordships, without mentioning names, three figures. I will take first one which I will call Machine A. There are on order 1,750 of this aircraft, these orders having been placed with three firms. Of another machine 1,500 are on order, these orders being divided between two firms. Of another type 900 aircraft are on order from a single firm. I think that will show that the large-scale orders are a very definite reality. We are often contrasted with America and with American practice, and we are all anxious to learn anything we can from that practice. I was interested, therefore, to see an article written by the Chief of the Air Corps of the United States Army, in the March number of the paper called Army Ordnance. In the course of that article he said:
"Another of our procurement problems concerns tooling up for aircraft production. Recently we let a contract for more than 200 airplanes of one type. The manufacturer is experimenting with tooling for this production. For the first time in recent years we have let one order of sufficient size to permit the factory to tool up for it."
That is what is said by the Chief of the Air Staff of the American Army.
Nobody who is Air Minister, nobody who is at the head of a great aircraft firm, will, I hope, ever be satisfied, but will aim at improving the whole time. There certainly is no sense of complacency in the Air Ministry, nor do I believe there is in the aircraft industry or in the great motor-car factories which are working within the shadow scheme. But when we read that in America it is regarded by the Chief of the Air Staff as a great achievement to have placed an order for 200 planes of one type with a firm, and when we have 900 modern machines on order with a single firm
1050
tooled to give rapid large delivery on that scale, then I do not think that either the Air Ministry or the aircraft industry can be charged with failure either to place orders on an adequate scale or to undertake orders on an adequate scale.
There is one matter to which I should like to refer because I think it will interest your Lordships in a new experiment. The technique of aircraft construction in all great manufacturing countries has turned to the all-metal stressed wing type of construction, using mainly light alloys as the basic material. It has been found in practice that this type of construction makes the most efficient bomber and fighter. The British aircraft industry has developed that both in design and production, and it is right that the great orders now under execution for Service aircraft should be of this construction. I am speaking, of course, of the military machines. Training machines which are on order in great numbers have deliberately been designed and are being made of wood or a mixed construction not involving great demands on the light alloys. Machines of this kind can be turned out rapidly and comparatively cheaply and are wholly suitable as training machines, drawing upon labour and material not specially required for the all-metal types. While it is right to utilise to the full the capacity of the aircraft industry on the most efficient all-metal aircraft, and indeed also to provide, as we shall, for increased manufacturing and material facilities for these all-metal types in case of war, it is most desirable that we should know that in case of war we could rapidly bring in additional machines the labour and material for which would be readily available in this country, and that in peace time that labour and that material are used on other work not connected with the aircraft industry.
In order that both the design and the process of manufacture of aircraft of this composite construction may be fully tested in peace-time, the Air Ministry have ordered the manufacture of an aircraft so designed that it will embody in its construction materials which are not used in the ordinary Service aircraft. It is hoped in this way to secure both a satisfactory type and an approved method of construction which in war would enable us to obtain large numbers

1051
of aeroplanes of this kind from firms wholly unconnected with the aircraft industry and employing material and labour neither of which cut across the production of all-metal machines. You would get in this way a machine designed to be the most effective fighting machine that could be made of this mixed construction, and you would prove not only the design but also the best method of using that material. In addition to the great orders which have been placed, it is intended to go further and, just as factories were planned larger than the immediate programme required before, so we shall extend what has been called the "shadow system" and increase the potential factories against the possibility, which I hope may never have to be realised, of a still bigger manufacture than that which has been set on foot at present.
I will say one word about the Mission which has been sent to the United States and to Canada. It is not the first time we have considered the possibility of purchase in America. It has been considered before, on information as to possibility of delivery and types which were available. Such purchase would not, of course, be attractive unless both conditions were present: effective delivery at the right time, and a type of machine of genuine value to the Service. Sending that Mission, making the inquiries which they are making, has implied no reduction whatever of British orders. It is not a case of either ordering in America or ordering in this country. As I pointed out, the British factories have been filled to capacity. It is a case of seeing—and it is a right thing to do—whether it is possible to reinforce that great production in this country by suitable purchases across the Atlantic.
When you come to Canada, where actual production to-day is comparatively small, there is a very important wider consideration. In war, Canada might, and would, become a very valuable source of supply for this country. With the great range which aircraft are now attaining, it would be more than possible to build in Canada aircraft which would not need to be taken to pieces, put on board ship and brought here with the risk incidental to sea passage, but which it would be possible to fly across the Atlantic. I believe that to be a very real possibility,
1052
and it is most desirable that we should have full information as to the capacity, actual and potential, of the Canadian factories so that in case of need there might be a full, carefully-worked-out plan by which these facilities, extended here and there if need be, could be used in a combined effort, one factory probably being used as the central place of assembly, others for making parts, to concentrate on the manufacture of a proved British type which would be of great value to the Service in time of war. That is the dual purpose of sending this experienced Mission to the United States and to Canada, and I feel sure that, on that explanation, your Lordships will agree that it was a wise, prudent and proper thing to do.
I apologise for the length of this statement, but I want on this occasion to cover as concisely as I can, though it must be at some length, the whole field. It has been said—not, I think, in great industrial quarters—that it is the function of the Air Ministry to make itself responsible for production—that is, manufacture—in the aircraft industry. That is a matter on which the Government have very definite views and have expressed them. I should like to state the functions of the Air Ministry and the industry, not just as the Air Minister but speaking for the Government, as we see them. It is the duty of the Air Staff to formulate operational requirements in aircraft. Those requirements must be based on a forward strategy of defence and counter-offence, taking advantage of the best results obtainable from. the aircraft industry in design and construction. Design of aircraft has always been the function of the aircraft industry. Even in the War I think that was so: design was not in the Air Ministry or the Ministry of Munitions, it was in the aircraft industry itself.
LORD ADDISON: That is quite inaccurate, but please go on.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I speak for those who are much more competent to speak on this subject than I am. I think I am right in saying that design was originally in Farnborough, but one of the decisions—I am not sure that it was not a decision of the noble Lord—was to take design from Farnborough, give it to the firms, and let Farnborough co-operate with the firms. I believe that was the War practice.
LORD ADDISON: I will tell the noble Viscount later what it was.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord will speak on that. But of one thing I am certain: that ever since the War the design has been carried out by the industry. I think it is wise that that should be so. You have an industry, the least static of all industries, in which the brains, the design staffs of the different firms, are always working on new designs. We have undoubtedly obtained wonderful results in design, both in aircraft and in engines, and we have obtained those results by having these competing designers working in their industry with the production people in the firms. That has given much better results in design than I believe would ever have come out of a Government design shop. It is the duty of the Air Ministry to further technical development by research, experiment, and tests, working, as it does, closely with the industry and with scientific bodies. It is its duty to be satisfied with the safety and the performance of machines. It is, and must he, responsible for inspection. The combination of the Air Ministry, industry, and scientists has given and is giving in aircraft, engines, and equipment, results which are second to none.
It is the duty of the Air Ministry to assess the capacity of industry to fulfil orders which are required by the programme; to decide what aircraft should be ordered and in what numbers; to secure the necessary extensions of factories and new factories; and to place orders. In this it must work very closely with industry. But I do say most emphatically that this being the function of the Air Ministry, production—manufacture—is the function of industry. It is right that it should be so. That is how British industry has succeeded. If you take the firms to-day—aircraft firms building up great experience, great motor firms bringing their full experience to bear in the management of shadow factories, electrical and other firms engaged in productionising and manufacturing equipment, armament firms engaged on guns—it is on these firms, these great experienced firms, with their production staffs and their production managers, that there must rest responsibility for manufacture.
1054
I would like, particularly as Lord Lothian is present, to refer once again to a matter which he mentioned in our last debate. I have described the preparatory work and speed with which the Committee has been able to cover the ground. I think that shows that the organisation has provided full and coordinated plans. And the experience of the Air Ministry and of industry, I think, confirms the wisdom of the Government's carefully considered decision that a Service Chief is necessary, and that a suitable one can be found, as we have always been fortunate enough to find one. The Service reasons are well known and were fully stated, but I have found that the industry is insistent on the value of working with a Service Chief who can bring to bear what they have called "user's experience." There is, however, one matter of internal organisation on which I find myself much nearer agreement with the noble Marquess. I said then that I had always held the view that the better form of organisation would link research, development and supply under one head, and that I should myself have so constructed this organisation. But I shared, and I share, the view expressed by those immediately responsible, that it would have been a mistake to change over while all the plans were getting under way and in the stress under which all departments have been working.
The aggregate volume of work will not grow less but probably greater, but we are reaching the stage where, though production is much greater, the supply side is a less complicated problem. The problem which the firms have undertaken, while calling for vast effort on their part, is a clear and straightforward programme. It is the execution of large orders, with all the help that the Air Ministry can give in overcoming snags which every country, without exception, encounters. Future decisions as to the introduction of new types will involve consideration of both quality and quantity, technical efficiency, conditioned by facility of production. At the same time, while in that way the supply problem becomes, I think, simpler, the organisation problem becomes more complicated. The expansion in numbers and size of the squadrons of the Air Force, with the creation of repair depots and maintenance units, and the increase in the training units, all that organisation side—what I may call the "Q."

1055
side of the work—becomes larger and more complicated. I feel, therefore, that we are reaching a stage at which a change, which I have always regarded as theoretically sound, becomes administratively practicable and desirable, and I propose therefore to make that change in due course. That is a thing in which my noble friend and I have been in theoretical agreement and are now in practical agreement, as to the thing being a practical and convenient thing to do.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask the noble Viscount if he will a little more precisely say what the changes are which he proposes to make?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought I had done so. I think it is quite simple. Hitherto in the organisation of the Ministry, supply on the one hand and research and development on the other have been under separate chiefs. I propose that when the details of placing these orders and so on are through and the immediate work of what I may call the Winterton Committee is finished, the orders to manufacturers shall rest with one officer responsible for design and production. The moment the machine is received from the factory, it will pass under the officer responsible for organisation. I believe that to be, and I have always thought it to be, a sound division in theory, and I think we have reached the stage at which it is right and convenient in practice. The increase in the aircraft programme will, of course, be reflected in very considerable increases in the strength of the Royal Air Force. The expansion in the Metropolitan Force under the existing programme will, I hope, be completed in advance of the date proposed. The strength of the Royal Air Force will be further progressively increased both by forming additional squadrons and by increasing the size of the squadrons.
It is right that I should state broadly the size of the Force which it is intended to establish within the two years. The Metropolitan Air Force, that is the squadrons at home, will attain a first line strength of approximately 2,370. Overseas squadrons will be increased during the same period to a first-line strength of approximately 490. That gives a total of first-line strength for the Royal Air
1056
Force itself of 2,860, or just under 2,900. I should also mention—arid it is of importance that these matters should be treated together and that we should look at Air effort as a whole—that provision is also made for the continued expansion of the Fleet Air Arm in accordance with the Admiralty programme of shipbuilding, and the first-line strength of the Fleet Air Arm will be increased to not less than 500 as ships and carriers are ready to take them. It is important that this increase should be built up, so as to secure the maximum efficiency in the force. In the initial expansion squadrons had to be created and expanded very rapidly, and though initial training has reached a higher standard than ever before, a squadron with a large proportion of new men takes longer to become a completely efficient unit.
We have now reached a stage when in the Air Force it is wise to time the actual creation and expansion of squadrons in the manner which will conduce best to the operational efficiency of squadrons and the Force as a whole. I have given figures of first-line strength. I felt it was reasonable to do so because similar figures have been given in regard to earlier programmes. But I would point out that a mere statement of first-line strength does not at all represent the industrial effort involved or the number of aircraft on order. The programme and the orders involve very much more than that. They include the whole of the reserves which represent a much larger figure than the first-line strength. They also include the whole of the aircraft, both training and Service types, required for the training of this greatly enlarged Air Force and of the Volunteer Reserve. This further expansion will necessitate a great increase in personnel—in pilots and in airmen for all trades. To carry out this programme the Air Force will need to recruit in the two years approximately the following numbers: Pilots, 4,700; airmen, 33,000; boys (which includes apprentices for the full Halton course, and the boys for the shorter course of skilled training), 6,000. Those boys will be taken from the age of fifteen. The larger numbers will be required during the first year, and required in a steady flow so as to take the best advantage of the training facilities.
In the training of pilots not only of course will the existing schools, Service

1057
and civil, be kept working at full pressure, but four more Service flying training schools will be established and the equivalent of eight new civil training schools. I say "equivalent" because I think it may be possible to expand the training establishments already in existence on civil aerodromes for the Volunteer Reserve and use them and those civil aerodromes for the additional flying training schools. The Air Force must always be a highly skilled force, and that is more than ever true to-day, with the development of modern aircraft and armament and equipment. That means that a very large proportion of the airmen as well as of the boys require special training in a number of skilled trades, and it is all the more necessary in that it is very difficult to-day, with the great industrial demand, to recruit fully trained skilled men.
I have already indicated that the training capacity of the schools has been expanded sevenfold and that new schools are coming into being, but considerable further extension of the technical training schools will be necessary to cope with this large entry. All the pilots, airmen and boys I have mentioned are required for the regular Air Force, but in addition the Volunteer Reserve, which has proved itself so well and is doing such excellent work, will be further extended and increased, and new training centres will be required. In what I am afraid has been a very long speech—but I felt your Lordships would wish me to deal fully with the matter—I have confined my observations, as indeed the Question was confined, to the expansion and the acceleration of the Air Force, but air defence embraces everything—embraces not only the aircraft and the balloons, but the guns and the searchlights, the essential counterpart of all the work on the Air Force, and on which it is no less necessary to concentrate. Of that I will say nothing on this occasion. I would only add this. We have had the help of great scientists in the work of defence. The last thing your Lordships would wish would be that I should in any way disclose the nature of the work that has been accomplished and the experiments that have been made. But I can say this with confidence, that at a time when, rightly, people are anxious and know the growing power of an offensive and the growing strength of bombers, the means of defence are quite un-
1058
doubtedly becoming progressively more effective.
Carrying out a programme on this scale means not only tremendous industrial effort, a great Service effort in recruiting for the Force and training in all its stages in operations; it means, as your Lordships will realise, adding greatly to the bill. Extra taxation has already been introduced. It means, and must mean, some dislocation of industry. This programme is to be met, as it will be met I am sure, by industry—by employers and workers in industry. Defence requirements in man-power and material must come first. All this great effort is necessary, it is the necessary insurance for the safety and security of this country. But, while I believe every one of your Lordships will agree that that is so, while I am quite certain that the country will be quite determined to carry this programme through, one reflection surely must be present to all our minds. It is melancholy that in all countries defence programmes, as they are called, pile up—and indeed are rightly so called, because fear and suspicion breed the need of those armaments; those great armaments pile up, and we have to take our part, and we have indeed reserves, both in this country and across the seas, which will enable us to take that part to the full, and to maintain for any length of time that may be necessary a burden however great.
Yet surely, not only in this country but in every country in the world, when a programme of this kind is presented, when a bill of this kind has to be met, when great efforts which might be turned into productive enterprise have to be turned, inevitably in the circumstances of to-day, into the making of munitions of war, it must surely confirm every one of us, not only Governments but peoples, in the resolve to pursue by every means in our power negotiation, approaches—any means which can bring the peoples of the world closer together, and which can establish a sense of security and peace, based on justice and understanding, for which every people in the world must surely long to-day.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss the character of the programme which the noble Viscount has set before us. It is the result of a policy pursued by this country during the past seven years which, for its deplorable

1059
ineptitude, has no parallel in British history since the time of the loss of the American Colonies. However, we are presented with this situation. My friends are not wishful to put anything in the way of the execution of this programme. What I shall ask your Lordships to inquire a little more closely into is whether the noble Viscount has said anything to us to-day which will justify us in the expectation that this programme will be fulfilled in the time stated. It is not simply the provision of machines which is concerned. These machines are used by flying men. They require a large collection of ancillary equipment, scientific apparatus, guns, and all the rest of it, and they have to be "married-up," so to say, and assembled in the appropriate forms.
We are right, I think, in looking at the programme that the noble Viscount has set before us, in the light of the past performances of the Air Ministry. I hope he will not resent my referring to his difference with me in another place three years ago. At that time we had the first programme put before us, and the method of carrying out that programme, which has been followed since, was then explained by the noble Viscount to the House of Commons. I questioned then, in 1935, whether the method proposed to be adopted would, in fact, enable that programme to be achieved. I expressed the view with a good deal of confidence that it would not, and that not only would it not lead to the fulfilment of that programme, but that it would involve the country in a good deal of needless cost. We were informed three years ago the day after tomorrow as the calendar year goes—namely, on May 14, 1935—by the Secretary to the Air Ministry, before the Committee on Public Accounts, that the orders then being placed would require the whole maximum possible output of all the firms in the industry. That was three years ago, the day after to-morrow. We know what is the output. I shall not mention figures which in my judgment it would be improper to mention, though I shall mention some facts which are common knowledge and of which we must take account.
Many of us are well aware of the magnificent engineering resources of this
1060
country, and to say, three years after that statement, that the trivial output of last month represents the complete engineering capacity of this country is to speak without regard to the meaning of words. We know the engineering resources of this country. I know how they were developed even when we were at the same time manufacturing immense and unheard-of quantities of other munitions. We had nearly ten times the output in 1918 compared with last month, and that is after three years of the pursuance of the methods which, as far as the noble Viscount has told us, he does not propose to alter. There is going to he a Committee, and I wish it well, but the mere super-imposition of a new Committee under the Chancellor of the Duchy, with one or two very able men upon it no doubt, will not remove the essential defects, will not enable us to carry out this bigger programme, for the very reason that the causes remain which have led to the present failure. The present failure is great, and it is undeniable. I shall not trouble your Lordships with the details of the different programmes which have been announced—the second on May 22, 1935, and the White Paper of 1936 when the shadow factory scheme was announced—that is, two years ago. I wonder how many machines these shadow factories have produced in those two years? Now we have this much larger programme. The misgivings which have been expressed and justifiably entertained are very widespread. They have been voiced in no uncertain terms in the Press which supports the noble Viscount and his Party, and I would recommend him to read the leading article in to-day's Daily Telegraph.
In the light of what I consider are the essential defects in the Air Ministry's methods, which there is no promise whatever in the noble Viscount's speech will be removed, let me examine the record. What is it we are aiming at? We are aiming at the provision of machines fully equipped with the best and most modern apparatus, to be taken into the air by young men who are familiar with that apparatus and know how to use it in cloud and in darkness, and land safely, which means they must be thoroughly familiar by long usage with that apparatus. It must have been provided in time for them so that they could become efficient in its use, because these

1061
young men are landed in the unknown—say, three of them by themselves. That is the objective. Three years ago—I pray your Lordships to keep that date in mind!
Let me test the vision or, as I contend, the lack of vision, which has been displayed so far in this matter by looking at two or three of the results. There ought to be in the main machines, a crew of at least three—pilot, wireless operator, and navigator. You cannot train the pilots unless you have sufficient machines to train them in, and I gather from what the noble Viscount said that training machines are fairly easily produced; but the fact is that for some time past it has not been, and is not now, possible to give the pilots adequate training because of a deficiency of machines with which to train them. Then there is a deficiency of the necessary blind-flying apparatus. There is a lack of provision for navigation. One of these men should be a navigator. Let me ask the noble Viscount if he will inquire from his Department what steps have been taken to provide a sufficiency of wireless operators. A trained wireless operator is an essential part of this crew. May I say without giving the figures, which I know, that the establishment is seriously short, that the Department is not equipped with adequate provision for training wireless operators. And it is worse still, as your Lordships will see in a minute, when we come to the lack of vision which has been displayed in the provision of what should be known as wireless operator mechanics.
Now let us look at the question of navigation. If these young men are to fly by night in the clouds and over the sea, or wherever it is to get to their objective, they must have a competent navigator. The noble Viscount mentioned an order for 1,700 of certain machines. I ask him is it not a fact that when those machines were first designed they were designed for a crew of two? There was no provision for a navigator, consequently they have had to be recalled, and a lot of the machines have had to be altered. For those that have not been manufactured a new specification will of course be required. But this vast order for 1,700 machines was given without adequate provision for navigators in the machines, and now that the accommodation is provided it is exceedingly inconvenient. I
1062
could mention two other groups of squadrons—medium bombers—where the provision for the navigator is even worse. So far as the heavy bombers are concerned the story is no better.
In our last debate I asked the noble Viscount something about blind flying apparatus and he took a certain measure of pride, I thought, in the fact that he was ordering some apparatus from Germany and some from America. Well, I do not blame him for that, seeing that his Department had not taken measures to provide them at home. It was better for him to get them from Germany or America than to go without. I agree. But there are two essential parts of the apparatus to enable a man to fly safely blind in fog or cloud, and another apparatus to enable him to land properly in those circumstances. Now the blind landing gear has not been provided at all. The machines have not been equipped with this blind landing gear, and what provision has been made for its manufacture in this country I cannot say. I am sorry for these poor fellows if they have to go up and are compelled to land in those circumstances.
So far as the blind flying apparatus is concerned a certain number of the bomber squadrons, less than half of them, have been equipped with a blind flying apparatus of sorts, but it is a bad sort. In order apparently to enable this apparatus to work you must have a machine that prevents icing of the wings, and that comes into operation directly the machines leave the ground. It occurred to somebody in the Air Ministry in November, 1937, that they ought to order some of these things, and they were ordered in America. Now just fancy, this scheme was started in May, 1935, and in November, 1937, two and a half years afterwards, for the first time adequate orders are placed to provide the necessary navigational assistance apparatus. I make no further comment, though I could tell a story even worse if need be. I know that one important firm three years ago asked whether they should not fix a necessary alteration to the engines in order to enable them to operate a vacuum pump which motives a certain part of this apparatus, and no reply was received to that.
Turning from this dreadful story—because I have not told your Lordships the worst of it—about the deficiency of navigational provision for these machines, let

1063
us look at one or two of the machines themselves. I ask the noble Viscount how many of the fighter squadrons are monoplanes. He knows that the biplane is more or less in these days antiquated. It cannot climb so fast, and has not the same speed. I know the figure, I hope he does, but all I say is that seeing that this thing has been in action for three years we ought to have our fighter squadrons betters equipped with up-to-date machines than we have now. Now let me ask your Lordships to look for a minute or two at the state of affairs in the medium bomber squadrons. The Battles were originally designed for two, and therefore there was no room for a navigator in them. Every one of those machines ought to have a twin engine, so that in case one engine fails the other could work the machine. The Battles were designed for a single engine, so was the Wellesley. It is not fair to the men who go up in the air in the dark with all this willingness, not to provide the best apparatus for them that they could have. So far as the heavy machines are concerned the story is no better in regard to navigation than with the medium bombers.
The noble Viscount told us in the course of his speech that, apparently for the first time, the Air Ministry has begun to think about care and maintenance. I have here a synopsis of the personnel and machinery of the Air Ministry, obtained of course from official documents, and I have been interested to look and ascertain where maintenance is. Now, clearly, when a machine is ordered, especially in these large numbers, you ought to have provision for the ordering of spare parts. If the efficient firms that we have had used their capacity to the full we should not be having this debate to-day. The efficient firms, when they supply motor cars and so forth up and down the country, supply spare parts, and they supply also a sort of book of words to the repairers, telling them what they ought to do with the spare parts and of the facilities for repairs and so on.
In the first place, so far as a large number of these orders are concerned, no spare parts were ordered. Spare parts are in a separate Department in the Air Ministry, and the noble Viscount has at last begun to think about it. There
1064
should, of course, be at every station, a maintenance staff. Up to the present we have had to rely on these young men who were trained as pilots and wireless operators and so on, and they no doubt do their best, but there is no maintenance staff in the stations, there is no maintenance even at the groups, and the suggestion that you can use advantageously a certain number of the smaller firms for executing repairs is no solution of the question at all. If adequate skilled men were available on the spot, when a machine was damaged to some small extent it could be repaired in the local repair shop. There is inevitable delay and consequently vastly increased costs if you have to send the machine away somewhere else.
I will carry this analysis only one little stage further, and then I will invite your Lordships to discover what is the cause of this state of affairs. This programme has been before us all this time and there has been a multiplicity of design. There are thirty-four different patterns of gun turrets and fifty different bomb racks. There is no co-ordination of design, and all this multiplicity of patterns is confusing to the men and of course it involves serious risk. Here is one example of what happens when there is separation of design from production and lack of proper departmental association between the departments of supply and production. It is not long since that millions of links for cartridge belts were supplied and the whole lot had to be scrapped because they were out of true. That means that somebody had made a serious mistake, to put it no higher than that.
The noble Viscount passed lightly over the fact that some very reliable and capable firms have complained that they have had a shortage of work and have even had to dismiss a certain number of workers. I ventured to say in your Lordships' House when this matter was under discussion on a previous occasion that if the Government approached the unions and asked for their co-operation they would no doubt receive it, but that they would have to answer a considerable number of important questions in advance in some suitable form. These men know what is happening in the shops, as lots of other people do. Some very reliable and important firms have had to stand men off during the past month. Output in the past month has

1065
not been rising. As a matter of fact it fell off a little as compared with the month before! That means that the carrying out of the orders has not been provided for in the organisation of the Ministry. Skilled men in the shops, finding themselves on short time, are not likely to assent to altered working conditions and the introduction of dilution, as we call it, unless they are assured that there is going to be full-time employment for at least their own members.
This is only a very small verge of the facts that could be stated, and of the deplorable shortage which characterises the present programme, but I would ask your Lordships to consider in the light of this the suggestion I put forward, that before we give our blessing to this very much enlarged programme we are entitled to be assured that better methods will be adopted for securing its execution. What are the elements of supply and how does the Air Ministry afford them? One of the first things, of course, is the association of design with supply. I do not know who informed the noble Viscount about what happened at the Ministry of Munitions, but he is seriously misinformed. I was responsible for the instructions, so I know. Before the Ministry of Munitions was asked to take over aircraft manufacture and supply that had been undertaken partly by the Air Board, partly by the War Office and partly by the Admiralty. There had been for many months a controversy between the Air Board and the others as to what the patterns should be. The same thing was going on then that has been going on in the last two years. Somebody had a very good idea, and somebody said "Make that." Somebody else had a good idea—quite a good idea—so somebody else said "Well, make that." The result was that when the work was taken over by the Ministry of Munitions output was negligible and, in fact, discreditable.
The first thing we did was to set up a single body to deal with the question of design. We said, "Let us see what is happening." This body did not disregard the designers employed by the firm. Of course not. We brought them into our counsel, brought them into our central body in charge of the whole thing, and gave them a better chance than they had had before. But the whole scheme was centralised. What was the result?
1066
The immediate result was a great reduction in the number of designs. Orders had been distributed all over the place, one factory making a piece of this and another factory a piece of that. There had been egregious confusion because of the way it had been dealt with. It was only when we brought design under one central organisation—using all the time, of course, the ability of the designers of these great firms—it was only when the thing was directed from the Ministry, so that overlapping was avoided and direction was secured, that the first step could be taken to secure large-scale supply. That is the first step and that must be taken now or we shall never get out of the present disorder. Thirty-four different kinds of gun turrets and fifty bomb racks! The thing is obviously absurd. Of course it means confusion and overlapping.
What is the next requirement of ordered supply? Surely there should be proper arrangements to see that specifications are got out. This does not mean that the actual work that goes on in different firms will be interfered with, but it does mean that if you are to bring in other firms which are now acting as sub-contractors to larger firms, if you are going to give everybody a chance, you must get your specifications right in terms of material—non-ferrous metals, ferrous metals, chemicals and the rest of it—instead of letting different manufacturers scramble to get their materials as well as they can. Except in the case of chemicals, of which the noble Viscount opposite has cognizance, there is still that scramble for materials, and it is bound to be so. Under the system that is now adopted, what applies to materials applies equally well to machinery. Somebody ought to have foreseen the delay that would occur in the provision of these jigs and gauges. Of course they ought. If we had had a proper thinking Department in the Air Ministry, that would have been foreseen. There are plenty of gauge-makers employed by these different firms, and plenty of good firms would have been anxious to make the gauges. But unless you have your headpiece at the top properly equipped to deal with these things, they do not get the necessary information and orders. That is what has happened: That is why there was all this delay in the provision of jigs, gauges, and so on!

1067
The same applies even more so in a case like this to scientific instruments, and I suppose that is why it did not occur to somebody until November, 1937, that we ought to order a proper navigational apparatus. If the matter had been dealt with properly and adequately in the Central Department from the start, a thing like that could not possibly have been overlooked.
If I were satisfied that the noble Viscount had offered some vestige of a suggestion that he was going to alter the machinery in the Air Ministry itself, I should feel comfort, but now may I direct your Lordships' attention for a few minutes to the Air Ministry? The idea is, of course, the noble Viscount said, that you will use the separate firms. In fact, he went out of his way to emphasize that supply should be separate from production. I see that the Air Council member for supply and organisation is responsible for supply but is not responsible for production, which is primarily a question for the firms themselves. Of course, the actual operation of the shop is a matter for the firms themselves. Their management and all the rest of it, of course, is their affair, and the more competent the firm the better they will do it. But no competent firm, none of these great concerns of which we are, happily, possessed in this country, would have adopted the method of the Air Ministry. They would have placed large orders with large numbers of sub-contractors; they would have assembled their requirements in terms of materials, metals; they would have got the parts supplied in the proper order of priority so as to ensure that manufacture was in proper priority and that afterwards, as the supplies came forward, they had assembly in a proper priority order, so that the issue to the Force could be made of an assembly completed outside. There is nothing original about that; it is what every competent business firm does, but it is the very thing which the Air Ministry cannot possibly do. They have no machinery for doing it.
I do not know whether the Air Council member who is responsible for research has any work in design or not, but as I understand it the position is this. The manufacturing firms are to deliver to the Ministry of Air what sort of aeroplanes they require. I well remember the fierce controversy that went on through a large
1068
part of 1915—and I must really be pardoned for these personal recollections, because this is exactly the same story over again—because the design was in the War Office and the testing and inspection were somewhere else. I myself was responsible for the drafting of the document which transferred the whole business to the Ministry of Munitions, and the procedure, from then to the end of the War, was that the soldiers were to tell us what they wanted and the Ministry of Supply was to be in command of all the services from design to final testing and inspection, so that we delivered to the soldier, where he wanted it, when he wanted it, the thing he said he wanted. That should be the principle adopted here, and unless it is adopted you will never get out of this confusion. This man who is responsible for research and development is responsible for repair and maintenance. Do you wonder that there are no spare parts, or maintenance, or organisation in the staff of the air stations? As such, he has no necessary cognizance of what happens on the air station. It is not his job. Somebody else is responsible for supply, but this somebody else, this man, is responsible for ordering spare parts and for seeing that they are sent out to the air stations or somewhere or other—though as a matter of fact they have not been sent out up to the present. That is why the machines cannot be repaired.
The reason is that the thing is not being managed at headquarters. The noble Viscount, converted, I am glad to say, by the lavish persuasions of my noble friend below the Gangway, the noble Marquess, appears to be repenting a little bit. I am glad to see it; but it needs a different order of direction from anything that has been indicated to us today if they are to get out of this mess. The departmental scheme of the Air Ministry is wrong in itself. It is not a central organisation that can take cognizance of the requirements, that can arrange them in a proper form, that can secure their due assembly and deliver them to the forces. There is no machinery of that kind in existence. I say with great respect that it is no good blaming the private firms; it is no good blaming labour. I notice that in one place the noble Viscount said that this would all be done if labour were forthcoming. The labour will be forthcoming, I do not doubt, once the workers are convinced

1069
that there is an efficient headquarters management which will make the best use of their labour; and they are entitled to have it. It is not giving the great firms a chance.
I hope that it will not be thought that I am grinding any political axe. I am not. This matter is much too serious for Party political differences, and I would not for a moment seek to introduce them. I am not actuated by any Socialistic theories at all. The only question is that which we had to answer with infinite trouble in the War: What is the best way of doing this job? That is the question, and so far there is no sign that I can see at all that either the noble Viscount or the Air Ministry have even thought to acquaint themselves with, much less to make use of, the bitter lessons we had to learn in the War. Many noble Lords now in this House are as well acquainted with them almost as I was myself. We ought to fashion a new type of departmental organisation suited to this great task. There is no indication that I can see in the noble Viscount's speech that that is going to be done, and until it is done we shall have a prolongation of contusion. We shall not make the best use of our splendid industrial resources, as compared with which this production is a flea-bite. It is nothing compared with what the engineering firms of this country could produce if they were given a fair chance and the business were properly handled. For my part, while I would not question the need for the enlarged programme in the deplorable circumstances of to-day, I suggest to your Lordships that the mere paper alteration the noble Viscount has mentioned and the superimposition of a very nice Committee do not in the least remove the causes of our present defects, and until they are removed we shall continue to be in a position of inferiority.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his detailed criticism of present production. I would rather deal with the character of the effort which is required of us if we are going to reach the proclaimed standard of parity with the nearest Continental Power within striking distance, which it is the declared object of the Government to maintain. And in what I say I do not mean to imply any political consequences as far as foreign
1070
affairs are concerned, because I am convinced that in the age in which we live to-day, while negotiation is the right course, negotiation from weakness is fatal if you want to produce disarmament. If you are going to produce satisfactory results from the negotiations it will be because you can negotiate with perfect fearlessness and perfect confidence in your own strength.
I think the Government from the beginning have hopelessly underrated the nature of the German effort in the air. I think they utterly and completely underrate it to-day, and I think I shall be able to give some evidence for thinking that the expanded programme, if it is attained, will be less than 50per cent. of the programme that Germany will have in production, not two years hence—if we get it in two years—but next year. Of course, all these figures are necessarily uncertain. I have to get the evidence from what quarters I can, and I submit them for the House to consider as noble Lords think best. In the debate in another place in March a very distinguished Member of Parliament who has had great experience both in flying and in the air industry estimated that the production of first-line machines in Germany was then 300 a month, and that before the autumn it would be 500 a month. If that is so—and the evidence which I have got leads me to believe that it is so—the German production next year will be 6,000. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the German production next year will more probably be 8,000 machines, with all the accessory machines, training machines and so on, necessary to maintain a front line of 8,000. They will have a total of machines of all sorts and kinds between 12,000 and 15,000. General Goering not so very long ago said that his object was to have in a short time 50,000 pilots, and in the speech of Herr Hitler, made only last February, he said there were 600,000 members of the Flying Sport Union, of whom 50,000 were active flyers, partly trained in gliders.
I think nobody can go to Berlin and look at the Air Ministry and then look at the scattered and trivial offices in which the equivalent Department is housed in this country without realising that the scales and standards of the two countries are absolutely and completely different. In addition, you have the fact that in the

1071
one country you have a totalitarian organisation in which Government orders have priority from beginning to end. No doubt they make just the same kind of mistakes as other people, but still when priority is concerned the Government always get what they want; and in this country, perhaps inevitably because we are a democratic country, we find Government enterprise and private enterprise competing. Therefore, quite apart from the question as to whether the expanded programme will or will not be ready, for reasons given by the last speaker, I venture to suggest that the programme itself is hopelessly inadequate if we are going to carry out the principle of parity which has been declared by the Government.
That programme, as the noble Viscount who represents the Air Ministry has said, in substance proposes to expand the Metropolitan Air Force as from March next, when it will be 1,750 machines, with certain machines for the Fleet Air Arm and certain overseas squadrons in addition, to 2,370, with some 490 overseas machines and 500 Fleet Air Arm machines in addition. That is something over 3,000 machines two years hence—if they are ready by that time. As against that the German production next year is certainly going to be 6,000 front-line machines, with all the necessary reserves, and it is more probably going to be 8,000. Now you may ask why should we set the standard of parity. The late Prime Minister, in 1934, said:
"The National Government will see to it that in air strength and in air power this country shall no longer he inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores."
And the year following he said—what I think is true:
"No Government in this country could live to-day that was content to have an Air Force of any inferiority to any Air Force within striking distance."
There is no dispute about the inferiority to-day, and a still greater inferiority next year, and there is nothing you can do now to prevent it.
Now it is difficult, I think, for an old country like this to realise the change in its fundamental position which has followed the development of the air arm, and still more has followed changes both in the political configuration and the methods of government in the rest of the
1072
world. The peace of the last century and the pre-eminence of this country depended on two things—its invulnerability at home and the fact that it had a Navy which no other nation in the world could challenge. Behind that double shield liberty developed because liberty only develops under conditions of stable peace. It developed here steadily, it developed in the Dominions, in India and elsewhere, and it developed all over the world under the protection of the British Navy.
That has completely gone. Not only have you to consider the possibility of naval warfare on three fronts—I hope that will not come about, but it is a possibility—but your home base is going to be highly vulnerable. There is not a factory or a port in this country which may not be liable to intense bombardment from the air. When you remember the strength of modern equipment, blind beam flying in clouds—which enables one to pass over a country without seeing it and dive within a mile or two of his objective while the conditions make it extremely difficult to detect or destroy the oncoming aeroplanes—and the speed of the modern bomber, it means that you have to consider the possibility of attack in every one of our vital centres, and every one of our vital industries. That is, at any rate, vulnerability. Other countries are equally or, perhaps, more vulnerable. But one of the great deterrents to war is the realisation by all the great Powers that none of them are able to defend themselves against one another. When they make up their minds on that, which I hope they will do, then they may agree that in no circumstances will they go to war. But as long as there is any possibility of one side attaining either at the outset or later, because their power of replacement is immeasurably superior, such a superiority that they can compel others to make peace on their own terms, I personally do not think we can get either disarmament or a state of peace.
I am not sure that it is not true to say that the choice before this country is either parity or conscription. I am not sure that France will be able to maintain its position unless we can either assure it of an Air Force at least equal to any possible opponent or that we can provide forty divisions behind the line. I personally think the principle of parity is vital. It is vital to the Empire, it is

1073
vital to ourselves, it is vital to peace. I do not think there is the slightest doubt, if our organisation is correct, that the industry of this country can produce whatever number of machines is required without any difficulty at all. That is the fundamental truth. If we consider what was done in the last War, the equipment of an Air Force equal to that of any other country within striking distance is easily within our power. It is not a question of money, because, fortunately or unfortunately, if you look at the cost of the individual aircraft, it does not bear comparison with the cost of naval vessels. It is a comparatively cheap form of organisation in relation to the resources of this country. Therefore the question I ask the noble Viscount who represents the Air Ministry is whether, assuming my diagnosis is correct, assuming the present programme of expansion will be delivered on time, is there the slightest prospect of our reaching parity or of not further falling behind than we are to-day, even assuming what he says comes to pass?
My own view—and on this I do not speak as an expert, but merely as one having some familiarity with the way in which the higher direction of the last War was conducted—is that in this matter it is not possible for the Services to organise the industry of this country properly. That is an entirely different problem to the one with which they are mainly concerned. In the last War it was not until 50,000 Britons had been killed because no shells could be fired in return, that this country realised it had to have a separate organisation of supply, entirely separate, an organisation which was based on the bringing together of all the experience of the industries of this country. The professional Departments said what they wanted, and after discussion as to types what they wanted was provided by the people who were responsible for the manufacture. It was realised that the people responsible for manufacturing could not possibly be also responsible for the constant professional and technical organisation of the Service departments. But when it comes to production, which, after all, is a thing for which no professional training in any of the Services equips a man properly, you have to bring in the business men with great experience in industry, raw material producers, acces-
1074
sory producers, bring them all into line, so that they can tell you how to produce, exactly as was done in Germany and exactly as was done in the United States.
As the prevention of war now turns on being prepared beforehand, because you are not going to have time afterwards, it seems to me that the adoption of the principle of a Ministry of Supply is absolutely vital if we are going to deliver the goods now, still more to catch up with the arrears. If you are going to produce the existing programme, still more if you are going to produce an enlarged programme, that seems to me essential. I notice the noble Viscount said something about all the existing plants being full to capacity. The capacity of the existing plants will not produce anything like what is needed. You have at least to double your equipment and your plant. I would like to ask him whether he has yet made arrangements to produce the total amount of fabricated aluminium, without which you cannot produce the aircraft. Can the aluminium rolling mills of this country at present produce anything like what is necessary for the expanded programme? It is not wise to rely on supplies from other countries. If we rely too much on the United States, we must remember that under the Neutrality Act, in the event of war, they are bound to stop the export of every single aeroplane. That is the position to-day.
I do not mean to be critical. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount who is at the head of the Air Ministry. I am aware of the immense amount of work he has done, but in my opinion the fundamental mistake was made at the time when the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence was appointed. That was the moment when a Ministry of Supply should have been created. The Minister is now being asked to do something beyond human capacity. He has an expanded Service to control and direct, and an immense programme, and the whole thing is so gigantic that to expect him at the same time to organise the industries of this country is to ask him to do something quite beyond human capacity. I hope he will go to the Government in due time—the sooner the better—and say he has come to the conclusion that, in spite of all the efforts he has made recently, the right plan, if we

1075
are not going to fall back, is to adopt the principle adopted in the last War of creating a Ministry of Supply, getting all the manufacturing firms, raw material firms, and the whole lot together, and getting them to organise production under suitable leadership and control, and leaving the Service Department to do the professional and technical direction of the Air Force or, as the case may be, of the Navy and the Army, as in the last War. In conclusion I would ask him earnestly to weigh that whole point and see whether it is a new programme or a new Committee that is needed, or whether, as the last speaker said, it is not a question of organising industry now so that it can produce under the same conditions fundamentally as we produced, and successfully produced, in the Great War.
LORD WEIR: My Lords, about three years ago, at the joint request of my noble friend Earl Baldwin and the present Prime Minister, I agreed to make myself available to the Air Ministry and to the Committee of Imperial Defence in an advisory capacity, particularly in regard to industrial problems arising out of national defence plans. Accordingly, although I have no executive or administrative responsibility, I am conscious of a certain degree of moral responsibility for defence policies so far as they relate to the industrial field. As an adviser, I have hitherto refrained from taking any part in public controversy on these matters, but to-day I feel that your Lordships may reasonably expect me to make some contribution to this debate.
My noble friend the Secretary of State has dealt so comprehensively with his subject that I must ask your Lordships' pardon if I cover some of the same ground that he has covered. First of all, I would like to direct your Lordships' special attention to the very important difference between the two main decisions made by His Majesty's Government in regard to national air strength. Rather less than three years ago, His Majesty's Government decided to increase British air strength in numbers of machines and quality to a particular level, and to do so as rapidly as possible, but without any special priority and without interference with normal domestic and foreign trade. During this period, practically every
1076
branch of the engineering industry was or became exceptionally busily engaged, and aircraft engineering is, of course, an important branch of the engineering industry. Such then was the background in which was launched the first Air expansion effort and programme.
In the last few weeks, His Majesty's Government has made a second major decision, which is, not only to accelerate the existing programme, but also to expand it considerably, and both acceleration and expansion are to be secured under conditions of first priority in labour, material and facilities. As I understand it, nothing is now to be allowed to stand in the way of achieving the maximum rate of progress. Now your Lordships will appreciate that this does not imply the exact equivalent of war conditions, which presumably would mean compulsory control of man power and facilities, but it does mean a general tempo of action as rapid as can be secured in times of peace. Such then is the background under which the second effort is to be conducted.
Three years ago, the British aircraft industry—and I have in mind more particularly the air-frame part of the industry—was, broadly speaking, weak and inexperienced so far as production experience was concerned, although in the field of scientific and technical design it was definitely progressive. For many years, due to our disarmament policy, it had been given no opportunity of learning how to produce aircraft on any real scale. Furthermore, as my noble friend has told you, the date of this first effort coincided closely with the advent of the monoplane in place of the biplane, a technically drastic change in design. Then came the use of the new materials, the light alloys in place of steel, and the advent of the stressed skin structure also entered into the picture. Your Lordships will appreciate that the new techniques associated with these concurrent novelties presented the industry with a series of very real problems both in design and production, and many new lessons had to be learned. Further, the solution of these new problems also coincided with the necessity for large expansion in the building of factories and the supply of new equipment. This then was the background of conditions in the industry at the initiation of the first effort.

1077
Faced with this situation, the Air Ministry decided to adopt a policy of encouragement and assistance to bring about the creation of a strong, healthy and capable aircraft industry rather than to attempt to take on itself the burden of designing, constructing and operating new national aircraft factories. In January, 1917, when my noble friend Lord Addison asked me to become responsible for aircraft supply in the Ministry of Munitions, one of the first things we did—and it is seldom remembered to-day—was to bring to an end the designing of aircraft and aero-engines by the State at Farnborough. We did this because we carne to the conclusion that in that almost virgin field of scientific and technical development it would be wiser, and in the ultimate national interest more valuable, to try and create a strong and healthy industry through encouraging the variety of brains in the country to adventure in this new field rather than to encourage the concentration of effort in the single field of State design.
LORD ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, as this is so important? I accept generally the description of the noble Lord. I think he is not contradicting the account that I gave as to how these various experts in design, so called, were assembled and consulted in common by him. They were not sent out to their different firms to work on their own. We had a co-ordination of the whole scheme under the Ministry itself. Is not that so?
LORD WEIR: That is quite so, but the point I am making on the other hand is that we stopped all design of aeroplanes and aero-engines by the State or the Air Ministry, and relied on the work done by the industry. From that time every British air-frame and aero-engine has been designed and produced by the industry, helped and assisted, it is true, by the results of the more fundamental scientific research work done in the laboratory. The result has been that in the field of design of military aircraft and aero-engines this country has been a leader, although, as I have said, no opportunity was given to it properly to develop production experience. Three years ago, therefore, this policy of relying on the aircraft industry to meet the main needs of the new programme was
1078
reaffirmed, and I refer to this to-day because I am under the impression that some critics of Air Ministry policy appear to forget that the responsibility for design and production of both air-frames and aero-engines is that of the aircraft industry. In my view, only by adherence to this policy can we succeed in having a strong industry on which to rely, not only for normal Service needs, but for the ultimate, I hope, still greater civil needs of the Empire and of the export trade.
Now let me say a few words on production. It is a much misused word, and is frequently confused with the word "supply.' Production is the concern and responsibility of the manufacturer of aircraft, not of the Air Ministry, other than in the sense of the supervision and recording of the progress of its contracts. It has been suggested, for instance, that in regard to production the Air Ministry should have a Production Department, charged with the duty of controlling and teaching the industry how to produce aircraft. At the present stage of air-frame development, I personally do not believe that anyone knows the best methods and means of producing aircraft. The lessons are being learned every day in the factories, and nowhere else can they be learned, much less taught. No! the responsibility for production methods and processes is one which must rest with the manufacturer. They have that responsibility now, and, in my view, have made very substantial progress, and the practical results are now well in evidence. Naturally, factory managements vary in ability and efficiency, and some find the solutions of their problems quicker than others. I think the appointment of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner will do a great deal of good in bringing about the pooling of that experience among the different manufacturers. The real function of the Air Ministry in regard to supply is to make clear to the manufacturer what is wanted, quantitatively and qualitatively. After that it is the manufacturer's responsibility.
The next suggestion—and it is a suggestion made by entirely sincere and well-intentioned critics—is that all would be well if only mass production methods were adopted, and that an expert in mass production should be placed at the Air Ministry to ensure the adoption of this principle. The motor car industry is

1079
generally cited as a comparable example. Now this is rather a difficult question to answer convincingly in a few words, but I feel that the best short answer is that aircraft has not yet reached that stage of technical development of design which would justify anything like the full adoption of mass production methods and processes. The real foundation for very large-scale production methods does not lie so much in the methods themselves, but in the extent to which production possibilities are embodied in the design of the product itself. Mr. Henry Ford, for example, would, I think, agree that the foundation of the success of his model "T," the original "Tin Lizzie," lay just as much in the design of the car itself as in the methods he introduced, due to the fact that the cleverness of the design enabled him to devise and apply his wonderful methods. In regard to aeroplanes, it is the case that this lesson is being rapidly learned. The factory production staffs are working closer and closer every day with the designers, thus producing designs which lend themselves to more advanced production methods, but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that concurrently with this the demand for better and better aircraft performance still continues to have a premium value. Later on, when aircraft design becomes more conventional and progress in performance becomes less marked, then the production methods will more closely approximate to those of the motor car.
When I look at aircraft factories, or hear of what they are doing to-day, I am conscious of constant and steady progress in the improvement of methods and processes, the elaboration of new production machinery, of more advanced jigs and tools, and the steady elimination of the old crude methods, and I see plenty of evidence that the makers are setting up and creating adequate facilities for better planned production, rather than attempting to lay out, at great cost in time and money, production facilities which might ultimately produce airframes in great quantities, but at a date when the product itself would be nearing the obsolete stage.
Now I wish to take your Lordships back again to 1917, when, like to-day, criticism was directed against the alleged meticulous and harassing nature of the
1080
Aeronautical Inspection Department's requirements. Under the noble Lord I had to take over control of this Department in 1917, and I approached it with experience as a contractor, and I must admit with a measure of prejudice, and even some hostility. Before coming to a decision, however, on possible relaxation of inspection methods, which, of course, would have immensely helped supply, I studied the problem carefully and, as a result, I decided to uphold the very high standards which were set and imposed in those early days. The consequence has been that the Royal Air Force has been able to rely implicitly on the quality of its matériel, and I do not think it any exaggeration to say that A.I.D. practice has played a definite part in raising the general level of British engineering quality, and to-day I would regard it as a retrograde step to relax in any way the existing standards, and in any degree to run the risk of impairing the confidence of our pilots in the quality of the machines they fly.
My noble friend Lord Addison, in a recent debate, and again to-day, has spoken of an undue multiplicity of types, and naturally he recalled the old days of the War when we found ourselves faced with a very genuine multiplicity, and we cut the types down very considerably. Let me assure him that the policy of reduction in types was adopted by the Air Ministry three years ago, and is still an active policy, but due to another very important new policy, the reduction in types cannot yet be carried out to the optimum extent. This new policy was that of selecting types from what is called the drawing-board and not awaiting prototype trials. This involved taking certain risks, and to reduce these risks the Air Ministry, for any particular category of machine, cannot afford to rely on a single untried type. Consequently, there are two types where the ideal might be one. A review of the types on the programme to-day, apart from two older types used for training, discloses no undue multiplicity and no type finds its way to the programme unless there is a sound case for it.
Now let me speak for a moment of the scheme of shadow factories. The basis of the shadow factory concept was that of preparing in peace for war. The old

1081
system was that when war came, the expanding needs of the Services would be met, first, by the professional armament industry and, next, by adapting non-armament facilities. Now armament facilities, for example, air-frame and aero-engine workshops, tend to become more and more specialised. At the same time, the manufacture of non-armament products such as motor cars, tends to become still more specialised, and, accordingly, less and less suitable for rapid adaptation to the manufacture of armament supplies. On the other hand, in war the strong, capable producers of non-armament products with their great organisations, such as those of my noble friends Lord Nuffield and Lord Austin, are an invaluable national asset which must be utilised. With all this in view, and in addition to the great expansion of the professional industry, it was decided to create an auxiliary contribution to the programme by entrusting to organisations such as those to which I have referred the building of the shadow factories, and in this way to reduce the extent of our dependence on the adaptation of less suitable facilities.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the Air Ministry has had to face a treble task. It has had to create a strong Air Force in all the different fields, and next, on the material side, to bring about a vast strengthening of the aircraft industry so that the Air Force could rely on this industry as the Navy has done on the shipbuilding industry to meet national needs. To secure this result, the Air Ministry must guide, give help, and, above all, opportunity to the industry, but it must not attempt to take on its shoulders the burden of doing things which are the proper responsibility of the industry itself. Next, it was clearly the duty of the Air Ministry to make some preparation, not on paper, but in substantial reality, for war, by the erection of the shadow factories.
Now, my Lords, all these steps have been taken. The new and expanded facilities, both professional and shadow, exist and are equipped and the vast increase in the labour force referred to by my noble friend is now in action. Most of the technical design troubles are solved. Many of the production lessons have been learned and applied. The older types of machine are out of the pro-
1082
gramme except for training duties. Good types are now being delivered in increasing numbers, and the still newer types are now beginning to be delivered and will increase rapidly. That is the position and circumstances to which the Cabinet's new decision is being applied, and as a consequence of that decision, large additional orders have been placed so that each main contractor has a straightforward long-term production programme in front of him.
I believe these foundation policies to which I have referred are sound and will yield successful results. If you ask me if I am satisfied, my only answer can be that no one associated with a rapid expansion of a highly technical form of supply has ever any right to be satisfied. It is quite a sound thing to be impatient, even intolerant, with delays, but the impatience and occasional intolerance of the critic is no greater than the impatience I see on the part of those responsibly engaged on this expansion task, and as each difficulty arises it is being actively handled and there is a healthy spirit of drive in the Air Ministry. I can see nothing likely to prevent the realisation of the new programme according to schedule, even after making conservative allowances for technical delays and for obtaining and absorbing effectively the new labour required and the training possibly of that new labour. I hope you will not take anything I have said as said in any complacent spirit, but I would ask your Lordships to appreciate a point which I think the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, had at the back of his mind, that we are not actually at war, and that war possesses an atmosphere entirely of its own in its compelling power on drive and practice. As to how close you can come in peace in this country to that compulsion on driving power no one has yet any real experience, but when I consider the work of those who are executively responsible for this air effort, I am confident they are making very real and substantial progress.
TRE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will allow me to congratulate him on the statement he gave us a short time ago, and I think your Lordships can feel great satisfaction that we are entitled by the institutions under which we live in this country to receive statements of this

1083
description. We have the right to ask for them and Ministers are only too anxious to give them to us. The noble Viscount gave us a very frank statement and I understand that a statement of a similar character has been made in another place. I am sure it has given us all a large measure of assistance in realising the great difficulties with which he is confronted and the manifold problems which he is called upon to solve.
A great many of us who are not closely associated with the administration of the Air Ministry have been made anxious by the tone of the criticisms which we have read in the newspapers and in the reports of speeches delivered by various people. There are charges there of incapacity and of inefficiency, and I am glad to think that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, who followed him, have given us a full answer. I am sure they relieve a great deal of that anxiety which may be said to exist in many parts of the country. I know that the noble Viscount does not object in any degree to constructive criticism. He is only too ready to receive from those who are anxious to assist him and to forward the object which we all have in view, their criticisms and the views which they are anxious to put forward. But I am not sure that I have not detected what I might call a political tendency in a great many of the criticisms which I have read. The noble Lord, Lord Addison who is not at the present moment on the Opposition Front Bench, gave us a very interesting speech, and he certainly surprised me by the meticulous analysis which he made of various measures which are being adopted by the Air Ministry. He went on to say that he could not be accused of grinding any political axe. I am sure he will not be popular in his Party if he absolves himself from any charge of that kind!
I feel, however, that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that the results which the noble Viscount has been able to show are surprising. Perhaps I may be allowed very briefly to take what I may call a dispassionate view of the history of the last few years. My noble friend who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Trenchard) and myself were associated with Mr. Churchill in dispersing what was the most magnificent
1084
Air Force that had ever existed. It was supreme on every front, and one can feel that it was due to the action in the air that the result came about as it did. I have always felt, and I feel now, that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount. He it was who organised that Air Force. He it was who directed it; and moreover, he had a great hand in laying the subsequent foundations of the Air Force and of the Ministry upon which the noble Viscount has been able to build, with—I say—so much success in the last few years. Sir Samuel Hoare followed Mr. Churchill, and he established a small programme which he was unfortunately unable altogether to fulfil. I came on in the sequence of events, and I was hampered by finance and by the disarmament policy. Those two policies made my position a very difficult one. But we were pursuing a strange fallacy which underlay our foreign policy since the War: that it was possible for us to disarm and present ourselves as defenceless to the world, and at the same time to maintain our position in the counsels of the nations. You will remember public opinion at the time, and the propaganda which was stimulated by the friends of the noble Lords who sit on the Opposition Benches. That same Socialist Party, with their muddled and inconsistent points of view, have hampered and hindered the maintenance of our strength and authority throughout the world.
LORD SNELL: Who is political now?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am glad to see that in the last few weeks that policy has been reversed, and that we are taking a different line in foreign policy and are determined to make ourselves as strong as we possibly can. We all recognise that the Air Arm must play a tremendous part if we are ever called upon to measure our strength with that of any hostile country. I am not saying that it will take a decisive part, but it will play a very important part, and we feel very strongly that peace may depend upon the adequate provision of air defence. Some of us may say that we are living in an age of paradox, and that while we are doing our best to build up a strong Air Force, at the same time we are searching for means of establishing peace. I am quite convinced that the two go together; but I am anxious about what we might call this race in armaments. I most

1085
sincerely hope that the race in armaments will come to an end. If I might digress for one moment, I would urge upon the Government to engage upon those conversations with Germany, so that we shall know exactly where we are and what the intentions of the Germans are, and that we shall be able to make some adjustments in international foreign policy which may show us that this race in armaments may be stayed and that we may turn our activities, commercial or otherwise, to the benefit of all the nations of the world in the advance of civilisation.
It was the German rearmament which was responsible for the change in the policy of this country. It made us realise our deficiencies and make up our minds to rearm. The German development has been very interesting indeed. It has been very little understood. My noble friend the Marquess of Lothian has urged upon us the policy of parity. I do not wish to follow him in the speech which he made. I recognise his anxiety. By the figures which he gave us he would lead us to believe that the German air strength in the next few years will increase to an enormous extent. Lord Weir, in his final remarks, said that we were not on a war basis and that therefore our arrangements could not be moved forward with exactly that point of view in our minds. But I would venture to say a few words about the German Air Force. The German Air Force started de novo in 1933, and I can assure your Lordships that we were well aware of the course of its development. We were told by foreign Press agencies, supported by very eminent men in this country, that the German development was on a miraculous basis and had reached proportions of which we were supposed to know nothing whatever. I have followed that development very closely. Your Lordships will remember that, notwithstanding that development, no notice was taken of it at Geneva, and it was not until 1935 that we were satisfied that public opinion had reached such a stage that our policy could be reversed and we could go in for a policy of rearmament.
When I speak of the German Air Force, I think there is one factor which is very seldom recognised, and about which my noble friend (Viscount Trenchard) will bear me out. That is the question of training. I say without
1086
fear of contradiction that the training of our Air Force is incomparably better than the training of any other Air Force in the world. We have had great advantages: we have had the Air Force under my noble friend (Viscount Trenchard) for a great many years, and that training has been continuous from before the War. We know quite well that the different ranks which have been filled by promotions have produced a training which is second to none. We have considered from the earliest stages of promotion exactly those who should go forward to the higher ranks, and in contrast to the criticisms made to-day, in which it is placed second, third, fourth or fifth, I say that our Air Force, from the point of view of the training of its personnel and material, stands out in front of any Air Force in the world.
I am not saying that that position will be maintained if we adopt a complacent view at the present moment, but I am quite sure that the noble Viscount has no element of complacency in his mind. I know that he and his able staff are working day and night to produce the Air Force that we want. But let us make no mistake. We are living under institutions which none of us proposes to change. We are living under democratic institutions, and we know quite well the difficulties and the disadvantages which, in a rapid expansion of effort, and in comparison with the activities of other countries, we have to face. But we are determined that we will maintain those institutions, and we know quite well that there is no sacrifice which we can call upon our people to make for the maintenance of those institutions, and for the maintenance of the traditions and prestige of this country, which our people are not fully prepared to accept.
With regard to my own difficulties, owing to the financial stringency and the disarmament negotiations, there were no new squadrons formed between November, 1931, and 1934. If your Lordships will cast your minds back you will realise that the British Draft Disarmament Convention of 1933 contained a proposal that air armaments should not include aircraft exceeding three tons in weight. As a result of that no action was taken until 1934 to develop the air bomber, and it was in 1935 that I was able to make this statement to your Lordships' House:

1087
"By March 31, 1937, that is at the end of the next financial year, the strength of the Royal Air Force based at home, irrespective of the Fleet Air Arm, will be 1,500 first-line machines. This compares with an actual first-line figure of 580 machines at the present day, excluding the Fleet Air Arm, and with a total of 840 which we should have reached by the same date under the programme of expansion announced last July and provided for in the current Air Estimates. In short, we are nearly trebling the present strength of the Royal Air Force at home to-day."
I am glad indeed to hear the statement which my noble friend, building on that basis, has been able to make to your Lordships to-day.
The noble Viscount spoke of numerous types and how it is naturally desired to reduce the number of those types, but your Lordships must also remember that the aircraft industry was organised in many small producing units, and therefore orders had to be placed for more types. It was necessary to place orders for many types because that was an insurance against a type proving a failure in production, and we can realise the progress we have made now that more than one firm—I think three firms—are producing the Blenheim aircraft. The routine for the development of aircraft is very complicated and difficult. One would imagine that there are people in this country who think that it is quite easy to produce aircraft, that they can be produced in numbers in the same way as motor cars are produced owing to mass production, but your Lordships must realise that after the design has been made on the drawing board there are numerous stages which have to be passed before that aircraft can be handed over to the squadron. Any modification which is made in the design changes that aircraft in varying degrees, with the result that all those modifications have to be very carefully tested, because such modifications—it might be an extra gun or something in the nature of a bomb load—alter the flying of the machine, Consequently all those stages have really to be gone through before the production of a first-class aeroplane.
I understand that these varying changes which take so long a time have had to be shortened, and therefore it is obvious that the Air Ministry have been faced with this tremendous difficulty, that whereas the various stages which I have spoken of have had to be eliminated, it was found
1088
at the final stage that the aircraft was not the machine that was intended. I think that with the risk which the Air Ministry have to take in eliminating some of these stages we may congratulate the Ministry on the results which they have produced in the aircraft now provided for the Royal Air Force. But I know that the noble Viscount will hope as soon as possible to revert to prototype policy, as it is called—the building and testing of one or more prototypes before production and orders are placed. Thus he will be able to reduce the number of types. The Secretary of State has given us various figures which, with the experience I have had, seem to me very satisfactory indeed. I know that the noble Viscount will carry out this further expansion, and may probably be in a position to accelerate it, but the fact that he is able to accomplish it is due to the long view that has been taken in the past in regard to the production of aircraft and the training of personnel.
I feel inclined to say, let the Air Ministry get on with its work. I know that we are entitled to make criticisms, and I know that the Secretary of State is not at all averse from criticisms which he knows are put forward in a helpful manner, but the criticisms which I have seen in irresponsible newspapers and elsewhere exercise a certain influence, they create an uncertainty, they create an anxiety throughout the Air Force, and they do much to create a certain lack of confidence. So while I certainly welcome any proper criticism being made, I would suggest to all those (and I think there are a great many in this country) who are not so straightforward in their criticism and who make criticisms with many political motives behind them, that they should realise the effect which they are having on a great and loyal Force which is doing its best to carry out the duties allotted to it.
The Air Ministry may congratulate itself on the provision of stations and of recruiting personnel, and it is only on the supply side that this debate has been concentrated. I know that there are immense difficulties in connection with supply. The noble Marquess has put forward a suggestion which he thinks may be a good one. I do not propose to argue that point with him, because I have no doubt that the Secretary of State in the remarks which we shall listen to later on

1089
will have something to say about that. I think my noble friend Lord Weir has disposed of that suggestion, and has shown us the manner in which supply is being developed in the best way. We know quite well that there have been delays, but those delays, which have been frankly admitted, were the result of the expansion scheme based on a small Air Force and a small aircraft industry.
The constructors, who have come in for a certain amount of criticism, have not had an entirely easy task. Most of them were what I might call the pioneers of the aircraft industry. During all those years in which this country was very slow in becoming what I may call air-minded, their future looked very uncertain indeed. The designs they had did not seem to create much interest here, and they had great difficulty in retaining their skilled designers and their skilled workmen. That is a problem which faces constructors now. It is quite true that their order books are full. They are called upon to put forward their best efforts, but they have to look to the future. I remember in the past, when I was Secretary of State for Air, the despairing messages I received from aircraft constructors about their designing staff, good men they wished to retain; but there were no orders at that time. Therefore one must realise that the constructors have not had such an easy time as some people would lead us to believe. When there is an expansion, as at present, they require increased floor space, they require additional plant, and they require additional labour. Speaking for the aircraft constructors and the manufacturing firms, I say they have done their very best to assist the Air Ministry in the difficult task with which they have been confronted. After all, if we try to draw some comparison with the situation with which my noble friend was confronted, it is as if we had been asked to treble our Army and Navy in three years and rearm them at the same time. Your Lordships will, therefore, realise what a colossal task has been before my noble friend.
My noble friend has also spoken of the responsibility for production. I fully share his view that production must rest with the industry and not with the Air Ministry; but in that connection I am inclined to suggest to my noble friend that in relation to subsidiary matters the Air Ministry might take it upon themselves
1090
to allot subsidiary firms to the great aircraft constructors for the construction and provision of such subsidiary matters. I hope I have made myself clear to the noble Viscount because I am inclined to think—I am not laying this down categorically or authoritatively—that the great firms are inclined to take too much upon themselves and to provide more from their own business rather than to rely on small firms which in ordinary peace-time are not perhaps doing anything that might be said to be closely associated with aviation but which in war-time would be called upon to provide the necessaries required as subsidiary items in the programme. I need not emphasize to your Lordships the wide difference between our conditions in this country and conditions which exist elsewhere. We hear a great deal about the German problem, and we hear a great deal of what they are doing, their power of replacement, and we are told that unless the Air Ministry look to it we shall be left far behind in the race. That touches the great question of the democratic institutions which we are determined to preserve, and I have no doubt whatsoever that we shall be successful in obtaining from this country everything that we want, the labour which is available and which is essential for all national purposes.
There are many smaller difficulties with which the Air Ministry have been confronted. There is the question of the location of new stations and training schools. It is a regrettable experience that there is a rooted antipathy, for various reasons, to the erection of new stations and training schools in different parts of the country. I came in for a great deal of these criticisms myself. I was told that I was destroying the whole bird life of the country. I was told that my one object was to destroy the local amenities which exist in our beautiful countryside. But I am given to understand that the bird life, instead of diminishing, has been stimulated by its contact with aviation, and photographs which I have seen show that birds are not at all averse from being close to targets. In fact, there is a stimulus to bird life which is increasing the population of our birds in this country! Local amenities come under the same heading, and we are told that our stations and aerodromes will destroy those amenities which the public have the right to enjoy.

1091
I had very satisfactory results on that point, and I feel that most people are gratified when they realise they are in contact with some representation of aviation.
I should like personally to pay a tribute to the work done at the week-ends by our Reserve and Auxiliary pilots. The splendid spirit which exists amongst those pilots shows me that any pessimistic criticisms of this country are wide of the mark. I am also gratified to realise that there is a very happy co-operation between the Air Force of this country and the Air Forces of the Dominions. Your Lordships are probably aware that officers from the Air Forces of the Dominions are at present at the Staff College and at the Imperial Defence College. There is an interchange of officers, and I am given to understand that Sir Edward Ellington is shortly going to Australia where he will consult with the Australians on the development of their aviation.
There is much more information which I know the Secretary of State could give us, but which I know quite well, and so do your Lordships, it is very undesirable should be given, but we can be satisfied that we have received from the noble Viscount the fullest available information on this important subject, and fuller information than is vouchsafed to any people in any other country. I have said a word about the tone of the criticism, and I am glad to think that the adverse tone of this criticism is perhaps not so very widespread. I regret the fact when I feel I can detect in it some political attitude of mind, some desire through the Air Ministry to injure the Government on which we rely and which we are convinced will see us through our difficulties. I have seen in these criticisms what I might call a desire to find a scapegoat, to find a head on a charger, to find somebody who can be sacrificed to a public outcry of which I think the foundations are not very solid. Perhaps I may have some experience of the position of a scapegoat, and if I may have suffered in that position I have no complaints whatsoever, because I always feel that what is so satisfactory in this country is that if one person disappears or fails there are innumerable others who can take his place with equal success and equal efficiency. But I am determined,
1092
from the experience that I have had, that if I can put forward an effort, and a strong effort, to save my noble friend from being made a scapegoat I shall do it. I say that because I am quite sure the work he has done at the Air Ministry is something for which we owe him a debt of gratitude. I would do it also on another basis, and that is that I feel it is always unwise to swap horses in mid-stream. I am quite sure that he himself with his able collaborators, and with Lord Weir—who, after his labours during the War, I am glad to think that I introduced back into the Air Ministry some three years ago—will give us the results the country is asking for, and which we have every right to expect.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I have a definite proposal to make, which I hope may commend itself to your Lordships on an early occasion. I join with my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who succeeded me at the Air Ministry, in saying that we must not make a scapegoat of the Secretary of State for Air. I agree that he has done the best he could, but I do not agree that we can be in any way complacent about the present situation, nor do I agree with Lord Weir when he said that war gave a great impetus, the inference being that we should wait until war came before we set to work to do the necessary thing. I am here to-day speaking with some knowledge when I say that the production side of our Air Force, and of some of our other forces, is lagging far behind our needs. Of that I think there can be no doubt whatever, though I am not laying the blame upon anybody in particular. But it is clear from the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that the policy to which all Parties have now agreed commits us to a great further expansion.
Lord Lothian pointed out in an extraordinarily interesting speech the great, the phenomenal growth of Germany's Air Force. It is quite true to say, I think, that that mighty force is now turned not West but East. Anybody who knows about it knows that that is really so. But that does not absolve us here in Britain from pursuing the policy, upon which all are now agreed, of peace by armament. The peace part of the policy is now going very well, because the Prime

1093
Minister seems to have the extraordinary knack of always doing the right thing at the right time. In that opinion perhaps my noble friend Lord Snell will not agree, but he is supporting me in this proposal to spur the Air Ministry into increased production of armaments. That is a part of the business in which we are not keeping pace with the peace part. And the reason is that the three Services are competing against each other with no proper provision for priority, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, made reference. The rate of production is far too slow. In the last War, to which reference has been made by previous speakers, we found the same difficulty, and we could not solve it until we had established a Ministry of Supply, or, as we called it, a Ministry of Munitions. We shall not solve it now unless we do establish a Ministry of Supply.
I have put down a Motion for an early day which I propose to carry to a Division, and upon which I hope many of your Lordships will support me. In that Motion I say that it is imperative in the interests of national security that a Ministry of Supply for all three Services should be established forthwith. If we do not do that we shall never get the supplies we want. Nobody can go about the country without knowing that, although the Air Ministry are doing their best, there is a great deal of misdirected effort, and all that can be cured by a Ministry of Supply. I have presided over the Army Council, I have presided over the Air Council again and again, and I have been present at, and sometimes presided over, the Ministry of Supply. If the thing could be done then it could be done now; but it is not done. I say I have presided over these three bodies, and perhaps that is some excuse for my addressing your Lordships. I do not suppose anyone else present to-night has had that experience. The Ministry of Supply is a totally different body from the Air Ministry, or the Council of the War Office, or the Board of Admiralty. It is based in large measure on the heads of the industry who have the confidence of the industry. The predominant factor is industry, and if you have a man of extraordinary dynamic power, such as, say, Mr. Lloyd George, or like the one who came after him, Mr. Churchill, at the head of such a Council, you can get your industry going in a way
1094
which is quite different from anything you are doing now. There are many of your Lordships, I am sure, who are of the opinion that it is vital for us greatly to increase our possible and our practical output of munitions in order to ensure the policy of peace by armament, and I submit with all the power that I can command that we should form in the near future, and forthwith if possible, a Ministry of Supply to make us safe.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I intervene with some diffidence because I do not pretend to be an expert in air matters, nor have I, like most of the previous speakers, had some connection with the Department for Air, or with the industry; and it is because of the fact that I do not claim to be an expert that I have gone out of my way, before making any contribution to the debate to-day—and my contribution will be very brief—to consult people of as great reputation nationally and internationally as any who are taking part in the discussion to-day. I would like at the very outset to congratulate the noble Viscount who represents the Government in the Air Ministry for his known energy and for the acceleration in the output which has been brought about by that energy. But the real question I suggest—I would like to put it before he speaks in reply to the debate—is not whether the output is being increased by x per cent. but whether, as a result of the efforts which have been planned by the Government, we shall be in the position to carry out what I call for short the Baldwin pledge—that is to say, whether in two years' or four years' time we shall have a guarantee of equality, of parity with any European Power. That is the real question, and not whether there has been a great increase in output. The real problem is what our relative position is now and what it is going to be in the way of production. It is not good to attribute any feeling of anxiety which may be voiced to-day mainly or entirely to political bias. I am speaking as a strong supporter of the National Government, but I should be misleading your Lordships were I to fail to indicate that there is a real and a growing sense of anxiety in the country, not due to non-realisation of the increased output in production and effort, but due to a growing fear that we are not going to be in a position by reason of anything

1095
which has been announced up to now to fulfil the Baldwin pledge.
Now let me refer very briefly to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and other speakers. God forbid that we should contemplate the possibility of war between this country and Germany or anybody else, but one has to mention other countries in order to get some sort of indication as to what our relative position is. I was told—I personally was not in a position to know it—that at the present moment the output of Germany is greater than the combined output of this country and the United States of America. Now that is a very serious state of affairs, and if we turn to the war potentiality, that is to say to the possibility of rapid expansion in case of war, I understand that many firms in this country are working double shift day and night, whereas in Germany a large number of firms are only working single shift. That is to say, that the possibility of increasing the output rapidly, in case of the catastrophe of war, is very much greater in Germany than it would be in this country. Then there is another point. The question of research is particularly vital where aeronautics are concerned. The Cadman Committee emphasized the fact that this industry was likely to see great changes, due to invention and progress. It was put to me by a well-known aviator that the machines of to-day might be quite obsolete in five years' time. It is, therefore, essential that we should not be behind hand in our research organisation. I understand that the research organisation of Germany is on a much greater scale than anything we possess, and that the organisation that is responsible for directing research can concentrate upon that, and need not devote its attention to research and the production of plant at the present moment as in England.
This debate, and the discussions in the country, remind me terribly of the sort of discussion which used to go on during the War—public anxiety, official re-assurance, some progress, and then repeated again. That, as has been mentioned by several noble Lords during the discussion, went on until we had a separate ad hoc Ministry of Supply, or Ministry of Munitions, call it what you like. I am not going to discuss the value of that, because
1096
it has already been referred to by other speakers, but I would venture to remind your Lordships of the observations made in the Cadman Committee's Report about the desirability of having industrialists running production, rather than pilots, however distinguished and however efficient. It is put in that Committee's Report in this way:
"However distinguished an individual officer may be, the problems of aircraft production on a large scale are, with modern processes, so specialised that it is contrary to all sense to expect a military officer without previous knowledge and experience of such matters, and holding office for a limited term, to deal effectively with the situation."
I think the lesson that we most learned from our experience during the War is that this anxiety is bound to continue until we know that the Government are calling on industrialists to a greater extent than they have done yet. We are relieved by what has been clone, but we hope that to a greater extent than has yet been announced we shall be told that the leaders connected with the steel industry and alloys, with engineering and aircraft, will be called in and themselves made more responsible for the reorganisation and expansion of the industry.
Also, we trust that the Government will not rest satisfied with their present plans, and will outline something on a greater scale. If we have war we know what the cost will be in money and in lives. Let us by spending more money now, not only reduce the cost we should have to bear in the future, but reduce the loss of life which undoubtedly would be associated with war should it come. Until this is done public anxiety is bound to continue, and when it is done then the prospects of peace and of disarmament will increase. I hope that the noble Viscount who is going to reply on behalf of the Government, and who has already done so much to expand the air industry and the production of aircraft, will, not perhaps to-night but in the near future, be able to announce a still further expansion, because until that comes I can assure him that the anxiety which exists outside, which is not mainly due to political bias, is bound to continue.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, at this late hour you will not wish for a long speech from me, for I have already

1097
inflicted upon you one of very considerable length; but matters of such importance have been touched on, if I may respectfully say so, in a debate of very real value, that even at this late hour I would like to take them up in reply. May I in the first place, thank my noble friend Lord Londonderry for one of the most generous speeches I have ever heard delivered in either House. I do indeed appreciate it. I do not think I deserved it. I would say this—that we are having plenty of difficulties to-day. I do not want to minimise them, but they are nothing to the difficulties which he had. He was quite right; we have had to build up from a very small industry and it has taken time, and a great deal of time.
When he was dealing with it he was unable to build up that industry at all. He was never able to give orders on any scale. I think that before the expansion I was told by one aircraft constructor that the largest order the aircraft industry in this country had ever had, at least for the last ten or twelve years, was eighty machines, and they got that in two parts. I suppose two estimates were authorised. It is also perfectly true that his difficulties were enormously increased by reason of the fact that not only could nothing be spent during the Disarmament Conference period, but all the designing which was going on and production which was put in hand were deliberately designed to meet a period of Air Forces not only small in numbers but small in the character of the machines, and it was no sort of preparation for getting on with production of large bombers to get orders for small three-ton machines. One thing I am sure Lord Addison will not mind my saying. After all he said this afternoon I am delighted to note his anxiety that the programme should be adequate and rapidly carried out; but I am bound to say this—that all through that time, and much later, there was a steady objection by the Party for which he speaks to any expenditure on armaments at all. If he had had his way while the Disarmament Conference was going on there would not only have been a small aircraft industry on which to build—there would have been none at all—
LORD ADDISON: If our policy had been adopted there would have been no call for this programme.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: —for he was consistently saying: "Why did Lord Londonderry insist upon maintaining an individual Air Force? Why should there not be a collective Police Air Force of the world?" It is all very well to say what he does, but if that advice had been taken there would have been just nothing on which to build, and our position would indeed have been hopeless. With his new-found interest in the matter, which I gladly recognise, and which I am sure is quite sincere, I cannot forget that if we had taken his advice and that of his Party and if they had succeeded in their opposition to rearmament there would not have been much prospect of our ever attaining to this or any other programme at the present time. A good many of his detailed criticisms were repetitions of matters which he raised and with which I dealt in a recent debate. He complained that we had not full numbers of skilled wireless operators. Of course not. That is exactly why the training was put in hand and why wireless operators are being trained as quickly as ever they can be, and why increased schools are being set up. He surely realises that you cannot recruit a fully trained wireless operator. To blame the Air Ministry or the Government or anybody else because when you are making a great expansion of the Air Force and require a very large number of wireless operators they are not immediately forthcoming, really is a nonsensical charge to make.
LORD ADDISON: Will the noble Viscount tell us when training started?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, the moment expansion started.
LORD ADDISON: Not before?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course they had been trained before. If they had not been trained before, if wireless training had not been going on before under the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, there would have been no wireless instructors. Of course wireless training has been going on at the Cranwell School, and that school will be doubled in its size on another site. The noble Lord said there were certain machines which had not got all the great navigational facilities which there are in machines which came later. That is perfectly true. Every aircraft which is

1099
introduced is an improvement on the aircraft of two years ago, otherwise it would not be introduced. He said it was wrong to have ordered certain bombers—bombers which other countries are very anxious to buy—because they had not got such full navigational facilities as bombers of later design and greater size which are now coming along. In the article written by the Chief of the American Air Staff from which I quoted earlier in the debate, there is a very interesting passage in which he says that whenever orders are given out in large-scale production someone comes and says, "If you only wait a little bit you will find something better." In this matter the better is the enemy of the good. It was absolutely necessary in the first place to order machines which could be produced at once, though they were not at all of the best, in order that we might get a greatly expanded force and have machines with which that force could be equipped in the first instance. It was right to order the best type of machine that could be ordered off the drawing board and not to wait. It is right now to be getting better types still into production.
The noble Lord says that no spare parts were ordered for machines. I really do not know where he got that information. If he goes to the manufacturers he will find one of the complaints they make is that we have ordered too many spare parts. Manufacturers naturally prefer to produce finished aircraft rather than spare parts and one of the difficulties is to get spare parts delivered parallel with machines. But if you take for instance air-frames and engines, it is always policy to order spare parts as well. He criticised the policy, which I think is a very sound one, of using some of the smaller firms to do repair work on particular types of machines. He objected to that and asked why it was not done in the Air Force. It seems to me the noble Lord was mixing up maintenance and repairs.
LORD ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then there was no point in the criticism.
LORD ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have listened to the noble Lord with great care and
1100
I hope that he will read the reports of my speech and his own to-morrow morning. Certainly I think he conveyed to the House an erroneous impression of what we are doing. Maintenance, of course, is the business of the units, and is being done in the units, but surely it is very wise not to get, even if you could recruit it, an enormous uniformed personnel to do repair work as distinct from maintenance work. Maintenance work takes squadrons all their time. When you can get repair work done in civil industry by firms fully qualified to do it it seems to me very good business, and it would be sound business whether in peace or war.
If I may revert to a point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, I would say that we are always trying to get as much sub-contracting done as possible. He will appreciate that the sub-contracts must be placed by the main contractors, but we have impressed upon industry throughout the great importance of getting all possible sub-contracts put out. I am not referring only to sub-contracts for parts of machines which are not really aircraft parts. There are many things that go into a machine—nuts and bolts and so on—which obviously it is not good business for an aircraft firm to make themselves. But even in what are technically the aircraft parts of the machine itself we aim at getting the maximum amount of sub-contracting.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I apologise for interrupting but what I was suggesting was that in regard to subsidiary manufacture the Air Ministry might allocate firms to do particular work. They might find that matters which are now being dealt with by big contractors could be more usefully done if those contractors had smaller firms allocated to them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I take it that my noble friend means that we should allocate one smaller firm to work with one larger firm. That I think is well worth considering. We have done our best to introduce, so to speak, one firm to another and I am glad to see that the Aircraft Constructors' Association now embraces not only the large constructors but a tremendous number of other firms as well. I agree that it is very important within

1101
the industry to see that the work is distributed as widely and effectively as possible.
My noble friend the Marquess of Lothian raised two questions, both of the greatest importance. He gave certain figures as the estimate given him of German strength. It is always difficult for a Government spokesman, not in the least because he wants to shirk the question, to answer specific questions of that kind. Indeed my noble friend did not put, and was careful to avoid putting, a specific question to me, and I very much appreciate that. The assessment of relative strength and capacity in this or any other country is the duty of the Government to try to know as well as they can. It is not one Ministry, it is a great deal of collective information. The Government must have more sources of information at their disposal and a better capacity for checking and weighing the results that come from those sources than any individual, however well informed, can have. It is the duty of the Government to get that information, to weigh it with the greatest care—as they do—but the last thing in the world they can do is to communicate it. But it is the bounden duty of the Government, on that information, to frame and ask Parliament to approve the defence programme for all Services which in the circumstances they think necessary for our security.
I am not going into a discussion on parity now. It is a term which I am not sure that even the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, ever used. It is a bad term, and I will tell my noble friend exactly why I say that. "Parity" suggests that you take country X and say that there are 10,000 machines in it, therefore in country Y there must also be 10,000 machines. It may be that in country Y there ought to be, not 10,000, but 15,000 machines. It is not like opposing fleets, where you are dealing with capital ships and one capital ship comes up and meets another. It is quite a different problem.
What the Government have to be satisfied of is this. An attack may be made by a potential aggressor. In reply, two things are necessary. There is the active defence, the fighter defence, the antiaircraft defence, which must be sufficient to meet that attack. The size of that defensive force must obviously be conditioned objectively by the size of the
1102
force which may possibly be brought against it. Secondly, there is the counteroffensive force. Do not let us underrate the value and the importance of pure defence; believe me, that is not done; but it is and always will remain absolutely necessary to have a very strong counteroffensive force. If you are a country with a great Army, you must have a great many aeroplanes which will co-operate with your Army. If you have a small Army, you obviously do not need the same number; it would then be a sheer waste of money to have great fleets of machines of the kind which are useful to co-operate with an Army. On the other hand, if you are, as we are, a country depending tremendously upon its seaborne trade for its life, you must have a completely adequate section of your Air Force to deal with the protection of the trade routes and with general reconnaissance. You must also have all the machines which are necessary for training, and you must have great reserves behind—
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: For wastage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON:—for wastage, which is very large. It is not because I am shirking in the least the necessity for the force being sufficient, but I would much prefer that, instead of using the term "parity," the noble Marquess would use the term "adequate for our necessities." It seems to express much more clearly and realistically what it is necessary that this country should have. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that there may at some date be an opportunity of debating this question further. The suggestion was made that there should be established a Ministry of Supply. That has been the subject of debate and of Government reply before. I suppose any Service Minister must approach this question almost with enthusiasm that such a Ministry should be established, if only for one simple reason. I hope I shall not be thought lazy for suggesting it. I am very fully occupied, as any Service Minister must be who has an enormously expanding Department. When you are trebling, quadrupling, the force in peace time in the kind of way in which we increased the Army in the War, it is a tremendous load. There is the whole personnel of the new squadrons

1103
—I am not pretending that that is the Minister's job, but he is responsible for it—and the whole business of supply. A Service Minister with a great expansion of the force must therefore, I think, approach this question with an inclination to say that he would like to see that done. I think it has been plainly said on more than one occasion that if the Government were satisfied—and it is, of course, a decision that the Government must take—that it would be useful, the Government would not hesitate to do it.
But I am not sure what my noble friend contemplates. If you are to have control of industry, as of course you have in war—complete control—then quite obviously a Ministry of Supply is absolutely necessary and inevitable. But that is not what you are working on now, and whether you would be materially helped by creating a single Ministry to which you would transfer, presumably, the supply sections of the three Services themselves, is a matter on which certainly there can be two opinions. On this the view of the Government hitherto has been very definitely that the balance of advantage would not lie with the creation of such a Ministry of Supply. But, my Lords, I do not propose to say more on that subject on this occasion. I was, indeed, a little taken by surprise when the matter was raised in this debate, but no doubt a fuller answer will be given at another time. I think I have dealt with most of the points which were raised, and I am very glad indeed to have had the opportunity in this debate of giving these explanations, which I hope have satisfied the House.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I do not propose, of course, to criticise the two speeches which the noble Viscount has delivered. I can only say that the noble Marquess could not resist the temptation of saying that this Motion had a political motive and bias. The Government know that the Motion was not put down with any such intention, and I only say that I think the debate has been extraordinarily useful and the purpose of the Motion has been served. Will the House allow me to withdraw the Motion for Papers?
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE PROPOSED CLUBS BILL.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a statement as to the date of the introduction of the Bill relating to clubs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third time I have put this Question to the Government. I first asked the Question on November 17 last, at the beginning of the Session, when the noble Earl who then replied, Lord Fortescue, said on behalf of the Government that they fully appreciated the importance of the subject, and that it was the definite purpose to carry out the promise to introduce a Bill dealing with clubs during the present Session. Four months later, on March 8, I again put a Question as to the date of the introduction of the Bill, and I then made the suggestion that, having regard to the fact that at that stage of the Session there were greater facilities for dealing with the Bill in this House than in another place, the Bill should be introduced in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, replying for the Government, said that it was the purpose of the Government to carry out their promise to introduce a Clubs Bill during the present Session, but they were not in a position to give any information as to the date of its introduction. He also undertook to convey my suggestion as to the desirability of introducing the Bill in this House to the Home Secretary. Two months have passed since that reply. I feel quite sure that the noble Earl who is going to reply himself fully realises the concern which I and a great many others feel in regard to the situation which has arisen by reason of the fact that we have reached this stage of the Session without any indication of a date being mentioned for the introduction of the Bill.
I am not again going over the grounds which give this measure special urgency, but I would like once more to remind the House that it is a measure recommended by a recent Licensing Commission. More than that, it has the support of the Magistrates' Association, and I would like to stress the importance of that support, because after all the Magistrates' Association represents the licensing justices, who are primarily responsible for the administration of the licensing law. The proposed legislation has also behind it, I think, a volume of support in the country which

1105
gives it an exceptional claim on the time of the House. These are the reasons why I once more, for the third time, put this Question to the Government. I would express the hope that even now at this stage of the Session the Government will be able to redeem the pledge which it has given in regard to the introduction of this Bill during the present Session. I would ask the noble Earl again to press the urgency of the matter, and also again to communicate to the Government the suggestion that the Bill should be introduced in this House.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to make any full statement in answer to my noble friend's Question, but the question of the date of the introduction of the Bill relating to clubs is under consideration in connection with the Government's legislative programme, and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement directly after Whitsuntide.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th of February and 12th of April last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th of February and the 6th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.

STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.