Sitting of 9 March 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.
The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMEN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    LEIGH.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons, male, who are signing the unemployed register at Leigh Employment Exchange who have been out of employment for more than six months; and the number over 50 years of age?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Of 2,435 unemployed males, aged 16–64, on the registers of the Leigh Employment Exchange, who were applying for unemployment benefit or unemployment allowances at 13th February, 1939, 804 had been continuously on the registers for six months or more. Separate figures are not available as to the numbers over 50 years of age included in this total.
    Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get the figures in regard to the last part of the question, as there is a feeling that the aged people are being cast on one side and are getting no employment?
    Mr. Brown: In the last three years I have made a special analysis in regard to certain age groups in May and November of each year. I will let the hon. Member know what the ages are nearest the figures for which he asks?
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman do that with special reference to the mining industry?

  ALLOWANCES IN KIND.
  Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Assistance Board has requested the advisory committees to interview un employed persons with a view to advising as to whether allowances should be paid in cash or in kind; whether any instructions have been issued to the advisory committees in this matter; and, if so, will he state the nature of the instructions?
  Mr. E. Brown: The advisory committees as part of their normal duties consider individual cases referred to them for advice. No instructions in this matter have been issued by the Board, apart from a circular sent to the committees when they were first set up indicating the nature of their functions. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
  Mr. Griffiths: How it is that only now, four years after the Unemployment Assistance Board has been set up, that we have the first cases of this kind?
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that is so. Perhaps the hon. Member will see my answer to the next question, which will show what the proportion is.
  Mr. T. Smith: May we take it that these cases are only the cases that are described as special cases in the Act of Parliament?
  Mr. Brown: There is no doubt about that. They are special cases, and if the hon. Member will take note of the next answer he will see that.
  Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed who have been issued allowances in kind by the Unemployment Assistance Board on account of their poor industrial record; what are the circumstances that are taken to establish a poor industrial record; and whether the issue of vouchers is intended as a penalty upon applicants who are alleged to be not genuinely seeking work?
  Mr. Brown: Determinations providing for the issue of allowances partly in kind under Section 40 of the Act are not made solely on account of a poor industrial record; but the applicant's industrial record may be one of the factors taken

  2309
  into account in considering all the circumstances of the case as required by the Section. On 28th January last there were in all 733 determinations current which provided for the payment of weekly allowances wholly or partly in kind. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I may add that on 28th January the live load consisted of 619,686 cases.
  Mr. Griffiths: In his reply the right hon. Gentleman said that the poor industrial record is not taken into consideration. Will he consider certain cases, if I send him particulars, in which the officer admitted that the only reason why relief in kind had been given was because of the poor industrial record of the applicant?
  Mr. Brown: I should be glad to have particulars of any case. The hon. Member will understand that in each case there is the right of appeal.
  Mr. Lawson: Do I understand that over 600,000 have been paid in kind?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. Out of 619,686 cases getting allowances only 733 have had assistance in kind.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what factors other than the applicant's industrial record are taken into consideration?
  Mr. Brown: It would take too long to give the answer in reply to a question, but I will send it to the hon. Member, or circulate it in the Official Report.

  DISTRESSED AREAS.
  Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to introduce the legislation to deal with the distressed areas outside the boundary of the Special Areas before the Easter Recess?
  Mr. E. Brown: I cannot yet say whether this will be possible.

  LIVERPOOL.
  Mr. Loganasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board from Liverpool public assistance committee on 1st April, 1937; the number of these cases in receipt of public assistance that were investigated and rejected by the Board; the number of Liverpool unemployed receiving unemployment assistance on 1st April, 1938,
  2310
  and on 1st October, 1938, or recent convenient dates; and the number of them receiving help from public assistance committees at the same date?
  Mr. E. Brown: With regard to the first and second parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 26th May last of which I will send the hon. Member a copy. As regards the remainder of the question there were in the County Borough of Liverpool on 7th October last, which is the only date for which such figures are available in respect of the local authority area, approximately 32,550 persons in receipt of unemployment allowances and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the average numbers of unemployed persons excluding dependants registering at Employment Exchanges who were in receipt of out relief on account of unemployment during the months of April and October, 1938, were 4,741 and 4,318 respectively.
  Mr. Loganasked the Minister of Labour what recent action he has taken to provide work for the unemployed sailors, firemen, and dock-side workers in the City of Liverpool?
  Mr. Brown: Employment among these workers is governed by the state of the shipping industry and I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the course of the Debate on 16th February last, from which he will see that very close attention is being given to this matter.
  Mr. Logan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are to be taken so that employment is found for these men? Is there any intention of finding them employment?
  Mr. BrownMy right hon. Friend said in his speech that proposals have been put forward by the shipping industry, including the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association.
  Mr. Logan: In view of what we know, I am concerned whether there is any coordination in regard to utilising the services of these men and finding them employment, because there is no shipping work for them?
  Mr. Brown: The employment they would desire themselves is work in their own neighbourhood.

  LAND SETTLEMENT SCHEME, POTTON.
  Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have come from the special areas to work on the land settlement scheme at Potton, Bedfordshire, and, after being there some time, have been dismissed; and whether the dismissed men are paid unemployment benefit?
  Mr. E. Brown: Seven men from the Special Areas have been dismissed from the land settlement scheme at Potton—four of them after completion of training and entry into tenancy agreements with the Land Settlement Association and three of them prior to completion of training. Of the four one is known to be in employment and no applications for unemployment assistance or benefit from the other three can be traced. The three who had not completed training continued to receive unemployment assistance.
  Mr. Batey: Was one of the men not refused unemployment assistance?
  Mr. Brown: He is in employment and would not be entitled to benefit.

  STATISTICS.
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1938?
  Mr. E. Brown: I regret that figures are not available showing the total numbers of persons who received unemployment benefit or allowances during the 12 months ended December, 1938. The average number of persons, aged 16–64, with claims admitted for insurance benefit in Great Britain during that period (as indicated by the figures compiled for one date in each month) was 1,034,695. The corresponding figure in respect of persons with applications authorised for unemployment allowances (exclusive of allowances in supplementation of insurance benefit) was 541,181.
  Mr. Ridley: My question was, what was the total number who had received benefit?
  Mr. Brown: I understood that, and I have gone as near telling the hon. Member as I possibly could. He asks for the
  2312
  number of persons, but he must understand that in regard to applications for benefit a man may have several applications in the course of one year.
  Mr. Silver man: Surely, it is possible to say how many persons have received benefit?
  Mr. Brown: I regret it is not.

  DERBYSHIRE.
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are registered as being available for employment at each of the Employment Exchanges in the county of Derbyshire?
  Mr. E. Brawn: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the Official Report.
  Following is the statement:
  Table showing the total number of unemployed persons aged 14 and over, on the registers of each Employment Exchange in Derbyshire at 13th February, 1939:

  Employment Exchange.

  Number.

  Alfreton

  …

  …

  752

  Ashbourne

  …

  …

  254

  Bakewell

  …

  …

  386

  Bamford

  …

  …

  122

  Belper

  …

  …

  1,149

  Bolsover

  …

  …

  414

  Borrowash

  …

  …

  257

  Buxton

  …

  …

  413

  Chapel-en-le-Frith

  …

  …

  177

  Chesterfield

  …

  …

  3,934

  Clay Cross

  …

  …

  738

  Derby

  …

  …

  4,632

  Dronfield

  …

  …

  392

  Eastwood

  …

  …

  418

  Eckington

  …

  …

  671

  Glossop

  …

  …

  1,650

  Hadfield

  …

  …

  1,057

  Heanor

  …

  …

  743

  Ilkeston

  …

  …

  1,321

  Kimberley

  …

  …

  263

  Long Eaton

  …

  …

  1,511

  Matlock

  …

  …

  565

  New Mills

  …

  …

  603

  Ripley

  …

  …

  699

  Shirebrook

  …

  …

  518

  Staveley

  …

  …

  399

  Swadlincote

  …

  …

  528

  Wirksworth

  …

  …

  240

  BENEFIT (DISQUALIFICATION).
  Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether he can provide reliable statistical evidence to show that young men had been receiving unemployment benefit who had declined to avail themselves of opportunities of employment?
  Mr. E. Brown: I think the right hon. Member is under some misapprehension.

  2313
  A claimant is disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit if he has neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment. The question whether a claimant so disqualified shall receive unemployment assistance is a matter for decision by the officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board in the light of the claimant's circumstances, subject, of course, to the usual rights of appeal. Separate statistics are not maintained showing the number of young men disqualified from benefit on this ground.
  Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that in some cases the unemployed are set to work which they are unable to do, and they are penalised?
  Mr. Brown: No, I think not. The fundamental rule of the Employment Exchange is to find suitable men for suitable jobs.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Are there any specific figures to show that young men are given employment?
  Mr. Brown: I have said so before.
  Mr. Kennedy: Why then has the statement been made by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to young men that he did not propose the indefinite continuance of unconditional assistance?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will read further, and not finish in the middle of the quotation, he will see that it says:
  "for young men who decline to do anything to equip themselves for employment."— [OFFCIAL REPORT,, 2nd March, 1939; col. 1431, Vol. 3–14.]
  Mr. Lawson: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say there were no statistics?
  Mr. Brown: There may be facts if there are no statistics.

  ORKNEYS (TRANSFEREES).
  Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement as to the results of his inquiries into the case of the men from Ashby-de-la-Zouch and district, who were recently engaged for work in the Orkneys through the Employment Exchanges?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have made full inquiries into these cases and as the reply is long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  Work in connection with tunnelling at Lyness (Orkneys) was begun by the contractors early in September, 1938. For the preparatory work, which consisted largely of road work, the firm applied to the Kirkwall Local Office for a number of labourers, and from September to the end of 1938, 27 labourers from Lyness and surrounding districts were engaged. For this road work the wage rate was 1s. per hour to men living in the camp on the contract, and 11d. per hour to local men; a week of 46½ hours was guaranteed. Men living in the camp were required to pay 20s. per week in respect of board and lodging. On 29th November, 1938, the contractors advised the Kirkwall local office that as from that date men living in the camp could pay 3s. per week for accommodation and make their own feeding arrangements. Early in December, 1938, a firm of sub-contractors advertised as follows for skilled and unskilled men in three newspapers circulating in the English Midlands:
  "Wanted for large tunnelling contract— North Scotland—the following classes of labour:
  Chargemen—to act as shift bosses. Only men experienced in rock work will be considered. References required.
  Drillers—used to compressed air drills.
  Muckers—with underground experience preferred.
  Air compressor attendants—with knowledge of Diesel engines. Also men experienced in reinforced concrete, to take charge of lining of tunnels. The duration of this contract is for a period of approximately three years. Standard rates of wages paid. Accommodation will be found for all men."
  On Saturday, 31st December, 1938, a letter was addressed by the sub-contractors to the Nuneaton, Atherstone, Bed-worth and Ashby-de-la-Zouch Employment Exchanges inquiring whether "muckers" (unskilled labourers) were available for work on road making and tunnelling at Lyness, the conditions of employment being:
  Wages—1s. 3d. per hour with progress bonus.
  Hours—48 hour week guaranteed. Overtime at extra rates is most likely.
  Period—The contract will last for three years.
  Accommodation—New wooden camp buildings have been erected, including sleeping quarters, refreshment rooms, recreation rooms, etc.

  2315
  Board and Lodging—inclusive charge—good beds and good food—22s. 6d. per week.
  Transport—All expenses including meals en route to the job will be paid by the company and deducted from wages. Refund in full after 12 months' service; half travelling time will be paid for.
  On Monday, 2nd January, 1939, a representative of the sub-contractors called at the Nuneaton Exchange and explained that no applications had been received as a result of the advertisements from men who were willing to work as muckers and inquired as to the possibility of engaging men through the Exchange. He was asked why the firm wished to engage labour in the Nuneaton area for the work when suitable men might be obtainable nearer the job, and stated that attempts to obtain the labour from the Exchanges in the North of Scotland had been unsuccessful. This information was later confirmed in writing.
  I have ascertained that although workmen of the type required were in fact not then available in the North of Scotland, the Kirkwall Local Office had not been informed of the firm's efforts to obtain men from the Midlands. Had notification of these vacancies been made to the Local Office an endeavour would have been made to meet the requirements from the coalfield areas in Fifeshire, the Lothians, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire. Unfortunately, however, before any such action could be taken the men from the Midlands had already been engaged, and in the circumstances the action of the Kirkwall Local Office was necessarily limited to rendering any possible assistance to the men should they desire it.
  The following men from the Midlands were engaged through the medium of the Employment Exchange service.

  Nuneaton Employment Exchange (1 married)

  13

  Swadlincote Employment Exchange

  6

  Atherstone Employment Office

  4

  Bedworth Employment Office

  3

  Ashby-de-la-Zouch Branch Employment Office (6 married)

  16

  Total (7 married)

  42

  In addition, I understand, 16 men were engaged direct from the Midlands area by the employers. The men selected for interview at three of the local offices were interviewed collectively at the respective local offices by a representative of the firm who told each group that the work
  2316
  was arduous and in an isolated area. This representative emphasised that he wanted only volunteers to undertake the work and he urged any of the men who had any doubts at all about the job to drop out. Each man engaged through the Employment Exchange service was clearly told about, and indeed given written particulars of, the conditions applicable to the employment.
  On 16th January, 1939, a total of 58 men had arrived from the Midlands. The men were put to work road-making oh 17th January and remained at work on that day and the following day. On the evening of 18th January 42 of the men intimated to the contractors that they did not intend to remain any longer on the job. These comprised the 16 men engaged direct by the employers and 26 of those engaged through the exchange service.
  I think it is unfortunate that the firm did not leave the recruitment of labour entirely to the Employment Exchange service, since the information I have obtained suggests that the engagement of men independently was largely responsible for misunderstandings which led the men to give up their jobs.
  The firm did in fact pay the men who remained at the agreed rate of 1s. 3d. per hour and the arrangements for board and accommodation were in accordance with the particulars furnished, and compared favourably with road-making schemes in other parts of Scotland.
  The Unemployment Assistance Board granted immediate assistance to the men in response to their applications for meeting their needs, and later made arrangements for the men to travel home. The Board also took steps to obtain full details about the family circumstances of each of the men with a view to determining what additional allowances could be granted to married men with dependants.
  My Department makes every effort in connection with demands for labour which are notified to the exchanges to obtain suitable labour from areas not too far distant from the place where the work is carried out. I am satisfied that they cannot fairly be blamed for the difficulties that have unfortunately arisen in the present case.
  I may perhaps add that action has now been taken to ascertain the firm's total

  2317
  requirements with a view to securing the necessary labour if possible from the coal mining areas in Scotland. With regard to the men from the Ashby-de-la-Zouch area and district, who returned from the Orkneys, only a few are now registered for employment and every effort is being made to assist them to obtain suitable employment as early as possible.
  Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of the men from Ashby-de-la-Zouch and district who were recently engaged for work in the Orkneys, were granted assistance by the Unemployment Assistance Board to cover the cost of their return journey home, and are now in debt to the Board; and whether they can be relieved of this charge?
  Mr. Brown: There is no question of these men being in debt to the Board in respect of the cost of their return journey, but in accordance with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act if and in so far as assistance has been granted to them by the Board or by a public assistance authority, during a period in respect of which they are ultimately found to be entitled to benefit, the appropriate proportion of that benefit may be paid over to those authorities.
  Mr. Stephenasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received a report on the conditions under which men have been asked to work on the cable-track laying job at Ophir, Orkney; whether the accommodation provided was considered satisfactory by the local medical officer of health; why 22s. 6d. a week for the accommodation and the food provided for these men was considered a reasonable tariff; how many men have been sent to this work from outside Orkney; how many have refused to work under the conditions provided, and have returned home; how many have been refused benefit in consequence of leaving this work; and how many labourers are registered as unemployed in Orkney?
  Mr. Brown: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible. I should point out that the works referred to in this question are, as I am informed, distinct from other works in the Orkneys, with regard to which questions have been put previously.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman, while making an inquiry, see that more men are not brought from Shetland to work in that district?
  Mr. Brown: I have started inquiries, and I will bear that point in mind.

  ALIENS.
  Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps so that in future the nationality of all persons on the employed register is shown?
  Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on this subject on 22nd February.
  Mr. Pilkington: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the taxpayers have a right to know how many alien people they are supporting?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that the step he is asking me to take would involve asking over 12,000,000 insured persons their nationality.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to see that people are not being brought into the country by employers?
  Mr. Brown: That is a separate question entirely. I gave an answer on that. If the hon. Member has any further questions, perhaps he will put them down.
  Mr. Williams: Are not foreigners being admitted into the country?
  Mr. Brown: The issue would depend on whether or not they come in on the application of an employer. If that is the case, they have to get a permit from the Ministry of Labour. If they come in as refugees the matter is one for the Home Office.
  Mr. Graham White: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the suggestion that people receive unemployment benefit who are not entitled to it?
  Mr. Pilkington: In view of the widespread feeling, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

  INSURANCE BILL.
  Mr. Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to intro duce the Unemployment Insurance Bill before Easter?
  Mr. Buchananasked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with unemployment in surance as foreshadowed in the King's Speech?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am introducing this Bill to-day.
  Mr. Buchananasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the position of a female adult dependant of an unemployed householder who may act as housekeeper, but has no children under her care; and whether he proposes to take any action to allow benefit in these cases?
  Mr. Brown: I have given consideration to the question of amending the existing law on this subject and I would ask the hon. Member to await the Bill which I am introducing to-day.

  ASSISTANCE (STATISTICS).
  Mr. Whiteasked the Minister of Labour the average weekly number of payments made by the Unemployment Assistance Board during 1938, and the cost of the administrative services of the Board, together with the cost of services rendered by the Ministry of Labour and other Government Departments for the same period?
  Mr. E. Brown: During the year 1938 the average weekly number of payments of unemployment allowances, including allowances in supplementation of unemployment benefit, was approximately 562,900, and the cost of all the administrative services of the Unemployment Assistance Board amounted to approximately £4,515,000 of which about £2,690,000 was in respect of services rendered by the Ministry of Labour and other Government Departments on behalf of the Board.
  Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman can say what is the average number of persons receiving payment weekly, why is it impossible to say how many people receive payment in 12 months?
  Mr. Brown: Because an average is struck over the whole 12 months with reference to one particular day in each of the 12 months. The other involves the full number of persons in any day or any week, which is a very difficult calculation.

  WIGAN.
  Mr. G. Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases disqualified from unemployment benefits by the court of referees sitting at Wigan that have appealed to the umpire during the last 12 months; and how many of these appeals have been successful?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

  DURHAM COUNTY.
  Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour what industries have been set up in the derelict villages in the county of Durham, the nature of the industries, the number of adults, and the number of young persons employed?
  Mr. E. Brown: In reply to the first and second parts of his question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 13th December, which gave particulars up to that date of the factories established outside the trading estate. Since then a further undertaking has been established at Pallion to manufacture acetylene. I have not the information to answer the third and fourth parts of the question, but I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Batey: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in the bulk of these mining villages in Durham where no industries have been set up?
  Mr. Brown: Continue our efforts with greater intensity.
  Mr. Leslie: Is it not the case that the reply to my previous question showed that the total number employed was only 839 and that most of them were children?
  Mr. Brown: The total number is a list of some dozen individual undertakings. I suggest to the hon. Member that the best way of getting more there is to be grateful to those that come.
  Mr. Batey: Is not this the question, when are the Government going to get a move on?
  Mr. Brown: We are.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that coal mines are being closed down more quickly than new industries are being started?
  Mr. Brown: I would not accept that as a complete statement of the case.
  Sir John Haslam: Would it not be advisable for new industries to be set up in districts where they would be appreciated?

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (WORKERS).
  Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he can estimate how many men were employed on the maintenance, improvement and construction of roads and bridges for the years 1937–38 and 1938–39?
  Mr. E. Brown: The construction and maintenance of roads and bridges are not separately distinguished in the statistics compiled by my Department, and figures giving the information desired are, therefore, not available.
  Mr. Pilkington: Are the Government looking at schemes of this nature, which would absorb some of the unemployed? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these figures should be obtainable?
  Mr. Brown: Last March I gave the House an analysis of the amount spent in this matter, which was a very large sum. If my hon. Friend has not seen that, I should be pleased to obtain it from the Minister of Transport and let him have it.
  Mr. Pilkington: Is it any use knowing the amount of money spent, if we do not know the number of men put into employment by the spending of the money?
  Mr. Brown: The amount spent is some indication of the extent of the work done.
  Mr. Errington: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that all the work on roads shall be done by labour from the local Employment Exchanges?
  Mr. Brown: The arrangement in regard to constructional work is that employers should notify my Department, but I have no power to compel them to do so.
  Mr. Pilkington: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of getting these figures?
  Mr. Leonard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much is expended in new work as against improvements?
  Mr. Brown: I could not state that at the moment, but it does not arise on this question, except incidentally.

  FILM INDUSTRY (EMPLOYES' CONDITIONS).
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, according to particulars supplied to his Department, many persons employed in the cinema industry are still compelled to work 70 hours and over per week at wages of approximately £2 10s. per week with very little rest-time, and who are not subject to any area agreements operating between the employers and/or employers' organisations, he will say what action he now proposes to take to remedy these conditions of employment?
  Mr. E. Brown: In general I am of opinion that the regulation of wages and other conditions of employment can best be dealt with by the ordinary method of negotiation between employers and workpeople. As the hon. Member is aware, good progress has been made by this method in the case of cinema employe's in recent months. Agreements have already been concluded in a number of districts and negotiations are proceeding with a view to all areas being covered. I am assured that the organisations concerned are taking effective action and that further intervention on my part is not called for at the present time. There is an individual letter from the hon. Member the reply to which is almost ready.
  Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is proposed to deal with the independent proprietor who does not belong to any organisation?
  Mr. Brown: Not at the moment. In my view, and that of others, this is the best way of handling the matter with a view to getting a great improvement for the workers concerned.
  Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible for many proprietors to join an organisation?
  Mr. Brown: I do not recognise the impossibility.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make the others toe the line?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows in his own industry that it is better to proceed by negotiation and agreement if possible.
  Mr. Thorne: I have no industry other than being a member of this House.

  INDIGENOUS WORKERS (COLONIES).
  Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour what preparation is being made for the final discussion of the convention on contracts of indigenous workers at the next annual conference of the International Labour Organisation; whether he is consulting the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this important colonial question; and who will represent His Majesty's Government in this discussion?
  Mr. E. Brown: The text of the proposed Draft Convention has not yet been received from the International Labour Office. Following the discussions at the International Labour Conference held last June, the International Labour Office circulated a questionnaire, and the Convention will be drafted in the light of the replies received by the Office to that document. The questionnaire was sent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Colonial Governments and the reply which has been returned by His Majesty's Government was made after considering the replies received from those Governments. When the text of the Draft Convention is available it will be considered by all Departments concerned in order that the attitude to be adopted by the United Kingdom Government Delegation during the discussion of the Convention at the forthcoming International Labour Conference may be determined. The composition of the United Kingdom Delegation has not yet been fixed but, as on previous occasions, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be invited to nominate representatives on it.
  Mr. Hicks: Why has the right hon. Gentleman had no reply from the International Labour Office? Is it due to the fact that they are working with a depleted staff?
  Mr. Brown: I do not think so. This is a very difficult and complicated question.

  MOSSLEY WOOLCOMBING AND SPINNING COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Mossley Woolcombing and Spinning Company, Limited, Lancashire, have recently posted a notice informing their employes that the working week will in future be from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., with one hour's break for meals, which, including a half-day's work on Saturday, will total a 61–hour working week net, and that there is no promise that overtime rates will apply in respect of any of those hours; and whether he will take action in the matter?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am not aware of the position as stated in the question, but I will inquire into the matter.
  Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the facts are as stated in the question—he need not shake his head; I can tell the truth as well as he can— will he inquire also whether there is not a stipulation that when foreign employe's come here they are not supposed to degrade British labour standards?
  Mr. Brown: I was not shaking my head to cast doubt on the truth of the hon. Member's statement but because of the hypothetical character of the question. He began with an "If." I prefer to await the result of inquiries.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.
  Mr. Ammonasked the Minister of Labour what remuneration and allowances are to be paid to special officers appointed to act under Sir Herbert Morgan regionally in stimulating and coordinating the work of the local National Service Committees; what are the ages of the special officers; and what public or other services have they rendered?
  Mr. E. Brown: These special officers who will act under Sir Herbert Morgan have undertaken to give their services temporarily for a period of from six to eight weeks. One of these officers is in general charge and is being paid 150 guineas; the others will receive amounts in no case exceeding 60 guineas with the exception of four who are giving their services free. In all cases travelling and subsistence allowances will be paid on the

  2325
  usual scale. I have no precise information as to their ages; they have been selected on the ground of special experience and qualifications for the work allotted to them.
  Mr. Ammon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this will have a very bad effect on the thousands of people who are giving their services voluntarily throughout the country, and is it not also a fact that some of these officers have come from the universities and have no experience of this work?
  Mr. Brown: I should greatly regret if it the House accepted that statement. These people are chosen because of their very special ability and knowledge, and the House will wish the greatest possible experience and knowledge to be brought to bear on this problem, so that the enrolment may be, as it is being, a great and resounding success. Perhaps the House will be interested to know that the latest figure for applications, up to last Saturday, was 480,000.
  Mr. Ammon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these people can have no experience in this particular work? Moreover, he has not answered my question as to the effect which this has on all those people, humble people and business people, who give their services voluntarily?
  Mr. Brown: Having been in the districts last week-end, I know that the expert assistance rendered by these gentlemen is most highly appreciated by the local committees, which welcome their expert advice.
  Mr. Ammon: How does the right hon. Gentleman think that I got this question unless there was a complaint?
  Mr. Brown: It does not follow that one man complaining represents the whole public.
  Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made for payment to auxiliary nurses coming under the Women's Voluntary Services scheme?
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The scheme for nursing auxiliaries is under the control of the Central Emergency Committee, which I have set up for the nursing profession. It is contemplated that the auxiliaries will be renumerated for
  2326
  whole-time service in war on the same basis as other volunteers and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on the 16th February to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham).
  Major Despencer-Robertsonasked the Minister of Health, with reference to the Government's evacuation scheme for children, whether small householders, who will be receiving children without adults, will be allowed to volunteer for National Service which may call them away from their homes?
  Mr. Elliot: The voluntary offers which are being made to accommodate unaccompanied school children are, in the view of the Government one of the most valuable forms of national service. Where a householder has undertaken this form of national service and in addition desires to undertake some other form of national service which would involve absence from home for longer or shorter periods, arrangements would naturally be made by the householder and by the authorities to bring the various periods of service into co-relation.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that immunisation is now commonly used in the prevention of diphtheria and that in certain areas this form of treatment is not in general use, he has considered the desirability of issuing a circular to local authorities upon this matter?
    Mr. Elliot: A memorandum on the production of artificial immunity against diphtheria was issued to medical officers of health in 1933. This memorandum is at present being revised with a view to its re-issue.

    MILK (PASTEURISATION).
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a Royal Commission under a chairman of judicial experience to investigate the whole question of pasteurisation of milk in the light both of foreign experience and of statistical material now available, and to hear evidence from all sides?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission on this subject would serve a useful purpose.

    FLOUR AND BREAD.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Health whether, with a view to protecting the public, he will introduce legislation to prevent the big combine millers from depreciating the quality of flour and bread?
    Mr. Elliot: The Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which comes into operation on 1st October next, enables regulations to be made for the control of the treatment of flour for sale or for use in the making of bread. The question of issuing regulations when the Act is in operation will be carefully considered.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing weight of public opinion against these big combines, and is he not aware that the Board of Trade will not be able to conceal and protect them indefinitely?
    Mr. Hicks: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he has evidence that the millers are depreciating the value of flour and bread?
    Mr. Elliot: I merely say that this is an Act which will come into operation on 1st October, and that the question of issuing regulations will be considered when the Act is in operation.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "improvers" that are added to flour, such as calcium, and will he eliminate them as being deleterious to the public?
    Mr. Elliot: All these things will be taken into consideration in any regulations that are issued.
    Sir J. Haslam: Is it not a fact that this country has the best bread and flour in the world?

    PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the Minister of Health how many of the nuisances and defects in vessels reported by port medical officers of health in respect of 1937 were remedied at the port of detection?
    Mr. Elliot: According to the information contained in the annual reports so
    2328
    far received of the medical officers of health of the port health and riparian districts in England and Wales for 1937, the defects reported in 9,760 vessels were remedied, but I have no information as to the number in which the defects were remedied at the port of detection.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that when a defect is so reported, if it is not carried out in that port, the information shall be passed on so that supervision can be applied?
    Mr. Elliot: I will consider that.
    Mr. Smithasked the Minister of Health what instructions he has issued under the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, to medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors of port health districts?
    Mr. Elliot: It has not yet been necessary to make regulations under either the Public Health Act, 1936, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, prescribing the duties of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors of port health districts. The duties of these officers are at present prescribed in the Sanitary Officers (Outside London) Regulations, 1935, and the Sanitary Officers Order, 1926, respectively.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that these men have very onerous duties to perform towards the general public? As an instance, a plague ship might come in and the whole thing circulate throughout London owing to lack of supervision. Will the right hon. Gentleman really look into this matter.
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The existing regulations have been found to be sufficient for the powers and duties at present possessed by medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors.
    Mr. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he will give particulars of the nuisances and defects in vessels re ported by port medical officers of health in respect of the year 1937, showing the number of vessels inspected, the number of British and foreign vessels, respectively, and the number of defects of original construction, structural defects through wear and tear, and cases of dirt, vermin and other conditions prejudicial to health?
    Mr. Elliot: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:
    According to the information contained in the annual reports so far received of the medical officers of health of the port health and riparian districts of England and Wales for 1937, and otherwise supplied to me, the following are the particulars desired by the hon. Member

    British Vessels.

    Foreign Vessels.

    Number of vessels inspected during the year

    66,087

    29,865

    Defects of original construction Structural defects through

    2,148

    1,845

    Wear and tear

    5,630

    2,020

    Dirt, vermin, and other conditions prejudicial to health

    10,578

    2,747

    Where a vessel was inspected on more than one occasion during the year it is included a corresponding number of times in the above figures.

    BURNING PIT HEAPS.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Health whether a complete survey of the burning spoil-heaps in the country has yet been made; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take to deal with them?
    Mr. Elliot: The completion of the survey will take about another 15 months and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise. Approximately 75 per cent. of the burning pit heaps have been visited by the alkali inspectors. Repeat visits will, however, be necessary in many cases to see the effect of remedial measures and the need for further measures.
    Mr. Stewart: When the survey is completed, will the right hon. Gentleman send instructions to the persons responsible for those dumps, with a view to the removal or treatment of the dumps?
    Mr. Elliot: Their removal raises a big question, but as to treatment, I do not wait for the survey to be completed. The inspectors are giving instructions for remedial measures while the survey is in progress.
    Mr. Pilkington: Has the limestone dust method been found to be satisfactory?
    Mr. Elliot: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Mathers: Are the remedial measures expensive?
    Mr. Elliot: They differ according to the circumstances.

  HOUSING (RURAL AREAS).
  Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the shortage of accommodation in rural areas for the urban population which will be evacuated in the event of war, he will issue special instructions to county councils and rural district councils to make fuller use of the subsidies available for the building of new houses under the Housing Act, 1938, in preference to relying on subsidies granted under the Slum Clearance Act, which has resulted in the destruction of many cottages which can in no way be described as slums?
  Mr. Elliot: The subsidies available under the Housing Act, 1938, are for the replacement of dwellings which are no longer fit for human habitation, the relief of overcrowding and the provision of houses required for agricultural workers. The extent to which new houses are required for any or all of these purposes must, in the first instance, be decided by the individual local authorities in the light of the circumstances obtaining in their areas. I have had a series of conferences with local authorities for the purpose of urging them to take full advantage of the subsidies available for houses in rural areas.
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health whether he can give particulars, according to the latest estimates he has, as to the number of houses required for rural districts to replace houses at present unfit for human habitation; and what steps are being taken at present to provide more houses for rural workers?
  Mr. Elliot: I estimate that in addition to some 33,000 houses built, building or about to be put in hand by the rural district councils, they will need to provide a further 23,000 houses for the replacement of those which are unfit. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have to-day given to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate).
  Mr. Day: What steps do the Government propose to take to deal with the urgent problem of supplying houses to replace the 23,000 unfit houses?
  Mr. Elliot: I have often stated in the House that large subsidies are offered by the Government for this purpose, and I have had conferences with the local authorities urging them to get on with this work as soon as possible.

  ARMORIAL BEARINGS LICENCE DUTY.
  Sir Joseph Leechasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a communication from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce drawing his attention to the methods by which local authorities collect the armorial bearings licence duty; and what answer he has returned to it?
  Mr. Elliot: The association have been informed that their representations have been noted. Their letter referred to issues similar to those raised in a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 21st December last, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply then given.

  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLIES.
  Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Minister of Health whether arrangements have yet been made in the event of hostilities for the Governmental control of medical supplies and distribution to those areas which will be most vulnerable to attack from the air?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. Reserves of medical supplies for the treatment of air-raid casualties are being purchased in bulk by the Government and will be distributed for storage, mainly at hospitals, in the area of each scheme-making authority.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
  Mr. Burkeasked the Prime Minister whether he can provide Parliamentary time for a discussion of the present situation in the cotton industry?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to present the
  2332
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill next week. The Debate on that Bill will give an opportunity for a discussion of the cotton industry.
  Mr. Burke: As the Bill will necessitate orders being laid on the Table for 28 days, will the Prime Minister provide special facilities for getting the Bill through as early as possible?
  The Prime Minister: We will see when the Bill is introduced.
  Mr. Dodd: Will the wording of the Bill be exactly the same as that circulated to the trade?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (WAGES AND BENEFITS).
  Mr. Flemingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the ruling of the Court of Appeal that a workman, incapacitated through sickness, is entitled to wages and National Health Insurance benefits for the period of incapacity, unless the workman's employer has properly terminated the contract of service; and whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the ruling of the Court of Appeal to which my hon. Friend refers. The advice given by my Department in the past has been that the liability of the employer to pay wages during incapacity depends upon the contract of employment between him and the employé and that there is no provision in the National Health Insurance Act which either entitles the employer of a person who is receiving sickness benefit to make deductions on that account from wages, or which precludes him from making such deductions in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment. The recent ruling does not call for any change in this advice, and I see no reason to take any steps in the matter.
  Mr. Fleming: In view of the widespread practice which is now growing up of employers dismissing employés as soon as they fall ill, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision, and consider the advisability of bringing in an amending Bill or of consulting employers, such as local governing authorities, as to the

  2333
  proper contract to safeguard the interests of employés?
  Mr. Elliot: I should like to know before I do that that it is an increasing practice. I hope it will not become the practice of the employers in this country.
  Mr. Thorne: Is not the Minister aware that almost all the local authorities which pay at least three months full sickness pay are affected by this decision?
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, following a recent judgment in the Court of Appeal, millions of employés are liable to dismissal from their employment on falling ill and staying away from work; and whether he will introduce legislation at an early date to regulate the position?
  Mr. Elliot: I have no reason to believe that employers, in general, will, even having regard to the recent decision to which the hon. Member refers, dismiss empoyés who fall sick. I do not think, as at present advised, that legislation on the matter is called for.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep a sharp watch to see the effect among the workpeople of the ruling of the Appeal Court?
  Mr. Elliot: Yes, certainly, I have already promised that in reply to another question.

  REGISTRARS (SALARIES, ASSESSMENT).
  Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Health the method adopted by the Registrar-General in assessing the proposed salaries of registrars under the schemes to be put into operation in consequence of the 1931 Act?
  Mr. Elliot: As the schemes referred to determine the remuneration of many salaried registrars who give different degrees of part-time service only, the basis adopted in such schemes is, in the first place, to fix the whole-time salary rate applicable to each grade of registrarship, and, secondly, to provide an assessment, subject to review, of the proportion of whole-time service required for the performance of the duties of each registrar-ship. Each scheme is prepared for my approval by the local authority in consultation with the Registrar-General, who
  2334
  advises on the first item with a view to securing reasonably uniform salary scales throughout the country, and on the second item by affording the experience of his Department as to the matters of fact involved.

  CEMENT PRICES.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwoodasked the Minister of Health on what date he proposes to publish the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the prices of building materials with reference to increased cement prices?
  Mr. Elliot: As I stated in my speech last Thursday on the Civil Estimates relating to the office of the Lord Privy Seal, the Inter-Departmental Committee recommended that I should go into the question of cement prices with the manufacturers and this is being done.
  Mr. Greenwood: Having had about three months for this purpose, is not the right hon Gentleman in a position to make a reply, especially in view of the growing concern about the level of cement prices and the record of profits which is being declared by the combine?
  Mr. Elliot: I went into this point at some length in my speech, and I think the action which I am taking is fully justified by the recommendation of the Committee and the practice in previous cases.
  Mr. Greenwood: But is not three months sufficiently long in view of the rising profits which are still being made? May I ask whether the Service Departments are satisfied, whether they have made any complaints, and whether the Inter-Departmental Committee will be invited to consider them?
  Mr. Elliot: I do not think the time taken has been unduly long. It concerns not only the Service Departments, but the trade and industry of the country as a whole.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he has had the report of the Committee, of which I am a member, prices have been increased, and increased against the Service Departments?
  Mr. Elliot: I know I have had a report of the Committee of which the right hon.

  2335
  Gentleman is a member. He has repeatedly informed me in the House of that fact. I am taking the action which he recommended me to take.
  Mr. Alexander: Why does not the Minister publish the report?
  Mr. Elliot: Because the right hon. Gentleman did not recommend me to publish it.
  Mr. Hicks: I am also a member of the Committee and have been for 14 or 15 years, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Committee finds it is unable to get the evidence necessary because of its limited powers of reference, he will be willing to consider altering the terms of reference so that the Committee may have greater power and authority to get the evidence necessary?
  Mr. Elliot: That is a hypothetical question, but if my consultations with the cement industry in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee are unsatisfactory, I shall certainly need to consider what further steps to take.
  Mr. Greenwood: Could the right hon. Gentleman give some approximate date when he is likely to publish the report in view of the fact that the Service Departments are complaining about increased prices?
  Mr. Elliot: I could certainly not give any promise about publishing the report. I have followed the practice which has been taken in previous cases and which has been recommended by the Committee. The publication of the report is not one of those steps.
  Mr. Greenwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this profiteering ramp is wasting public money on a large scale?
  Mr. Elliot: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that. A Committee of several Members of this House has recommended a course of action, and I think the Minister is to be praised for carrying out the course recommended.

  EMERGENCY BILLETING (ISLE OF WIGHT).
  Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider the decision to make the whole
  2336
  of the Isle of Wight a reception area for purposes of evacuation, and consider the advisability of excluding more parts in the vicinity of the shipbuilding and industrial area and parts connected with naval defence?
  Mr. Elliot: As I stated in the course of the Debate on 2nd March, when the survey is complete I shall consider the representations which have been made to me as to the classification of individual districts, and the position of the Isle of Wight will be considered in this connection.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not this case typical of many throughout the country, and will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the whole classification of reception and evacuation areas?
  Mr. Elliot: I will certainly review it when the returns are completed, and more so because we are receiving a number of offers in excess of that which is necessary for us to accommodate the children who are being evacuated.

  POLICE COURT CASES (PUBLICITY).
  Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was on his advice that in a case heard, on 1st February, 1939, in the Brentford Police Court instructions were given to ask that the name of the prosecutor should not be divulged on the grounds of her husband's responsible position; and whether, having regard to abuses likely to arise through differentiation of treatment because of social position, no such advice will be given in future cases?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir. Samuel Hoare): I have made inquiry and am informed that the request that the name of the complainant should not be divulged was made by the complainant herself. There is no ground at all for the suggestion that advice was given by me or on my instructions or by any Government Department.
  Mr. Ammon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this case as a very dangerous precedent, seeing that the names of those who were prosecuted but were not convicted were published while the person who brought the unauthorised charge got away without any publicity?
  Sir S. Hoare: I think that as a general rule there are great advantages in publicity, but there are certain cases, for instance, blackmail cases, in which an exception might be made.
  Mr. Ammon: But is not the right hon. Gentleman evading the point? An accusation is brought against certain persons and they are found not guilty. Those who are found not guilty have their names blazoned forth—and there is bound to be some odium attaching to the proceedings—while the person who brought the false charge gets away without any publicity.
  Sir S. Hoare: I have already said that as a general rule the proper practice is that there should be publicity.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: Then surely the right hon. Gentleman sees that any person can bring a charge in court and hide the fact of his responsibility for bringing that charge, and is the Minister condoning that?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, I have made it clear that I do not condone it.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case mentioned is by no means rare; and that in the Central Criminal Court recently there was a case of a person being charged under an alias; and does he deprecate that sort of thing happening on social grounds?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I have said that I do deprecate it, because as a general rule I think that publicity is the right course.

  WOMEN POLICE.
  Dr. Summerskillasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that only single women are being asked to apply for the vacancies now advertised in the women's police force; and whether he will consider making recommendations with a view to making married, women eligible for appointment?
  Sir S. Hoare: The condition that a candidate for appointment as a policewoman must be unmarried or a widow is prescribed by the Police (Women) Regulations. This is the normal rule in the public services, and I would not feel justified in departing from it in the case of the women police.
  Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities throughout the country are employing married women in their teaching and public health services, and that even this House does not put a bar upon married women, and does he not see, therefore, that his attitude is not in accordance with the modern trend?
  Sir S. Hoare: That opens a very big question for discussion. It is the general practice in the public service, and in this case the existing regulations were made after consultation with the Police Council.
  Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman make recommendations to the appropriate authority in view of the fact that times are changing and that the work that these women would be called upon to do would be chiefly in connection with women and young girls and that marriage could not be a handicap?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am not satisfied that there is any reason to change the present position, but if the hon. Lady will send me any information on the subject I will look into it.
  Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what attributes a woman losses on marriage which make her unfitted for this work?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are a great number of questions on the Paper.

  APPROVED SCHOOLS (MAINTENANCE CHARGES).
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the cost of the maintenance of juvenile offenders at approved schools is imposing a heavy burden on local authorities; and will he consider the possibility of making this expense a national charge?
  Sir S. Hoare: Under the existing law the primary responsibility rests on the local authorities, and by means of Treasury grants the cost is shared equally between the Exchequer and local funds. My hon. Friend's suggestion would involve more than a financial change: it would involve depriving the local authorities of their duties and responsibilities in connection with approved schools, of which about a third are managed by the

  2339
  local authorities themselves. I should deprecate any scheme which involved the loss of the valuable co-operation of the local authorities.
  Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend tell me why there is this difference in regard to the responsibility for adult offenders and juvenile offenders? If the Department accepts financial responsibility for the one, why not for the other?
  Sir S. Hoare: That would be a question for discussion upon the Home Office Vote, but could not be dealt with by question and answer.

  LICENSED TRADE (TIED HOUSE TENANTS).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the losses sustained by tenants of tied houses in the licensed victualling trade, many of whom have invested their life savings, only to find that the conditions imposed by the landlord or supplier are so stringent that they must inevitably be involved in financial loss; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position with regard to the tenancy of tied houses, he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the whole problem?
  Sir S. Hoare: This question is dealt with in Chapter X of the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales), 1929–31 (Cmd. 3988). I do not think any further investigation is necessary at present.
  Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of feeling among tenants and their wives at the fact that they are not allowed to sell food or let rooms, and so on— not undertake such little side lines?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have not any information about that, but I will consider any which the hon. Member cares to send me.
  Viscountess Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even in Brighton the Corporation have protested against the way in which the brewers were bleeding their tied house tenants?

  GAMING MACHINES (JUVENILES).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the strictures on gaming machines as a contributory cause of juvenile delinquency recently made by the chairman of the East London juvenile court; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to suppress them as recommended by the Royal Commission on Lotteries?
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent appeal by the chairman of the East London juvenile court for legislation to deal with pin-table gambling by children and young persons at cafes and fun fairs; and what action he proposes to take?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am in full sympathy with the desire that all possible steps shall be taken to discourage the growth of gambling habits among young people. Under the existing law the keeping of any place for the purpose of gaming is illegal and the Royal Commission recognised that the existing law is fairly effective. The question of amending legislation which shall draw a proper distinction between amusements which are harmless and those which are liable to have mischievous consequence is by no means free from difficulty, and I regret that having regard to the state of Parliamentary business there is no opportunity for legislation during the present Session.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some chief constables take a very strong line on this question, whereas in other parts of the country gaming machines of the same kind are allowed to be used? Will he call the attention of the police authorities to this disparity in treatment?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly look into the information which the hon. Gentleman has just given me.
  Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that magistrates' associations are very much concerned at the fact that, in spite of what the Lotteries Commission recommended, nothing has been done about this question, and that there is a great dissatisfaction among all societies dealing with children?
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Stop racing horses.
  Viscountess Astor: Stop betting on them.

  FILM CENSORSHIP.
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars of the films about which his Department was consulted by the British Board of Film Censors during the last two years; and whether the advice tendered was accepted?
  Sir S. Hoare: It would not be right that persons or organisations asking for advice or information from my Department should be liable to have their communications made public, but I may say that the two cases in which this board has consulted the Home Office in the last two years were in no way connected with a political issue.
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the question of promoting legislation to prevent the political censorship of films now exercised by the British Board of Film Censors in view of its action in refusing permission for, or insisting on cuts in, the March of Time films, Arms and the League, Threat to Gibraltar, Crisis in Algeria, as well as such films as Inside Nazi Germany, Nazi Conquest No. 1—Austria, Croix de Feu, Spanish Earth, and Britain and Peace; and the fact that this censorship has been exercised on political grounds invariably contrary to the views held by His Majesty's Opposition and favourable to the views held by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. As I have stated in reply to previous questions by the hon. Member, I am unable to accept his view that the British Board of Film Censors exercises a political censorship. Moreover, the judgment of the board is not final, and it is open to the local authorities to allow a film which has been rejected by the board in whole or in part.
  Mr. Mander: If I am able to produce evidence tending to show that this political censorship docs, in fact, exist will the Home Secretary be good enough to give consideration to it?
  Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly consider any information which the hon. Member gives me, but whether or not I then have
  2342
  any responsibility in the matter I will judge for myself.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether such political censorship is not indirectly exercised by officials of the Conservative Central Office?
  Mr. Charles Williams: Is it true that censorship is not exercised by the leaders of the Labour party?
  Mr. Day: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not had any topical films referred to his Department in connection with the censorship?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have just said that I am not prepared to give details of the two cases in which I have been consulted.

  POSTERS (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee to conduct an inquiry with a view to securing that equal opportunity shall be given to the freedom of expression of political opinion in posters to the Opposition as well as to supporters of the Government?
  Sir S. Hoare: The law of this country gives equal freedom to the expression of all forms of political opinion, whether by posters or otherwise; and I am not aware of anything into which a committee could inquire.
  Mr. Mander: Has the attention of the Home Secretary been called to the action of the censorship committee of the British Poster Advertising Association, controlling 90 per cent. of the hoardings, in refusing, in effect on political grounds, to permit posters of the Spain emergency committee of the International Peace Campaign to be shown? I have a copy of the poster here.
  Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware officially of those facts, and in any case I have no responsibility.

  BASQUE REFUGEE CHILDREN.
  Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Home Secretary how many Basque children remain in this country and what steps are being taken to repatriate them?
  Sir S. Hoare: About 2,000 of these children have already been repatriated, and the number now remaining in this country is 1,642, of whom another 40 will, I understand, return to their parents in Spain before Easter. The committee are anxious to restore all the children remaining in their care to Spain as speedily as possible and I am in consultation with the committee as to their plans for this purpose.

  MENDICANTS, LONDON.
  Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Home Secretary what control and investigation are exercised in London of the origin and bona fides of the large number of individual and bodies of persons who appeal for public charity on various pretexts such as unemployment, blindness, loss of limbs, or capacity to provide entertainment; and whether he is aware that the growth of this custom is not in consonance with the public taste and national well-being?
  Sir S. Hoare: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to persons who are engaged in selling small articles or in singing or performing upon some instrument in the streets. The Commissioner of Police informs me that he has no evidence that there has been any recent increase in the number of such persons. The soliciting of alms in the streets is an offence, and the police do their best to enforce the law, but in many cases the activities of the persons in question are not such as to enable a charge of begging to be brought. When the circumstances warrant it, proceedings are taken for such offences as obstruction, using insulting words or behaviour, or using noisy instruments for the purpose of obtaining money or alms; and in a number of London boroughs, by-laws have recently been made under which it is an offence for a person to sing or play any musical or noisy instrument within 100 yards of any shop, dwelling house or office to the annoyance or disturbance of any inmate or occupants, after being requested to desist. If in any case there is evidence to support a charge of obtaining money by false pretences, appropriate action would, of course, be taken by the police.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my right hon. Friend not do something to eliminate the unworthy and to save the worthy
  2344
  ones from the indignity of what they have to do now?
  Sir S. Hoare: That has always been my aim in life.
  Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend allow one of his policemen to go round with me in the streets of London when I could show him many men who are not qualified in any way for regular labour?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have no doubt that the police authorities will be very agreeable to considering the Noble Lady's proposal.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance as to whether he will detail a policewoman for this purpose?

  FACTORIES (CHIEF INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Home Secretary whether he will speed up the issue of the 1938 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories so that it may appear at the latest not later than the end of June, 1939?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am anxious that the report should, if practicable, be issued by the date mentioned, and my Department will do its best to secure this.

  DEATH SENTENCES.
  Mr. Jaggerasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the circumstances of the case of Mrs. Margaret Louise McAuley, sentenced to death at Manchester Assizes on 2nd March last for the murder of her three-year-old son and reprieved within 24 hours; and, as no mother condemned to death in similar circumstances has actually been executed in England and Wales for over 90 years and therefore the sentence of death in such cases is a formality calculated to bring the law into contempt, whether he is prepared to amend the law to put an end to this practice?
  Sir S. Hoare: That I am in full sympathy with the hon. Member's object is shown by my action in recommending an immediate reprieve. As regards amendment of the law, the law has been amended in respect of a number of these pitiful cases by the Infanticide Acts. The

  2345
  question whether any further amendment is practicable has been considered by successive Home Secretaries with an anxious desire to find some method of distinguishing these special cases from other capital cases, but examination of the various proposals designed to provide a special method of dealing with these comparatively few cases shows that they would involve such alteration of the general law as would create grave difficulties and disadvantages in dealing with a large number of other cases.

  MEETINGS, EAST LONDON (DISTURBANCES).
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Home Secretary what steps he is taking to quell the organised breaking of meetings irrespective of political party by Fascist gangs in the East End of London?
  Sir S. Hoare: There has been no failure on the part of the police to render assistance if their presence is required for preventing or dealing with breaches of the peace. It is the duty of the stewards at public meetings to deal with interrupters who are not guilty of breaches of the peace, but I am in consultation with the Commissioner on the question whether any further assistance can be rendered to promoters of meetings which are liable to be subjected to this organised form of disorder.
  Mr. Adams: Have not these rowdyisms been so organised recently as to be utterly beyond police control, and is he aware that we do not want a recrudescence of this trouble throughout the country?
  Viscountess Astor: Was this trouble not started by the Communists?

  ALIENS.
  Sir Lindsay Everardasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the growing feeling in this country against the entry of an increased number of aliens, he will give an assurance that none of the Communist or Anarchist leaders from Spain will be allowed to enter and reside in this country?
  Sir S. Hoare: Any applications from persons who may wish to take refuge in this country will have to be considered individually in the light of what is known
  2346
  about the applicant's character, conduct and circumstances. I appreciate the considerations which my hon. Friend has in mind, but he will recognise that a political label is not always in itself a reliable test.
  Sir L. Everard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Monarchy in Spain a good many Anarchist plots were attributed to those who lived in Barcelona, and will he ensure that people of that sort do not come to live in this country?

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. Radfordasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue a table setting out the offences for which flogging or birching, respectively, may be ordered and the courts which may inflict the punishment?
  Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to pages 6, 7 and 8 of the report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment which summarise in a convenient form the offences for which courts may order the infliction of corporal punishment and distinguish between the powers of courts of summary jurisdiction and courts of assize and quarter sessions.
  Mr. Radford: Would it not be a convenience to the House if this information were circulated in the Official Report?
  Sir S. Hoare: I scarcely think it is worth while reproducing what is in many cases a very abbreviated report.

  CRIMINALS (RELEASE).
  Mr. Radfordasked the Home Secretary under what statutory authority he releases reprieved murderers and other criminals, respectively?
  Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 9 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1853, as regards convicts (including persons sentenced to death whose sentences have been commuted to penal servitude) and to Sections 5 and 14 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, as regards persons sentenced to Borstal detention or preventive detention respectively. These statutory provisions relate to the release on licence of the classes of prisoners referred to. In addition, of course, there is the Royal prerogative of mercy which is exercised by His Majesty on the advice of his responsible Ministers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL,
  "to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1938, and to provide for the payment of contributions under the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, in respect of holiday periods," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; supported by Mr. Elliot, The Attorney-General, Captain Wallace, Sir Victor War render, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, and Mr. Lindsay; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be:
Monday—1st Allotted Supply Day; Committee stage of the Civil and
Revenue Departments Vote on Account. Debate on Unemployment.
Tuesday—2nd Allotted Supply Day; Report stage of the Army Estimates, and of the Air Estimates.
Wednesday—Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates, 1939, and Committee stage of Votes A, 1, 10, 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, and 15, and of Navy Supplementary Estimates, 1938. Ways and Means; Committee.
Thursday—3rd Allotted Supply Day; Report stage of the Civil Vote on Account. Debate on Safety in Mines.
Friday—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 109.

Division No. 61.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Albery, Sir Irving

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Fildes, Sir H.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Fleming, E. L.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Foot, D. M.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Colfox, Major W. P.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Colman, N. C. D.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

Beauchamp, Sir B, C.

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

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Granville, E. L.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Grattan-Doyle, Sir H.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Bernays, R. H.

Cross, R. H.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Blair, Sir R.

Crossley, A. C.

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

Bossom, A. C.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Grimston, R. V.

Boulton, W. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Guest, Hon. I. (Breton and Radnor)

Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Hambro, A. V.

Brass, Sir W.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Hannah, I.. C.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

De la Bère, R.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Harvey, Sir G.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Dodd, J. S.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Doland, G. F.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

Donner, P. W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

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

Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Bull, B. B.

Dewer, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Drewe, C.

Higgs, W. F.

Burgin, Rt. Han. E. L.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Duggan, H. J.

Holdsworth, H.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Dunean, J. A. L.

Holmes, J. S.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Dunglass, Lord

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Eastwood, J. F.

Hopkinson, A.

Cary, R. A.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

Ellis, Sir G.

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Channon, H.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Hunter, T.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Errington, E.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Keeling, E. H.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Petherick, M.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Pilkington, R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Kerr, J Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R J.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Porritt, R. W.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Kimball, L.

Procter, Major H. A.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

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

Radford, E. A.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Latham, Sir P.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Rankin, Sir R.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Sutcliffe, H.

Lewis, O.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Lindsay, K. M.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Tate, Mavis C.

Lipson, D. L.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

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

Liewellin, Colonel J. J.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Loftus, P. C.

Remer, J. R.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Touche, G. C.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Train, Sir J.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

MoKie, J. H.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Turton, R. H.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

Russell, Sir Alexander

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

Maitland, Sir Adam

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Warrender, Sir V.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwin)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Mander, G. le M.

Salmon, Sir I.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Salt, E. W.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

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

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Wells, Sir Sydney

Markham, S. K

Samuel, M. R. A.

White, H. Graham

Marsden, Commander A.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

Medlicott, F.

Sandys, E. D.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Scott, Lord William

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Selley, H. R.

Wise, A. R.

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

Shakespeare, G. H.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Moreing, A. C.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourhridge)

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Morns-Jones, Sir Henry

Simmonds, O. E.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Nail, Sir J.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

York, C.

O'Connor, Sir Terenee J.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Patrick, C. M.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Peake, O.

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Perkins, W. R. D.

Smithers, Sir W.

Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Parkinson, J. A.

Adamson, W. M.

Hayday, A.

Pearson, A.

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

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pethick-Lawrance, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Ammon, C. G.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Poole, C. C.

Attles, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Price, M. P.

Banfield, J. W.

Hicks, E. G.

Quibell. D. J. K.

Barnes, A. J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Barr, J.

Jagger, J.

Ridley, G.

Batey, J.

Jenkins, A. (Pentypool)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bellanger, F. J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sanders, W. S.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

John, W.

Silverman, S. S.

Benson, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Simpson, F. B.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon, T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Buchanan, G.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Burke, W. A.

Lathan, G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Charleton, H. C.

Lawson, J. J.

Stephen, C.

Chater, D.

Leach, W.

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lee, F.

Stokes, R. R.

Cocks, F. S.

Leonard, W.

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

Cove, W. G.

Leslie, J. R.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Daggar, G.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dalton, H.

Lunn, W.

Thorne, W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Macdonald, G. (Inse)

Thorne, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

MeEntee, V. La T.

Tinker, J. J.

Day, H.

McGhee, H. G.

Tomlinson, G.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Ede, J. C.

MacNeill Weir, L.

Walkden, A. G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Walker, J.

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

Marshall, F.

Watkins, F. G.

Frankel, D.

Mathers, G.

Westwood, J.

Gallacher, W.

Messer, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gardner, B. W.

Milner, Major J.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro Jones, G. M.

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

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

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Muff, G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Grenfell, D. R.

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Graves.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.
Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Bill): The Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, Mr. Chapman, Miss Lloyd George, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Arthur Reed, Sir R. W. Smith, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Dr. Summerskill, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Viant, Mr. Wedderburn, and Mr. Young.
Report to lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), Mr. Speaker has nominated Captain John Helias Finnie McEwen, a member of the Chairmen's Panel in the room of Sir Charles Malcolm Barclay-Harvey, resigned.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    AIR ESTIMATES, 1939.

      SIR KINGSLEY WOOD'S STATEMENT.
      Order for Committee read.
      3.59 P.m.
      The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      As I indicated to the House in November last, the Air Estimates which I have the honour of presenting this afternoon reach a sum of over £205,000,000, the largest sum in the history of the Department. This heavy expenditure is due mainly to the large number of modern aircraft now coming into the squadrons, the cost of providing additional manufacturing capacity, and the construction of new stations. One sometimes hears the allegation that the Air Ministry is the Cinderella of the Defence Departments, but, at any rate, that statement cannot be made to-day. In 1934 the Air Estimates were about £18,000,000. This year's figure is about twelve times that of our Estimates in any of the years from 1929 to 1934, and roughly doube the aggregate expenditure on the three Defence Services in each of the years 1932 and 1933. The increase this year of some £74,000,000 in a single year, which has come upon a succession of previous increases, is equal to the total of all the Defence Estimates in 1913. The first day of next month will be the twenty-first anniversary of the creation, in the stress of war, of the Royal Air Force as an independent service and of the Air Ministry as a separate Department of State. I think that the figures which I have quoted are a measure not only of our efforts and our rising strength, but also of the country's recognition of the importance of this new arm of the Services and its determination to make adequate provision for air defence.
      The increase in projected expenditure will be found mainly under the headings of technical and warlike stores, works and buildings, and land. Some £93,000,000 is provided for aircraft and balloons, nearly 90 per cent, more than was under that heading last year. Provision is also made
      2380
      for the three new Commands which were created during the year, the Maintenance Command, the Balloon Command, and the Reserve Command which is responsible for the training of all sections of the Volunteer Reserve and for the elementary flying schools. Financial provision will also be found for the increased personnel of the Royal Air Force, including new squadrons overseas and the auxiliary and reserve forces, as well as for the expansion of training establishments and new technical training schools. Large additions are also provided for in relation to the reserves of pilots and aircraftmen. Thirty-five Royal Air Force companies of the Auxiliary Territorial Service for Women are being formed, and the necessary financial provision is included for this important service.
      We have also to consider this afternoon a Supplementary Estimate in respect of expenditure in 1938, and I would like briefly to refer to that Supplementary Estimate now. The main purpose of this Estimate is to provide for additional personnel and for further expenditure in consequence of the acceleration that has been achieved in the expansion of the Royal Air Force. It is proposed to increase the provision under Vote A for the maximum number of personnel to 102,000, in view of the great response that has been made to our recruiting appeals, of which I shall shortly speak. Greater progress has also been made than we anticipated in the deliveries of air frames and engines, in the construction of stations and factories, and in the extension of the balloon barrage scheme, so that an increase is necessary on Votes 3 and 4.
      There is one aspect of expansion to which I particularly want to refer, because many hon Members from time to time have communicated with me about it. That is the setting up of new stations, which of course brings the Royal Air Force into particularly close contact with the country as a whole. I am glad to say that in general the relations between the officers of my Department and the individuals, local authorities or other bodies concerned, are good. During 1938 work was started on some 37 new stations and that about 20 new stations will be required in 1939, and of course in all these cases there arises the necessity for close consultation with various interests. It is the policy of my Department to consult

      2381
      not only the other Government Departments concerned but to lend a sympathetic ear to the representations of those who may be affected by our activities. In that connection I would like to say that the assistance of Professor Abercrombie, whose appointment in an advisory capacity was announced last year, has certainly been of great value in this important work, which I would describe as that of reconciling the needs of defence with those of amenity.
      I would now like to say something about the position so far as recruiting for the Royal Air Force is concerned. Since I spoke in the House and gave various particulars in November last recruiting has continued to proceed well. The response to the appeal I made in June for 31,600 pilots, observers, airmen and boys, for entry during the present financial year, has been excellent, and in fact this figure was passed last week. I remember that one or two questions were put to me on these figures the last time I spoke. Therefore I know that hon. Members will be interested to hear that of those obtained over 1,400 are pilots. The recruitment during the financial year which has ended is by far the largest for any single year since 1918. I think most Members of the House will agree with me when I say that the quality of the recruits is excellent and worthy of the Force itself. If there are any pessimists about to-day, one of the best things they can do is to visit one of the squadrons of the Royal Air Force.
      Our extended programme necessitates a continuing flow of recruits of the same high quality. We shall need some further 20,000 during the coming year. I want to emphasise that we need particularly more air observers and more wireless operators. The additional skill and ability now required of air observers has made it necessary to employ them full time on observer duties. In August last, on account of that, we launched a new scheme of direct recruiting to meet the increased demands for air crews. We have also during the last few months revised the conditions of the short-service commission for pilots, and the upper age limit for entry has been extended from 25 to 28. Candidates are now given the opportunity of serving for six years on the active list and four years in the Reserve, instead of four years on the active list and six years in the
      2382
      Reserve as formerly, and a similar choice is now being offered to officers already in the Service. The longer period of active service will afford an opportunity of promotion to the flight lieutenant and will increase from £300 to £500 the gratuities payable on transfer to the Reserve. I also emphasise this—because it is an important aspect of the matter—that short-term officers will as hitherto receive every assistance from the Royal Air Force Educational Service in preparing themselves for a career in civil life, and on leaving the Service they will be helped to find suitable posts by the Royal Air Force Officers' Employment Association, which has been highly successful in this direction in the past.
      Finally, I would say, as regards this particular question of recruiting, that when I spoke last on this subject I said I hoped that the strength of the Royal Air Force in June would be 100,000 officers-and men. I am glad to say that this number has already been practically achieved. I would only add this, in passing from this subject, that I think the House would like me to refer to and to commend the achievement of the Royal Air Force units in November last in the world distance record. It was carried out primarily as a service long-distance exercise, but it is more than a record, and it will be regarded as a further stride forward in the development of long-range flying in the interests of British defence. If anyone asked me to sum up very shortly the secret of the success of that endeavour, I would say that it was largely achieved by the team spirit which permeates the whole of the Royal Air Force to-day.
      I would like to say something now about the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. There is increased provision this year for the reserve and auxiliary forces. Last year additional air and ground sections for both officers and airmen were formed to correspond with every branch and trade in the Regular forces. Thirty-three Reserve centres have been formed in urban areas, and we hope to organise over 20 more in the coming year. The men who have joined the Reserve are trained in their leisure hours, but a special scheme has recently been introduced for pilots and aircrews, so that when they have attained a certain degree of experience they can undertake continuous training up to six months in Royal Air Force

      2383
      stations, and in an emergency these men will be able to take their places in service squadrons without further intensive training. Of course the success of this scheme depends largely upon the cooperation of employers, and I would like to say that a fine example has already been set by banks and other institutions in permitting their employés to take part in the scheme.
      Generally, recruitment in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve is proceeding satisfactorily and applications are being obtained in large numbers. Again, I would like to give this figure. Over 2,500 members of the Volunteer Reserve are now being trained as pilots. We have also decided recently to extend the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve flying training organisation overseas, and we hope it will be possible to form sections of the Volunteer Reserve, for example, in Malaya, Hong Kong and East Africa. In certain cases it will be possible to make use of the training facilities available for Air Force units, and in other cases civil flying training schools will be used. This scheme, I hope, will furnish opportunities to many young men who are resident overseas to undertake flying training, and to qualify as members of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. On the Reserve side an important development has been the introduction of a new scheme of entry into Class E of the Reserve for pensioners and ex-airmen who have served in the Regular force. From July, when the scheme was launched, until November, 2,300 men had been enlisted in this Reserve, and since November this number has more than doubled.
      Now I come to the Auxiliary Air Force. We are, as so many hon. Members know, because they are directly interested in that force, also adding to the number of officers and men in that force. The establishment of the flying squadrons has been increased, and their numbers expanded to include a substantial number of airmen as well as officer pilots. As a result of this increase, we shall need some 2,000 officers and airmen during the coming year. The number of the squadrons has been steadily increased since expansion began, and, with the squadron which has just been formed, there are now 20 auxiliary flying units. The Auxiliary Air Force now includes the balloon barrage squadron, and affiliated
      2384
      to the flying and balloon squadrons will be the Royal Air Force companies of the Auxiliary Territorial Service for Women, while, in addition to that, a reserve for the auxiliary squadrons has also been formed.
      I would like also to refer to balloon defences. As the House knows, the first 10 units formed in the balloon barrage scheme were those in the London area. Recruitment started in the summer, and the squadrons are now practically up to establishment, and the barrage in London is now operable should the occasion demand it. So far as the other parts of Great Britain are concerned the balloon defences are now being actively organised and recruiting is proceeding well at most centres. The necessary buildings are being secured. It will be possible to make a start with the operation of a number of these barrages during the summer, and, I hope, to operate all barrages by the end of the year. A Balloon Command has been formed for the administration and training of the balloon squadrons, but for operational purposes the barrage will remain under the control of the Air Officer Commanding in Chief, Fighter Command, who is responsible for air defence as a whole.
      Although I have spoken of what has been achieved during the past year, I would like to stress this note, not only in connection with this but with other matters to which I shall refer: that although much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. In all, we shall need some 75,000 men for the Royal Air Force and its reserves and auxiliaries during the coming year. As I have said, recruitment has generally been excellent, and I do not doubt that we shall be able to obtain the necessary officers and men in the time available.
      There are two movements very much akin to those about which I have been speaking. I would like to refer to the successful institution of the Air Defence Cadet Corps, which is a movement administered and organised by the Air League of the British Empire. Their progress has been most encouraging, and 84 squadrons of cadets have already been formed. I am glad, in this connection, to refer to an arrangement which has recently been made under which an additional grant will be made available to the British Gliding Association for distribution to the gliding clubs, which will

      2385
      undertake to give gliding instruction to air defence cadets. Cadets will be accommodated in summer camps, and it is hoped that a fortnight's intensive training will enable them to qualify for their glider certificate. Details are now being worked out between the Gliding Association, the Air League of the British Empire and the Air Ministry, and I hope the scheme will be in operation during the coming year.
      The Civil Air Guard is also helping us, by providing a reserve which, in time of emergency, will be able to serve in the Royal Air Force or to give help in other ways connected with aviation. The Guard to-day possesses some 1,400 members in possession of "A" licences and 3,800 who are undergoing flying training. It has recently been decided to organise the Guard for service in case of emergency by classifying holders of "A" licences into three groups, according to their qualifications for different types of service. The first two comprise those who can serve as pilots, instructors, air-observers, wireless operators and air gunners, and the third comprises men and women who may be suitable for employment as ferry pilots, as ambulance pilots and for general communication duties. Certain selected volunteers in the first two groups will receive more advanced training than the rest, and members who are unlikely to qualify for any of these classes will be encouraged to undertake other forms of National Service. One of the advantages of this scheme is that it utilises the facilities provided by the flying clubs throughout the country for the training of pilots and air crews, thus lightening the task of the flying schools and providing a valuable addition to our training resources.
      Training is, of course, most vital, and the aircraft which are now in use call for pilots who have had longer training and require a higher standard of airmanship than was required for the simple types of some years ago. At the same time, the number of pilots needed is many times what it was prior to expansion. I am glad to say that we are obtaining the greater number of pilots required with the longer period of training, and that the individual standard of airmanship is higher than it ever was before. There have been substantial developments of training facilities of all kinds during the year, and three additional flying schools will be
      2386
      opened within the next few months. There is another special step which is being taken. Special training schools will be formed, where pilots and air crews from the flying training schools will be given operational training on the service types which they will fly later in the squadrons, and members of the Volunteer Reserve will also attend these schools and so obtain experience on service types. Flying training for the Volunteer Reserve —and this gives some example of what is being achieved—is already being carried on at 32 centres, and it will be in progress at over 50 in the coming year. A question was put to me, when I spoke last, about navigational training. Special attention has been paid to that, and a course in navigation now forms part of the training of all Service flying schools. Undoubtedly, the development of larger bombers, with longer range, necessitates the provision of air observers and air gunners with a higher standard of efficiency, and, therefore, the length of the first course of training for air observers has been increased from three months to about five months.
      I propose to say a word now about the accidents that unfortunately occur, and in which young and valuable lives are from time to time unhappily lost. With the growth of the Force and the development of fast and powerful machines, it is impossible to eliminate accidents, and the officers and men of the Royal Air Force would be the last to desire that measures should be laid down to forbid the taking of risks. The increase in the number of accidents during the last year is due to the increase in the number of hours flown by the Force as a whole. There was no increase in the number of accidents in relation to hours flown as compared with the previous year. But I know that the House would expect that I and the Parliamentary Undersecretary should pay special attention to the reports of investigations and of courts of inquiry into accidents. In the first place, each of these reports is studied by the technical and training departments and the causes are analysed. To supplement the investigations conducted by the inspector of accidents and the service courts of inquiry, I have recently asked the Inspector-General of the Royal Air Force, in conjunction with a committee representing the departments of the Air Ministry concerned and the Central

      2387
      Flying School, to review the whole accident position from the broadest point of view. We are, in fact, constantly engaged in endeavouring to find out whether there are any causes leading to accidents which are preventable and whether there are any further administrative or technical precautions which can be adopted to effect a reduction in their number. In the second place, the House will be glad to be informed that I have just taken steps to appoint a committee to investigate and to advise me on the medical aspect of all matters concerned with personnel which might affect safety and efficiency in flying and I am very glad to have secured the services of Sir Edward Mellanby to be chairman of this committee which will be composed of a number of eminent scientists and medical men with two representatives of the Royal Air Force Medical Service.
      I would now say a word about the progress which has been made, and what has still to be achieved in relation to the expansion programme. I hope I am not putting it too high when I say that during the year we have made considerable progress in implementing our expansion programme and in re-equipping our squadrons with the latest type of aircraft. The number of first-line aircraft at home will have been raised to the figure of 1,750 by 1st April the date on which this programme was to have been completed. As regards the programme announced in May last for a Metropolitan Air Force of approximately 2,370 aircraft by the end of the coming financial year, good progress has been made in developing the necessary production capacity and in recruiting personnel, and I think I can say that there is every prospect of the programme being completed within the time promised. Four more squadrons have been established overseas during the year, making a total establishment of 30 squadrons, and certain additional squadrons will be formed in accordance with the programme already announced for increasing our overseas strength to approximately 500 first line aircraft. Further, as a result of the review to which I referred last November, of the requirements for the protection of our oversea territories and trade, the formation of certain additional squadrons has now been approved. As regards our new aircraft it can I think be said with confidence that
      2388
      they are as formidable as any in the world and that in the types now being issued to the bomber and fighter forces, we possess what we believe are the best in the world.
      I would add this, because there is, I think, some misconception arising from certain observations which I made in November. I wish to emphasise that we have built up and are building up what I would call a balanced Air Force. I do not desire that there should be any misconception as to our strategic policy. We have not abandoned our traditional reliance on the value of the counter-offensive as an essential element in air strategy. A powerful striking force is not only a strong deterrent to attack. It is a vital component in any sound system of air defence. It is, perhaps, the case that there has been in the past a tendency to overstate the argument that "the bomber will always get through" and to lay undue stress on the claim that the counter-offensive is the only effective means of defence in the air. Developments in recent years have, in fact, reduced the supremacy of the offensive and added to the strength of the defensive in the air but that does not mean that we can rely for our defence on our fighter aircraft and our ground defences alone. The number of fighters we require is in fact conditioned by two main factors—the size and the shape of the area we have to defend, and the scale of attack against which we might have to defend it. Neither of these factors is fixed. Even the area to be defended increases in size with the increase in range of aircraft. That is why we are increasing our fighter strength, but we are very far from underrating the importance of our capacity to strike back and that was why I said in November that we were to strengthen our counter-offensive forces, by the provision of increased reserves of aircraft and trained crews. I would conclude on this part of my subject by saying that for an offensive to be successful, it must start from a secure base. Security of bases is one of the vital principles of war and it would be just as foolish to concentrate on offensive and neglect defence, as it would be to do the reverse.
      I will deal next with the Fleet Air Arm. I think the House will wish me to give

      2389
      some account of the progress made towards the transfer of administrative control of the Fleet Air Arm from the Air Ministry to the Admiralty in implementation of the decision announced by the Prime Minister at the end of July, 1937. I am glad to say that very considerable progress has been made and that I hope it will be possible to transfer control from the Air Ministry to the Admiralty early in the coming financial year. It has, of course, been clear from the start that a considerable time would be needed to effect the complete transfer of the Fleet Air Arm, if loss of efficiency was to be avoided during the transition period. The practical difficulties were very great. It involved not only the building up of a new administrative organisation in the Admiralty, but also the provision and training of personnel to man the Fleet Air Arm in replacement of the Royal Air Force personnel who formed the whole of the maintenance and administrative personnel of the Fleet Air Arm in 1937. The provision of personnel has, indeed, been fundamental to the problem. Even now, a number of Royal Air Force personnel will have to be loaned to the Admiralty for maintenance duties until the naval personnel become available. I am satisfied that there is the fullest co-operation between the two services and I think the House may rest assured that my Noble Friend the First Lord and I will continue to work in unison to ensure that the requirements of the two services are equitably met and that in the interests of national economy there shall be no duplication of effort or resources in the promotion of a maximum efficiency for both services.
      I wish now to say a word upon a matter in which I am myself very much interested, and to which I referred in November. I, personally, attach great importance to our research and development work, and I am glad to say that important progress has been made in many directions in connection with that work. The Estimates will be found to include an increased provision, totalling some £5,000,000, on this account. I would instance one or two examples of the progress which has been made because I feel that few services are more important to the Royal Air Force than this in which there are so many possibilities. Research into materials has resulted in the use of substances combining valuable
      2390
      mechanical properties with relatively low weights. Again, extensive tests with wings of various dimensions promise to eliminate the tendency of monoplanes to drop one wing when flying at reduced speed, while development of the use of landing flaps should enable high-speed aircraft to land within much smaller areas than hitherto. Great progress has been made in the development of aero engines and the air-cooled sleeve-valve radial engine, of which this country is the pioneer, has now been established in full production. Again, a fully efficient system of communication, particularly between ground and air and from one aircraft to another, is of vital importance and a special directorate under the Director-General of Research and Development, has been established to deal with the scientific and technical problems involved, and considerable advances can also be recorded in that very important field.
      We owe much—much more than can be publicly stated—to the assistance which the Air Ministry has received from the unremitting labours of a number of scientists in many fields. Research is being carried on unceasingly at the universities and elsewhere by men of science who are content to work without reward or publicity. No fewer than 44 Fellows of the Royal Society are members of committees appointed by the Air Ministry or in which the Air Ministry is closely interested. Many of them are members of more than one of these committees. We are particularly indebted to the eminent scientists who serve on our various committees and I should like to acknowledge publicly how much the Government and the Air Ministry in particular owe to Sir Henry Tizard. I spoke in November of the considerable steps that we had taken in relation to our organisation and machinery for production. Since that time we have continued to build up and perfect our organisation, and at present more than half of our directors and assistant directors in the department of production including the Director-General are business men who have been brought in from outside. A number of new directorates have been formed and in addition to the directors of aeroplane production, engine production and armaments and equipment production, there are now directors of materials production, of statistics and

      2391
      planning, of sub-contracting and of war planning.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in November expressed his interest, as he always does, in the question of materials, and I think he would like to hear a word from me on that matter this afternoon. We have given considerable attention to the development of sources of supply, and the Director of Material and Production works in close collaboration with the aircraft producers as regards firms' requirements, and with the suppliers in regulating production and distribution, so as to ensure that each aircraft firm gets its fair share. I would also like to say, because the question was put, that I cannot find that there has been any occasion on which the Air Ministry has been unable to meet its requirements through any difficulty with other Government Departments. We have also during the year considerably increased our productive capacity by expanding existing sources of supply and obtaining new ones. The 11 factories established under what is called the shadow scheme are now in production, as is the new Government factory which was approved only in June last for the production of aero engine car-burretors under the management of the Standard Motor Company. Many of these extensions in existing factories approved this year have been completed, and they are coming into production.
      I would like to refer to the arrangements which have now been made for a new and very important development in the organisation of aircraft production for the Royal Air Force. This group scheme, as I might call it, has the double object of reducing the number of designs in service and facilitating economical and rapid quantity production. It is an extension of the present practice under which aircraft of the same type are manufactured by more than one firm. Under the new scheme, three or four firms will be formed into a group, and orders will be placed for the manufacture of one type of aircraft to be distributed between the firms in that group. The organisation of the aircraft industry on this basis will, I think, facilitate large-scale planning and ordering, and it will have the advantage of lessening the volume of technical work through all stages of design, development and inspection, and of simplifying training, maintenance, store-holding and equipment
      2392
      throughout the Service. It will also—and this is important—reduce the dislocation that might result in war time if for any reason one of the manufacturing units was unable to continue in production. The scheme is being brought into operation with the full co-operation of the firms concerned, and it will not embrace only the firms in the aircraft industry, but the Government factories and the new factories which are being created by such firms as Metropolitan-Vickers.
      I am also glad to report to the House this afternoon that our labour forces are continuing to increase month by month, and, excluding altogether the large number of persons who are to-day employed on sub-contracts, our labour forces have increased by some 40 per cent, during the last six months. We have steadily pursued the policy, which I indicated to the House a short time ago, of taking the work to places where labour is available and of encouraging sub-contracting. We have recently endeavoured—and some of my colleagues here this afternoon are associated with this endeavour—to encourage firms in Scotland to take on subcontracting work by arrangement. This has been done both at Edinburgh and Glasgow, and we hope that as a result of these efforts we shall further widen the field of production in Scotland.
      There is another matter which has often been discussed in this House in connection with this Vote. While maintaining safety as a paramount consideration, we have endeavoured to reduce the number of modifications made in aircraft during production. In addition to the appointment as overseers at contractors works of serving Royal Air Force officers who can take decisions on many matters without reference to the Air Ministry, we have recently instituted at each contractor's works a local modifications committee, presided over by the overseers and comprising Air Ministry representatives and representatives of the firm, with a view to further simplification, and to the early decisions which are so essential. We have also taken further steps, while again maintaining safety—I emphasise tnat—as a paramount consideration, to simplify the work of inspection. Jigging and tooling of types in our present programme have also been launched on a considerable scale as well as for our future requirements, and in all these matters considerable assistance has continued to be rendered by the

      2393
      Supply Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The panel of industrial advisers I appointed in June last has also continued to give the Department much expert assistance and valuable advice.
      The production of aircraft is proceeding at a rapidly increasing pace. It is not in the national interest to give our figures, but the vast sums that we have spent and have notified our intention of spending this year give tangible evidence of the efforts we are making. We are, in fact, now spending a quarter of a million pounds every day on the production of aircraft alone, and the figure will rise still further. It should also be remembered that in considering these figures a number of important organisations have not yet begun to produce or are not yet in full production. In November last I gave certain estimates to the House, and said that the output of aircraft in May of this year should show an increase of 150 per cent, over the output in May of last year. I am very glad to say that that estimate has proved to be on the conservative side, and that we have achieved that 150 per cent increase already. It was also said that by May of next year the output would show a 400 per cent, increase over May, 1938, and I am very hopeful that this fourfold increase will in fact be achieved by the end of the present year. I wish to make it clear that I have not taken the output of May last because it enables me to draw a particularly favourable comparison. Indeed if I had taken the first two months of 1938 and of 1939, I could have drawn a far more favourable comparison. On the basis of these two months, I could have said that production had gone up by something over 300 per cent.
      I do not pretend—and I hope that no one in this House will misconceive what I am saying—that there is not much to be done. We have still a great task to accomplish, but—and I am sure that every hon. Member wherever he sits will rejoice in the fact—we can register a great increase in our intrinsic strength, and the House can be assured that that progress will become cumulatively more rapid. In all these matters, I would like again to say what a debt I believe the country owes to Lord Swinton for his patient and valuable work. It can be
      2394
      said that our plans have been, and are being, broad-based so that we can materially expand our productive capacity if war should ever come. This not only applies to home production. Next year I anticipate that the delivery of aeroplanes manufactured in Canada will commence. The engines will be British made, and all the accessory equipment is being obtained from Empire sources of supply. Here we have the beginnings of a great development and what may well prove to be an invaluable supplement to our production. As the House knows, a mission has also gone to Australia and New Zealand at the request of the Governments of those two countries, and we hope that the results will be to enable arrangements to be made for our mutual benefit in relation to aircraft supply. The contracts which we placed in June of last year with America are now being duly executed. A number of aircraft have already reached this country, dates of delivery have been expedited, and we anticipate that all aircraft orders will be delivered by the end of the year. In view of the increased speed of deliveries the contract for Harvard aeroplanes was recently increased from 200 to 400, and that of the Hudson aeroplanes from 200 to 250, and all are to be delivered by the end of the year. I am assured, from the experience we have already obtained at our flying training schools, that the Harvard type is a very suitable type for advanced training.
      When I spoke a short time ago in the course of the proceedings on the Defence Loans Bill on the subject of profits in relation to aircraft production, I stated that the matter had been for some time under my close examination, and that, as more experience and data were now available, I had given instructions for a special investigation to be made in the Department to see whether any revision of the present system was desirable to meet changing circumstances. I told the House that if any revision were recommended, I would lose no time in discussing the matter with representatives of the aircraft industry. A few days ago I was informed of the result of this investigation. As the Committee will be aware, the contractual relations between my Department and the aircraft firms are governed by what is known as the McLintock agreement, which was negotiated in the spring of 1936 though not finally ratified until last

      2395
      year. The Departmental investigation showed, what I anticipated would be the case, that, while the agreement might have been well adapted to the conditions obtaining at the time it was negotiated, some modification of its terms is now desirable, having regard not only to the greatly increased turnover on the Air Ministry contracts, but to other changes in circumstances which have taken place since the agreement was framed. These changes are the enormous increase in orders and the consequential expansion of straight-run production, the extension of sub-contracting and the extent to which it has been necessary at public expense to provide capital assets in the shape of new factories and works extensions and in other ways for the financing of the programme.
      Thus advised, I at once got in touch with representatives of the industry, who showed every readiness to meet me and to arrive at reasonable conclusions. They have taken what I consider to be a prudent and helpful step in inviting Sir William McLintock, who advised them when the present agreement was negotiated, to undertake an immediate review of the operation of the agreement in the light of all the circumstances now obtaining. The problem is one of great intricacy and difficulty. The circumstances of individual firms differ widely as regards amount and structure of capital, the real value of fixed assets, volume of turnover, experience, and so on. Most of them are in straight-run production, but a few are only now coming into production. I feel confident that in the light of such advice as Sir William McLintock may give them, they will be willing to accept a modification of the present agreement so as to ensure that due weight is given in the future to the new factors to which I have referred.
      There is another side which I must touch on, a side to which I am very glad to turn—civil aviation—where we are properly utilising in the service of humanity all that science has recently provided for us in the air. I thought it was a very good sign when a few days ago in London representatives of 45 foreign Governments, including delegates from the Dominions, met together to approve—and all agreed—a convention designed to make uniform the duties on fuel used for flying—a very good example,
      2396
      indeed. We are embarking on a larger plan of civil air routes and a greater State expenditure. It is essential that we should do this if we are to secure an adequate share in the development of the vital communications upon which the Empire largely depends, and it is because of this that me Estimates include this year, notwithstanding our military needs, a sum of £4,700,000 for civil aviation—nearly three times the sum taken in 1933. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal more to be done so far as civil aviation is concerned. There have been advances which it is well to register. For instance, until six years ago aircraft employed on regular air transport services throughout the world flew 100,000,000 miles on a network of routes totalling 200,000 miles. In the current year it is calculated that the distance flown by aircraft will be nearer 250,000,000 miles. Six years ago aircraft operated by United Kingdom aircraft companies on regular air services flew 2,500,000 miles and carried 79,000 passengers. In the current year the mileage to be flown by such aircraft will be nearer 11,000,000 miles and the number of passengers will probably exceed 250,000.
      Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman now giving world figures, and if so, will he draw an illuminating comparison by giving the British Empire figures alongside them?
      Sir K. Wood: Perhaps I will later in the Debate. Six years ago, also, 170 tons of air mail were carried in a year by British commercial aviation. Last year over 2,000 tons were carried in this way, and nearly 600 tons of letter mail were carried on the internal air services, nearly 750 tons on European sendees, nearly 850 tons on Empire services, and a small tonnage on other extra-European services. The British Empire continues to rank foremost as regards the length of route operated by regular air services, and at the end of 1938 the route mileage for the Empire as a whole was about 88,000 miles. The importance of civil aviation to the British Empire needs no emphasis. It has already, despite our recent preoccupation with the rearmament programme, continued to take an increasingly important position in Commonwealth economy. Nothing can stop it taking ultimately the place which its merits deserve and the difficulties of the present transitional period will pass away,

      2397
      I believe, with improved organisation and improved development.
      The Memorandum on Air Estimates of 1939 draws attention to many items of progress both in regard to internal and external civil aviation and to several plans for the future which have yet to be developed. It is only a year ago since the Cadman Committee and its report focussed our attention on the subject of civil aviation and made several constructive suggestions, which have been receiving the close attention of my Department. It is in no spirit of complacency that I draw attention to one or two achievements in particular, and to one or two projects in the future. Civil aviation is in a transitional stage and suffers to some extent from having been forced to take second place to the more urgent activities on the military side, but I think the completion of the third stage of the Empire air mail scheme, which now makes it possible to carry all first-class mail on the Empire air routes without surcharge, is worthy of note. The Empire air mail scheme, with its imperfections, which we are doing our best to overcome, with its special Christmas difficulties and its present troubles in regard to equipment, is an achievement which cannot be paralleled by any other country in the world, but one which the structure of the British Commonwealth makes a necessary item in modern life, and one which it is only too easy to accept without reflecting upon the constructive imagination and the vision and labour which lie behind it. The scheme, however, like several other services in civil aviation, suffers from lack of modern equipment. In my opinion the problem most in need of attention and quick solution is the development and production of British civil air liners which, in merit, reliability and performance, can compete with the best that is now being produced in other countries. That is certainly not the position to-day and that is why American aircraft have to be purchased by the operating companies. The same thing at present applies to civil engines and I intend, if I have the opportunity, to endeavour to help to rectify the position.
      In my judgment, civil development cannot be left as an ancillary to military development. Both in air frames and in engines the problems and needs are different. Nor can civil development be
      2398
      left to aircraft constructors alone, nor to operating companies alone, still less to the Government alone. In my opinion the first need is to define the objective and then to arrange for a degree of coordination and co-operation, which has not hitherto been possible. The objective, as I see it, is the production of British civil air liners of outstanding merit and performance which can be used by the operating companies and, what is even more important, can be sold in the markets of the world. It would be a great satisfaction to any of us, and to myself, to assist in the production of a British machine which was sought after on its sheer merits in the markets of the world, and which on those merits gave rise to demands for its successor. I am considering what can be done to further this, particularly having regard to the proposed merger between the Imperial Airways and British Airways Companies. The negotiations and arrangements are being carried on as far as the merger is concerned, and I hope it will soon be possible to introduce the necessary Bill.
      I thank the House for listening to me for so long. I can, at any rate, claim that these Estimates are unprecedented. They are, of course, necessitated very largely by the increase in our defensive strength to meet the risk of air attack. I think we all deplore the need for the expenditure of these vast sums, and we look forward to the time when reasonable and saner counsels may prevail throughout the world. But, in the circumstances that exist to-day, it is inevitable that we should take these necessary steps for our own security for the discharge of our responsibilities elsewhere, and to help to secure, if we can, the peace of the world. This is a matter which the country has a right to demand and to have. It is for all these reasons that we are making these great efforts and spending these vast sums of money on air defence, as well as in the belief that it is one of the best means of preventing war.
      Mr. Dalton: Before the Question is put, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will you give your Ruling regarding the scope of the Debate, and subsequently on Report? You ruled on the Army Estimates that on Report we might have a wide and general discussion, and I should be glad if you would give a similar Ruling in regard to the Air Estimates.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): If it meets with the assent of the House the same course may be adopted in regard to these Air Estimates as the House agreed to adopt yesterday in regard to the Army Estimates, that is that on Report, on Vote A, there will be that elasticity as to the subjects of discussion which has previously usually been allowed in the discussions in Committee. But that is on the understanding that there be no discussion on the Committee stage.
      5.17 p.m.
      Mr. Dalton: The right hon. Gentleman has made a long speech, but not very long in relation to the large sum of money he is asking us to vote. He is asking for a lot of money, and I conceive it to be our duty to consider whether the scheme of expenditure which he is asking us to approve will give us value for money. Most of my observations will be directed to that one primary question. Are we getting value in terms of the number of aeroplanes that are being produced and in terms of the quality and the equipment of those aeroplanes, and, a very important matter, although he did not say much about it, are the prices that we are paying for these various objects which he has ordered, reasonable, or are we paying a great deal more than we should? In regard to organisation also, in its various aspects, we may ask whether the present organisation is efficient. That has a bearing on the question whether or not we are getting value for the expenditure which we are asked to authorise. Many of us have had, and still have, grave doubts on these questions.
      The right hon Gentleman has been in his present office 10 months, and it is becoming less and less possible for him to pass any responsibility back on to his predecessors, and more and more he has to carry it himself. He came into office in May of last year when there was a very tense international situation, and when there was very grave concern in all parts of this House and in the country about the inefficient condition in which Lord Londonderry and Lord Swinton had left the British Air Force. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about his immediate predecessor, it is well known that that predecessor had to disappear because there was a widespread
      2400
      feeling throughout the country that he had not been making a good job of his position at the Air Ministry. He went, and the right hon. Gentleman was moved from the pleasant fields of Health to this rather different estate. That was in May of last year. Four months elapsed, and then we had the crisis in September, and there was again very grave concern felt by large numbers of persons in this House and in the country as to the show that our Air Force could have put up if in September war had come. Six months more have swept by; we are now in March, and one of the questions that the House will desire to probe is, how far since September, when admittedly many things were not as they should have been, those six months have been used by the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants in order to give us, at long last, an Air Force in all respects capable of performing the duties that may be imposed upon it.
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and I have seen the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State on a number of occasions, as is fairly well known, during the time he has been in office, and have put before him a great mass of detailed and disturbing evidence of inefficiency, of defects of various kinds, and of delays in programmes. In regard to some of these matters I should not wish to speak publicly in detail, because I can well believe that, although much is known to the Intelligent Services of foreign Powers, not perhaps all is known to them. I must, however, without going into any such detail, point out that of the many statements that we have made to the right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary during the period that we have been in touch with them from time to time, that although some have been disputed, many have been admitted. The utmost that we can hope in regard to those deficiencies which have been admitted is that steps have been taken, to some extent, to correct them in recent months.
      I should like to speak for a few minutes on the rate of production of aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman took as the starting point his own entry into office in May, 1938, and gave us the percentage of increase in the production of aircraft.

      2401
      It would, indeed, be a most shocking state of affairs if a very high percentage of increase could not be shown on that basis of comparison, because in May, 1938, in the Debate in this House, it was stated, and not denied, that the shadow factories had produced absolutely nothing. Not a single plane had been flown in May, 1938, that had been produced in a shadow factory. It would, therefore, be a shocking state of affairs if there had not been a very high percentage of increase in terms of production now, compared with then. We are now given to understand that there are some aeroplanes coming from the shadow factories, and it is high time, too. I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us absolute figures regarding the production now coming through, but I am going to ask him this question. In spite of what may be said about the increase in the rates of production, is there any evidence whatever for believing that the gap between the effective first-line air strength of this country and the first-line strength of that most powerful air force within striking distance of our shores—we all know where it is—is being narrowed?
      When I was speaking on this subject in May I said that it was only ignorant optimists who held that time was on our side, even assuming great improvements in production here. In fact, I argued time was against us. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is more of a miracle-worker than we are inclined to believe, in view of the enormous additional productive resources which have been created by the German Reich, by one means or another, as compared with May last—and the events in Czecho-Slovakia since then have still further strengthened this view although we may be increasing rapidly in an absolute sense, we are still falling further and further behind the German air force in terms of first-line strength. If that is true, it should be admitted. The Germans will know it. Why, then, should we deceive ourselves? If it is true, it should be admitted, and there should be no optimistic dust thrown in the eyes of the people of this country.
      Mr. Simmonds: The hon. Member is dealing with a very important matter. Does he claim that that is still the case, or is he merely asking for information?
      Mr. Dalton: I am asking for information, but I am going to add that I shall
      2402
      be very much surprised if the straight answer to my question is not that the gap is still widening.
      Mr. Simmonds: Arising out of that reply, is it not abundantly clear that the hon. Member will not get a straight answer, because it is not in the national interest to give it, and is it not, therefore, a great pity to cast these doubts on what is being achieved?
      Mr. Dalton: The right hon. Gentleman must be the judge of what is in the national interest to tell to the House. I have no doubt that he will tell us the maximum that he thinks he should give us.
      Sir K. Wood: A question was put to the Prime Minister the other day on this point, and he said, after consultation with me, that he did not regard it as in the national interest to give that information.
      Mr. Dalton: The Government must carry their responsibility for reticence. I will merely say that in the light of such evidence as one can muster, and general considerations as regarding the comparative productive power of this country and Germany, particularly of Germany aggrandised by her recent performances, I am inclined to believe that that gap has not narrowed. I wish I could believe otherwise. We must, however, leave that particular issue where the right hon. Gentleman has left it for the moment. But if these matters may not be discussed in the House, then, indeed, we have reached a curious position. It is surely quite proper for hon. Members in any part of the House to put questions to the Government and it is the responsibility of the Government to decide how much they can reveal. I am sure we can all agree upon that.
      As regards the types of aircraft as distinct from numbers, the right hon. Gentleman said that the types now being issued to the Air Force of both bombers and fighters, in this country were the best in the world. We were glad to hear that, because there has been a great deal of controversy, both in technical and other circles, in the past as to whether we were producing, either in bombers or fighters, the most suitable types, having regard to the duties they would be required to perform. In particular, last September there was ground for believing that a very considerable number of our bombers

      2403
      were not at all suited for the work that they would have had to do, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's statement which I have quoted does mean that we have coming into production on a large scale types of bombers which are much more effective than those which were the predominant arm of the Royal Air Force last September, and that they would be able to reach such targets as it would be right to allot to them.
      So far as fighters are concerned, we have for a long time discussed in this House the Spitfire and Hurricane, with special reference to the delay in getting large-scale production and delivery of these types. Allocation of blame has been a matter of dispute as between the manufacturers and the Air Ministry, but that there were delays is not in dispute. We are glad that they are now coming into production in very much greater quantities, but there is still this point of doubt in some of our minds. Is the Air Ministry completely satisfied now that the Spitfire and the Hurricane are the most suitable types for the purposes for which fighters are required? There is a good deal of controversy about it, and I think that the Air Ministry, Farn-borough and the industry itself have not always been agreed upon this point. Therefore, I think something should be said to assure the House, if that is their opinion, now, that the Spitfire and Hurricane are as satisfactory as they can be made for the purposes that they would be required to serve. I will not go into the technical details, because it is verging upon the line of what might be regarded as not being in the public interest.
      Now with regard to equipment of aeroplanes. I do not think it can be denied that in May the very detailed charges which a number of speakers, including myself, made regarding the very grievous shortage of blind-flying equipment, de-icing equipment, guns, turrets, sights, sextants, and other equipment were justified. No one from the Government Bench denied, nor I think can it be denied, that those charges were still substantially true in September. Can an assurance be given now that in the intervening six months these very grave deficiencies have been overcome? That is a point on which the House is entitled to some reassurance.
      2404
      I turn now for a moment to the prices which are being charged for these things. I was interested to notice the evident pricking of a guilty conscience revealed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. The McLintock agreement is now recognised to give something more than a square deal to the manufacturers, and something less than a square deal to the taxpayer. I was sorry that we could not have a little more detail given to us to-day as to how the McLintock agreement is going to be modified for the benefit of the taxpayer. At the present moment the thing is undoubtedly a ramp so far as the taxpayer is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman will claim—indeed he has claimed—that by sub-contracting arrangements he has done a great deal to spread the work of production over different firms in different parts of the country. In other words, he has recognised the force of arguments put forward from this side of the House and elsewhere against the ring. I do not know whether he would so choose to describe it, but he could, perhaps, boast that he has broken the ring as the result of representations made by us. But the ring is still a fairly profitable thing to have belonged to once. One of my hon. Friends says that it is a gold ring.
      Let us for a moment consider one or two of the figures which I have here. These are figures of what is left by way of profit reckoned after the deduction of Income Tax and National Defence Contribution. Last year Hawker Siddeley earnings on ordinary capital were 47 per cent, and they paid 42 per cent. Bristol paid 25 per cent.; Rolls Royce, 22½ per cent.; Handley Page, 30 per cent.; Fairey, 15 per cent.; De Havilland, 12½per cent.; Short Bros., 42½ per cent. Taking a rough average they all earned double that, so that Short Bros, earned 82 per cent, on their capital, and paid in dividend 42½ per cent., and it is to be noted that all this is after deduction of Income Tax and National Defence Contribution, and after the distribution of very substantial capital bonuses during the period since air rearmament has been proceeding. I cannot imagine that anyone can be found to stand up and defend these profits as tolerable and legitimate from the point of view of the taxpayer, or from the point of view of ordinary decency in a time of national necessity.

      2405
      It is to be observed that none of the costing arrangements which are spoken about give us any real assurance in this matter, because all they can do is to take note of and check up the actual payments made, but what assurance have we that these payments are themselves reasonable, particularly when sub-contracting is developed and subsidiaries of these firms may be doing some of the work? I think that all who have given any thought to this matter are greatly dissatisfied at this evidence of profiteering in the last two or three years. It is a very tardy act of readjustment that the McLintock agreement should now be under review.
      My own view is that we are spending a very great deal too much in these Estimates from the point of view of purchasing the actual quantity of aircraft which is being turned out. We are being grossly overcharged and gigantic fortunes are being made, which will, perhaps, be revealed when the owners die. But why we should be making millionaires nearly as fast as we are making aeroplanes I cannot think. There is a related matter to this—the question of the so-called Government factories. In the White Paper, on page 6, there is a reference to Government factories, but what that means, I understand, is not Government factories in the proper sense at all, nothing like our military arsenals, or our naval dockyards, but merely certain factories of which the Government own the shell, and which are run and managed by private firms already engaged in armament production. It is a misuse of words to call them Government factories, because they are not Government factories. I would remind the House that the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Arms which reported in 1936—and I wish to use polite language about it—was composed of a number of elderly and moderately-minded persons, yet even they went so far as to recommend that all branches of the Defence Services should have, at any rate, some element of genuine State manufacture in order that the costs of production in private firms might be checked by a comparable figure in a Government establishment in the full and proper sense of the term in which there was no question of any variable dividend or rate of profit.
      That has been deliberately put on one side and shelved by the Air Ministry and by successive Secretarys of State for Air,
      2406
      and I think we should know why, in view of this enormous increase in productive capacity, they have not set up one or two State factories in the proper sense of the term on an exactly comparable basis to the naval dockyards and the military arsenals and small arms factories, so as to carry out that very reasonable recommendation of the Royal Commission. There would also have been some advantage in that in so far as it would have been possible to locate these Government factories in places where they would be relatively safe and invulnerable, and where there was a large quantity of available labour. The War Office have put a factory down at Bridgend. South Wales is obviously indicated as a relatively invulnerable part of the country, and it would have been better if one or two State factories had been put down in South Wales or West Cumberland, or even in South-West Durham, rather than placing them in a circle round Birmingham, Coventry, Castle Bromwich, and so on.
      The right hon. Gentleman said something by way of self-justification about the Fleet Air Arm. I think he will soon have Lord Chatfield after him, if he goes on obstructing and delaying the transfer which was decided on by the Cabinet some time ago. It is not at all clear that the Admiralty are satisfied, but that is purely a squabble between Government Departments, with which we need not concern ourselves. There is another matter to which I want to refer which has been referred to in these Debates before, and that is the camouflage of aerodromes. The comment made in previous Debates has been that our aerodromes are exceedingly visible, that the buildings are stark, that the hangars are higher than they need be, and that large tracts of green grass are easily visible to enemy aircraft, It has been argued that last September visibility was very marked indeed, and that camouflage arrangements had been gravely neglected by the Air Ministry. That is one of the points that were emphasised by my right hon. Friends and myself when we saw the Secretary of State. The other day, the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to invite me to look at some of the aerodromes from the air. I appreciated his invitation and I went; but he will not, I am sure, think it unkind, or unappreciative of me if I say that I was not in the least reassured

      2407
      by what I saw. I believe that the Undersecretary of State was not very reassured either.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The camouflage was so good I could not find the hangars.
      Mr. Dalton: I want to put on record the fact that that very pleasant trip for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman, has not shaken my opinion that there is a very great deal yet to be done with regard to this camouflage problem, and that much more ingenuity and sustained experiment will be required before the problem has been solved. With regard to the question of the Maintenance Command —another matter on which there was criticism previously—it is stated in the White Paper that the Maintenance Command has now been brought into existence, and is responsible for the administration of all storage units and depots at home. My information is that that statement is something of an exaggeration; for I am told that although it exists on paper, it is not yet effectively functioning. If that be so, it is another example of the very grave delay that has taken place in making what seems to many people, looking at the matter from the outside, a commonsense provision which ought to have been undertaken a long time ago. I would like to have a little more assurance than is given in the White Paper, in a jejune sentence or two, that the Maintenance Command is really functioning effectively now and is available to units for maintenance and repair purposes.
      That leads me to the question of the whole organisation of the Royal Air Force in regard to maintenance and works services, chain of command, staff control, and so on, in connection with which it is notorious that there have been great differences of opinion within the Royal Air Force, and on which I understand a committee of investigation is now sitting. I hope we may be given some assurance that these problems will be worked out and settled in a way which will meet the views of the officers commanding the bomber and fighter formations. There is a feeling that the existing scheme is a fancy scheme drawn up by one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers at the Air Ministry, who have been some time out of touch with active operations, and
      2408
      are not entirely up to date, very naturally, in their views on these problems; who look at them from the angle of sitting at a table in an office rather than actually flying a machine or carrying out such duties as those of the commander-in-chief of the bomber command. I hope we shall be assured that the views of the officers outside the Air Ministry, who would have to take command and take quick decisions in time of war, will be given at least as much weight as the views of those people who have been for a long while secluded away at desks inside the Air Ministry. It is notorious that there are great differences of opinion on the subject, and I would guess that the younger officers, who are still in active command outside, are more likely to be right than the people who will have easier access to the right hon. Gentleman, the members of the Air Council, and others within the Air Ministry. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more on this subject.
      I was very much interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the various new formations—the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, the Civil Air Guard, and so on; but I want him to answer a question on this matter so that we shall not have a wrong picture of what is being done. He told us about the six months' period of training for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, and he gave us other particulars about the different classes and groups into which entrants are to be divided; but I want to know what is the proportion of the people who are entering these formations who will really be able, on the basis of the training they are to get, to fly at the front or in this country in actual military operations in the air, in the event of war. Will the proportion be one-quarter or one-third, or what will it be? Clearly, the value of this training and these formations must depend upon the relative number of these people who will be available for those purposes.
      With regard to recruitment generally, I was not in the least surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is getting great quantities of excellent material. Nobody is surprised about that, except those pessimistic conscriptionists such as are to be found on the benches opposite. When an appeal is made, and when conditions have been improved, as they have

      2409
      been in some respects, no one is surprised that the response is excellent, except those pessimistic Conservatives who want to regiment this free people into totalitarian bondage. But one of my hon. Friends has asked me, since the Minister made his speech, to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to many sections of people, very properly; but he did not pay quite as warm a tribute as he might have done to those skilled workmen who are engaged in making these machines in the workshops. Perhaps the omission was unintended. Certainly, we have heard a great deal in the past about shortages of skilled labour, and there have been the skilled labour pessimists, just as there are the pessimistic conscriptionists. It has been alleged, quite falsely, that the trade unions were restricting output and making difficulties about people being trained, and so on. To-day, the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of denying that. All that talk is nonsense. To-day, the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of paying a tribute—and I am sure he will—to the skill and patriotism of those skilled workers in the workshops, without whom none of this programme could have been carried out at all.
      Reference has again been made to the shortage of wireless operators. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman cannot get wireless operators. That is a matter to which I referred 10 months ago, when there was a grave shortage, as apparently there still is now. Is the shortage due to the wages that are offered and the conditions? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation of the shortage? I should have thought that skilled men of this sort could have been recruited easily if the conditions and wages were reasonable, and if proper enterprise were shown in recruiting by the Air Ministry.
      I want now to say a few words on the balloon barrage, a subject in which my hon. Friends took an interest long before the Air Ministry did. As long ago as 1936, my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) urged the creation of a balloon barrage, but the suggestion was brushed aside with contempt. Then, a small concession was made to the cranks, as they were then supposed to be, and the small sum of £4,000 was allotted for this purpose in
      2410
      the Estimates. My right hon. Friend hammered away and begged the Air Ministry to get a move on with regard to the balloon barrage three years ago. The Air Ministry has been very slow in this matter. If there is any value in the balloon barrage, then it is a serious thing that the greater part of the country is still without any protection from it. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was now completed in London. He said that in other parts of the country in which it is proposed that there should be balloon-barrage protection, the protection will not be properly completed until the end of this year. That is very slow; for a lot may happen before the end of this year. In the Midlands, where the right hon. Gentleman has been adding target to target in a most terrible fashion, in the Birmingham and Coventry extensions; in the North, in Sheffield and other cities; on the Tyneside, and in certain parts of Scotland, it is a very serious thing that the balloon barrage is still not available for those centres. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give information which might be of use to persons who are interested in knowing whether they would run into a balloon barrage or not, but we have been told a certain amount as. far as London is concerned, and I ask, for the reassurance of the massed industrial populations in the areas to which I have referred, whether something more definite cannot be said as to when these areas will have, at any rate, partial protection, as far as the balloon barrage can furnish it. The right hon. Gentleman said that greater progress has been made than he expected. If that be so, then his-expectations must have been pretty low, for the whole work has been very leisurely indeed.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the production of aeroplanes in Canada. I should like to say a few words about production of aircraft outside this country, both in the Dominions and elsewhere. He said that next year production would begin in Canada. Does he mean it will begin in the next calendar year or the next financial year? If it is not to begin until 1940, that is a very wretched state of affairs. I hope he means the next financial year. If there is to be no production in Canada until 1940, that is a grave reflection on the people who have been handling these negotiations. As to Australia, I gather that the Permanent

      2411
      Under-Secretary of the Air Ministry is there; and the fact that the Permanent Under Secretary, who has important duties to perform at the Air Ministry, has had to go to Australia rather suggests that contact with Australia had hitherto been rather neglected. When I was in Australia about a year ago, they were still hoping against hope that Lord Swinton would keep the promises he had made to them. He had promised to send them considerable quantities of aircraft of various types, and the Australians were still hoping against hope that those machines would be sent. As the machines have not been sent, they have been driven, and very properly so, to production in Australia itself. It would have been very much better if some years ago Australia had been definitely encouraged to produce machines herself, instead of being given promises that were never carried out.
      In Australia, not less than in Canada, there are very great possibilities of industrial production. It is only the very simple kind of Imperialists who think that the Dominions are places where they grow great quantities of food to send away. In Australia, there are great industrial possibilities, and I hope that they will be very rapidly developed. It would be very much better to have a substantial production of aircraft there than for Australia to rely on getting aircraft produced in other countries a great distance away. So far as the United States is concerned, I gather that we are getting training machines only and we have the right hon. Gentleman's word for it that they are good. We have sometimes heard adverse things said about some of the planes that have come from the United States, but I take it that proper vigilance is exercised to see that what we are getting now is of use to us.
      There is only one other general consideration that I would put to the House. The scale of expansion and the speed of technical development are unprecedented in the Air Force. There has never been in peace time, or even in war time, so rapid a scale of expansion and of large-scale operation. Equally, I suppose, the speed of technical development is quickening up. I do not want to make attacks on people who cannot answer for themselves, but I want to say that the
      2412
      speeding-up that is going on makes it more than ever necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should be advised, and predominantly advised, by people whose knowledge is relatively up-to-date. It would be most disastrous if at the Air Ministry there were a group of people having the right hon. Gentleman's ear and holding key positions, a group of people who had been there for a number of years, and who, by reason of their being there, have not got the up-to-date knowledge that is required by air officers with active commands outside and by people in the industry. It is clearly necessary for the efficiency of the Air Ministry at this time that in carrying out this job of unprecedented scope and difficulty they should be continually bringing into the highest positions within the Ministry men possessed of both drive and up-to-date practical knowledge of these problems. The confidence that will be reposed in the Air Ministry's technical advisers will largely depend on the extent to which these advisers are continually being moved on, so that the Ministry can continually have coming in new people who have a first-hand knowledge of these problems and have handled them in a practical way—have fired the guns and flown the planes—rather than people who, however distinguished their past career may have been, have been out of practice in these matters for a considerable term of years.
      I want to press that with special emphasis upon the right hon. Gentleman. We are particularly anxious to be assured that new blood is flowing into these key positions. It is not unreasonable to say that, in so far as there have been grave difficulties and disappointments in achieving the programme and carrying out this complicated and difficult scheme of expansion, they may be partly due to the fact that the people who have been in the key positions have been trying to handle problems much too big and new for them. I will not make any personal allusions, but I think I have made the point I wanted to make sufficiently clear. I am not alone in making it, for it is widely felt in the country by people who are anxious as to whether these great sums of money for which we are being asked are being expended in such a way that they are really adding both to the defensive powers of this country and to those deterrent effects which it may be

      2413
      a legitimate part of our diplomacy to produce.
      I will not ask any further questions, but I want to give notice that in Committee I will move a reduction of 100 men on Vote A because, as the questions which I have asked show, my hon. Friends are not satisfied that the Air Ministry have reached that degree of efficiency which we think it is essential should be reached if this country is to be effectively protected, and if we are to get value for the enormous sums we are spending. I forget how many men the right hon. Gentleman is asking for, but we shall move to reduce it by 100, and it will be clearly understood by those who understand Parliamentary procedure and do not desire to make untruthful misrepresentations outside, what significance should be attached to that Vote.
      6.6 p.m.
      Sir Hugh Seely: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) need not have made any apology for the length of his speech, for we are dealing with large issues, and the real desire of everyone in the country is to know what is happening in this Service. There is now a very different feeling in the House from the feeling when we were discussing these Estimates a year ago, and I would like to congratulate the Minister and the Under-Secretary on the enormous amount of industry which they have put into their work, and on the spirit which I am certain they have got in the Ministry and the manufacturing side which has produced such definite results. I do not throw all the blame on Lord Swinton. The blame was largely due to the policy of the Government which started rearmament so late. The reason we blame the Ministry is that when it became apparent at the beginning of last year that the time had arrived when these dangers with which we were faced had to be met, there was only complacency and no drive or energy to catch up. There was, therefore, a dangerous lag. That was our complaint against Lord Swinton and the Ministry. The present Minister has done an immense amount to overcome that lag.
      This is an enormous Estimate, and a lot of it will have to be of a recurring kind owing to new machines and new inventions coming along; and we shall have to look forward to a future which will mean big expenditure to the country. The Minister says that we have now got
      2414
      to the 1,750 front-line strength. We have achieved that through his energies. There is nothing enormous in that figure. It is the number we were told we were to reach when this enormous drive had taken place. The fact that we have just reached it shows how far we were behind. I do not know why it is considered wrong to ask for comparable figures of other countries. It is one of the most pertinent which can be asked in this matter. An answer was given to us once, and we have a right to know how we stand. No one who knows the German figures can deny that, even at the strength we have reached to-day, Germany is twice as strong as we are. That does not mean necessarily that we are in an equivalent amount of danger, because Germany, owing to the formation of her air force, has had to divide it up into air fleets which are composed of bombers and fighters. She has different frontiers which have to be guarded, and if she has double our strength it does not mean that our strength is so much less than hers, because with us air attack is bound to come from one direction only.
      Therefore, I am not so alarmed at that figure, but I do not like the sort of idea that is growing up that Germany has now shot her bolt in the air. I do not believe it is right. I believe the German Air Force is still an immense menace, and we must not think we have dealt with it merely because we have reached a certain point in our defences. The Minister referred to his speech on the Address on 10th November when he laid enormous stress on the idea of what our fighter strength was going to be, and said it was to be between 5,000 and 6,000. I know that that was corrected in that Debate by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and that it has been contradicted to-day, but it alarmed people who had studied this question. Therefore, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear to other countries that we do not pin our defence merely on fighter policy, because it would be dangerous if that got abroad. There is a good deal of propaganda in the Press giving descriptions of new fighters—the Spitfires and the Hurricanes. Descriptions have been given of their armament, their machine-guns, and their speed, and how they will give complete security, because they will be able to attack and bring down any bombers that may come.

      2415
      I would like to ask the Minister to be very careful in considering this fighter policy because it is one that must change. These Spitfires and Hurricanes are not, as it is thought, new machines. They were considered as far back as 1933 and 1934, and a good many things have happened since then. I am not going to say that everything that is done in Germany and Italy is right and that all that we do is wrong, but there is an omen which must be remembered. Both these countries have been on active service during the last two years when we have not been. Therefore, their views are worthy of the greatest consideration. There are many things which we think are all right in peace time which, in the test of war, do not turn out as we would like. We know what happened at the beginning of the last War in regard to shrapnel and high explosives, which did not work out as it was thought in peace time they would. I would ask the Minister to consider the policy that is being developed of the single-seater fighter with eight small Browning guns and to consider whether the two-seater fighter which has a far heavier cannon will not have to be the policy for the future.
      I know that Lord Nuffineld is to produce 1,000 of these Spitfires by the end of next year. They may, for all we know, be up to date, but no one will blame the Minister if he has to scrap anything which is out of date. The blame will arise if, when the time comes, we are found to be out of date because of a policy which has meant that the Ministry has closed its eyes to developments. I have talked to both German and Italian pilots who have fought in the war in Spain and know some of their views. If you are following a heavily-armed bomber in a single-seater and have merely machine-guns for the attack, it is much the same as firing upon a retreating elephant with a 22 rifle, because you are not going to do very much harm. It is necessary to have a heavier gun in a machine which can be manoeuvred to make an attack on the bomber not merely from one position, namely, exactly behind, where the armour is, but from the sides as well. There has been a description in the papers of the Defiant machine which is built by Boulton and Paul and has a gun, but that is only one machine. We are building Hurricanes and Spitfires, and I hope that the
      2416
      Minister will not think that it will be wasting money if he has to scrap what has been done in order that he may be able to move with the times.
      I was glad to hear what the Minister said about accidents, and to learn that a committee has been set up. The subject of accidents, on which I asked a question yesterday, is a serious one, and one which, unless it is properly understood, may affect recruiting and the morale of the Air Force. The figures given show that 218 were killed and 166 injured last year, and they seem rather large figures, but if we taken into account the hours flown and also make comparisons with the accidents in other countries they are not figures of which we need be either frightened or ashamed. It is not easy to get the figures from Germany, but I have had some supplied to me from a certain source, and they were in the neighbourhood of 700 last year. That is a large figure in itself, and is also higher proportionately than our figure. The figure for Italy is greater than ours, and America has had to contend with immense difficulties in regard to accidents. I hope that the committee which is going into this question will not think it has merely to remain a Departmental Committee. When the force grows bigger and the number of accidents naturally become higher, they ought to put out comparable figures from other countries, so that our people can see that there is nothing to be alarmed at in our figures of air casualties.
      There are one or two points concerning training which I should like to raise. Among the questions which the Minister will have to take up is that of pilots flying in other than war machines. The faster our machines are the less often pilots can use them, except during an actual attack or during exercises, but the skill and confidence of pilots depend upon the amount of time they can spend in the air, and if they can seldom fly these very fast machines they will not gain the confidence and skill which come only from experience. I hope the Minister will be able to look into that matter. Further, I hope that he will not let this great Service become a sort of "hush-hush" Service, in which things must not be said and things must not get out. I know there is much information that must not get out, but in flying immense improvements are coming forward every day, and it has to be remembered that those who

      2417
      fly the machines are not senior officers but junior officers, and it is from them that information which may lead to improvements will come. It is not easy for junior officers in any Service to complain, but as regards these new machines and the training which takes place in them there ought to be a feeling that there can be openness.
      I am not going to blame the Minister for a lot of small happenings, and we shall have plenty of opportunity for going into them at some other time, but while he has made great strides on the production side, having done immense work there, there is another side of the Service to be considered, and I think the time has come for a searching inquiry into the running of the Air Force. There are big questions involved, questions of authority, responsibility, bureaucracy and personnel. All things are not satisfactory at the moment, and in many cases conditions are absolutely chaotic. It is from the Minister, of course, that the Service will have to get a lead in this matter. I will give one small illustration of what I have in mind, but it will be appreciated by anyone who has been an officer in a Territorial battalion. During the last 18 months I have had no fewer than seven adjutants and assistant-adjutants in my squadron. One cannot run an ordinary Yeomanry regiment or a Territorial regiment under those conditions, because they add immensely to one's difficulties. I am not complaining or saying that I have been picked out for this treatment, because I know that it has happened in other squadrons, but it does show that the system is not right. Many difficulties have arisen out of the expansion which has had to be undertaken, and yet officers have been moved on from one position to another in which they cannot be of the same use. What is required is a re-organisation of the whole system, which has been built up on the basis of a non-expanding Air Force, to suit the needs of an expanding one; but the lead must come from the Minister; it cannot come from the Service itself, because any criticism from inside can be so easily misunderstood.
      Many points were brought up during the Debates last year and many of them have been settled, but we should like to know more about the arrangements at aerodromes, recreation for officers, and that sort of thing. We were given
      2418
      promises the year before last and last year, but they have not been carried out, perhaps owing to the pressure of other work, and unless those matters are dealt with they will affect the training of the squadrons. There is only one big question of policy on which I should like to raise a point. In connection with the Army we heard about the Staff talks which have been taking place with France, and that applies to the Navy too. Can we take it that similar talks are going on between the two Air Ministries? If we are in a war as allies of France our liability is going to be unlimited, and if we have made arrangements beforehand it will make all the difference, especially in the case of a hard and sudden attack from the air, as to whether we can rapidly bring into action the whole of our strength. I am not going to deal with civil aviation which, I agree with the Minister, is the nicer side of aviation to contemplate. It is sad to think that in the development of this new science so much thought and endeavour should be devoted to its use in war, and I hope that the very fact that it has brought the element of fear closer to the peoples of all countries may produce this good result—that a strong Air Force will be regarded as such a deterrent that we may get peace.
      6.27 p.m.
      Mr. Simmonds: I feel that it is many years since the Opposition, both branches of it, have felt able to commend the activities of the Air Ministry in the way which their two spokesmen did this afternoon. It is true that they were critical in parts, but that is their proper function. We have only to think of the Debate last year to realise that we have passed from the most difficult period in the history of the Air Ministry to one in which there is a very great understanding of the problems of air defence. Probably the most outstanding observation made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air was that these Estimates show a ten-fold increase over those of a few years ago. I think the House might also have in mind two of our number whom we ought particularly to congratulate now that the air has taken its proper place among the defence Forces of the Crown. I am thinking particularly of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) who for many years has urged upon the House

      2419
      the necessity for a proper balance between the Air, the Navy and the Army. We are all delighted that he is here to see the fruits of his efforts, and we shall look forward to hearing him later in the Debate. There is another we all wish were still here, and that is the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth, the late Captain Guest. Year in and year out he strove with all his force and all his assiduity to bring home to the House and the country how we were letting the sands of time run out in the matter of air armament.
      I have always looked upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as one of the best publicists and showmen the Government have had, but I am not sure that in presenting these Estimates he has brought home to the country exactly what it is that has been achieved. I take an example from page 5 of the Memorandum. It says that during 1939 the strength of the Royal Air Force is expected to rise to 118,000. That is true as regards Vote A, but there is the Vote for the Royal Air Force Reserve and the Volunteer Reserve, 77,000 men, and the Auxiliary Air Force and the Auxiliary Air Force Reserve, 27,000 men, bringing the total up to 222,000 of all ranks. With the civil training schools and the university air squadrons we might have during this year 250,000 officers and menin all ranks of the Royal Air Force and its ancillary services. That is something about which the country ought to be told. If it were shouted from the housetops it would do more than anything to brace us up to realise that we have left behind the doldrums of 1938 and that we are able in the air to look squarely in the face any nation who would dare to attack us. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would feel able to give us information about which the country would be reassured showing exactly the number of pilots that he has available in different parts of the Service. He has mentioned pilots in this category and that, and I feel that any enemy could put those figures together and ascertain the total. Would it be in the public interest that the Under-Secretary when he replies should give us the information?
      I come to the question of the 1,750 aircraft in the first-line strength. I agree with my right hon. Friend and with the
      2420
      Prime Minister that first-line strength can be misleading as a measurement of air strength. I feel that there should be some other way of bringing out the vast increase in our air potential, our striking power in the air, than by quoting so low a figure as 1,750. As was mentioned by the hon. Member from the Liberal benches just now, there is an increasing momentum in aircraft production. Everybody connected with air matters realises that there is now drive behind the programme, and that everybody is doing his best to press it forward. The development of aircraft manufacture in the Dominions is heartily to be endorsed, but it is not necessary to assume that all the aircraft factories in this country would be eliminated by hostile aircraft in order to justify the development in those Dominions of separate aircraft industries that could be of immense value in time of war. I am sure that the House will congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having taken this action.
      The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) raised the question of relative strength of the German air force and our own, but I am afraid that he misunderstood my question if he thought that I was in any way deprecating an inquiry. I believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite also insinuated that. In fact, I initiated a debate on this subject in 1937, when I gave what I considered to be the then comparison. The point I wanted to bring out was that I thought the whole atmosphere as between German air strength and British air strength was so vastly important that it behoved us all, unless we were definitely assured that we were still not making up lee-way, not to make such a suggestion at all. I feel that the public pulse is tender upon this point. From what I know of German production and British production—whether we now produce at the same rate or not is a very difficult proposition for anybody to advance in this country. I believe that they are becoming substantially equal. Even if Germany has 150per cent, or even 200 per cent, advantage over our air strength, and if our aircraft manufacturing industry is approaching the output of the German industry, I believe we can say that we have turned the corner. My own impression from such information, as I possess from various sources at home and abroad is that we have, in fact,

      2421
      turned the corner, and that we can go forward with increasing confidence.
      There has been a suggestion that in some categories the quality of our aircraft was possibly not all that could be expected. Of course, every type of aircraft that goes into production is out of date as soon as it is in quantity production, but if we compare British aircraft with any other aircraft in the world we shall find that we stand in the forefront for quality. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State could give us any information upon a subject which was advanced in the Air Debate last year from all quarters of the House, and which related to the development of wooden air frames, both for fighters and for bombers. It might not be possible to use them in aircraft of high speeds, but the fact that wood can be extensively used is known to all.
      Many other hon. Members want to speak, and, therefore, I will leave any other remarks on the general subject to a later date, if there should be an opportunity, but I would ask the Undersecretary whether he can give the House information on the following points: Can he tell us to what extent the Royal Air Force intend to adopt cannon on new aircraft coming into the service this year? Can he tell us what provision the Air Ministry propose to make to utilise wartime pilots, many of whom are now over 40 years of age and not able to be used in any of the present reserves? They would certainly bring a great deal of strength to our AirForces if they could be utilised in time of emergency. I would like to emphasise the point that was made by the hon. Baronet on the Liberal benches relating to collaboration with France. When we talk about collaboration with any continental country there is always inherent in the British Force the sense that one has to walk very warily lest important secret information should leak out. Undoubtedly there must be the greatest caution, but the time has come when we can assist France and French aviation a little more than we are doing at the moment. I speak with some knowledge of French aviation, and I trust that my right hon. Friend has this matter in mind.
      My last two points are purely personal. The first is with regard to the Under-Secretary of State. I have always under-
      2422
      stood that it was possibly going outside the bounds of tradition to appoint to a Department a Minister who knew anything about the work of the Department. In regard to technical Departments I believe that that is an absolute fallacy, and is responsible for some of the failures which have taken place in the past. I would congratulate the Under-Secretary of State as an airman, and as a man who knows something about the technical side of aviation. He has not been passed over for somebody who knew nothing about the problem, and I am certain that the Secretary of State will endorse fully the desirability of having an Under-Secretary who knows something about the job. My last word is this: Irrespective of the administrative successes of the Secretary of State I would like to say, as one who moves about in air circles in this country, that we have to be immensely grateful for the contagious enthusiasm on air matters which the Secretary of State has brought to bear upon these high duties.
      6.41 p.m.
      Mr. Stokes: I have one or two points to put to the Minister on the question of profit control. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear his speech last week, but I see that the Minister claims that satisfaction has been achieved in his Department because he reckons that the aircraft manufacturers are making only 6 per cent, on the estimated cost of the machines they manufacture. With all due deference I submit that that is not the way to look at the matter. To calculate profit on the estimated cost of machines is most misleading. Speaking as a manufacturer I should be delighted if the Government would always accept 6 per cent, on my estimates as being a fixed rate of profit which I could have. There is any number of ways of confusing the issue, if that is the Government's method of approach. The way to tackle the problem is to insist upon a limited rate of profit on the ascertained cost of the machines after they have been completed whatever the tendered price may have been—the tender price of course being the maximum. No other way will satisfy the public conscience in this matter. It is easy to do. The manufacturer can quote a firm price for machines and say what the content of profit is, if he likes, but it does not really matter very much. At the end of his contract he ought to be made by the Minister to submit a statement, audited

      2423
      by his own auditors and inspected by the Government, if you like, showing what profit he has made on the contract.
      What amuses me about the Government's approach to the matter is that they seem to think that by dabbling about with cost accounts they can arrive at a satisfactory result. Every business man knows that cost accounts alone are no use and that they have to be correlated with the financial accounts in a way that can be done only by the auditors of the company. The Government, apparently, think they are getting at profit control, but they are not and I shall continue to press for a proper investigation until something is done by the Government on the lines proposed. On this point I would add that manufacturers are not by any means all villains, and that a great number of them would agree to such a scheme as I have so often outlined. I heard of a case only to-day in which the manufacturer actually pleaded with the Government to be allowed to come in upon a no-profit basis. He has not yet received his contract and he has also been told that his factory also is in a dangerous position. I should be glad to furnish the Minister with information that I have.
      I was glad to hear from the Minister's speech that he, too, is dissatisfied with the rate of profit owing to the changed conditions in certain of the contracts because of improved output. I am glad that he has arrived at that conclusion, but I was staggered when he went on to say that he was proposing to ask Sir William McLintock to carry out another investigation. I am not casting any aspersions on Sir William McLintock, who is, no doubt, a very honourable man, but he seems to be the last person in the world to be asked to carry out this investigation. We want an independent investigation. You cannot expect a person who has been the father of a scheme to damnhis own child. That seems to me to be a quite ridiculous approach. Further, if I may say so with all due deference to Sir William McLintock, his history in regard to profit estimating in the City has not been very good.
      With regard to civil aviation I speak with some feeling, because it is my unhappy lot to have to travel a good deal by air. The Minister spoke of what was being done in connection with Imperial
      2424
      Airways, and I would like to call his attention to the great number of complaints which arise in connection with the administration and performance of their services. They are always unpunctual, they are totally inadequate, and you cannot rely, when you set out on a journey, on getting to the other end within 48 hours of the schedule time, whereas by foreign aeroplanes you can arrange for your best girl to meet you at the other end and will not need to keep her waiting. I want to emphasise something very extraordinary in connection with this service. The other day, travelling from here to Egypt, I was calmly told in the middle of the voyage—I was the only passenger, not because I was too heavy, but merely because there were a great many mails— that if at a certain point they found more mails waiting for them, I should be jettisoned and the mails taken on in preference to myself. That seems to me to be perfectly preposterous from the point of view of encouraging traders to use the mail planes, which, after all, they ought to be able to do. Again, the mail service itself is very unsatisfactory. We are not allowed to send letters except by Imperial Airways, but, for example, it very often takes longer now to send a letter by the mail plane to Cairo than it used to take overland to Genoa and then on by Italian packet. You cannot rely on the service, and I hope we shall hear that the Minister proposes to give this matter his attention, because it is of vital importance to the industry of the country.
      It would be interesting to know, if we are allowed to know these things, when the Government expect the first deliveries from the Nuffield factory. I have always regarded that factory as suspect. I remember the claims that were made for it when it was first started, and shall be interested to hear how it is getting along and when the first deliveries will be coming from it. Finally, the Minister spoke about the necessity for further purchases of land for various purposes. I hope that he will take steps to ensure that there is not the wild profiteering in land which most of these land purchases have involved hitherto. It ought to be done on a very low basis—I suggest a Schedule A basis, or for no sum at all where the land is de-rated, and in my view it really is a case of the grossest profiteering if anything more is paid.
      6.50 p.m.
      Sir W. Lindsay Everard: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. SImmonds) in congratulating the Air Ministry on the Estimates which they are putting before us to-day. I agree with him entirely as to the criticisms which we on this side have thought it necessary to make on the Air Estimates in the past, but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend, from the fewness of those who wish to speak on the Estimates to-day, will realise that there are no complaints against the Air Ministry, but only a few constructive suggestions. One thing that pleased me very much was the amicable agreement that has been come to between the Royal Air Force and the Navy on a matter which has been one of controversy for some time. In the times through which we have been passing, it is an excellent sign that things are really being properly coordinated in this country when we hear chat arrangements satisfactory to both Services have been made for the transfer of the Fleet Air Arm.
      I listened with some interest to a speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not wish to join with him on the question of the strength of the German and British Air Forces, but I think it should always be borne in mind that there is nothing which becomes obsolescent more quickly than military aircraft. Although it may well be that six months or a year ago there was a great preponderance in favour of Germany vis-à-vis ourselves as regards number of aircraft, if we are producing today an equality of aircraft I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that time was not to the advantage of this country. Time is very much to the advantage of this country, because their preponderance of aircraft built in the past is day by day becoming more obsolescent, and consequently of less danger to this country.
      There can be little doubt that this House and the country see with great pride the influx of volunteers into the Royal Air Force, and, indeed, into civil aviation. I have had the opportunity of meeting and seeing many of those who have come from Cranwell and from Halton, and in the case both of officers and of other ranks there is no one in any Service who can surpass them in efficiency and smartness. I believe that,
      2426
      while we are able to intake personnel of that sort, the Royal Air Force must be a great credit and a tower of strength to this country for generations to come.
      I should like to put to my hon. and gallant Friend a few questions which have been discussed with me. They are of some importance to those whom they concern, though perhaps they are small compared with the trend of this Debate. One is whether it is possible for the Air Ministry to take in, on the skilled personnel side, certain people who might not be fit enough to take their part as pilots, or perhaps as ordinary active airmen, but who would, in my opinion, be quite capable, with minor disabilities, of taking their part in the various skilled services required in the Royal Air Force. I should like to ask whether any special allowance is made in the medical examination for persons of that sort. Secondly, I should like to ask whether those airmen who join the Service as unskilled men are able, in the Service, to be trained as skilled men and take their place in one of the trades of the Royal Air Force. My third question is whether my hon. and gallant Friend could give us, without giving away any secrets, any further idea as to the future development and design of the aircraft which are coming forward to replace those which are in the Royal Air Force at the present time, and, fourthly, I should like to know whether my hon. and gallant Friend can give a satisfactory answer as to the arrangements for fuel storage in this country, which, with an increasing Air Force, is as vitally important as the production of aircraft itself.
      If I might say a word on the Auxiliary Air Force, with which I have the honour to be associated, I think there can be little doubt that the Committee set up by the predecessor of the Under-Secretary has brought about several reforms in the Auxiliary Air Force which have been of great advantage from the point of view of aviation and of the Force itself. The turning over from bombers to fighters has been of very great advantage to the Royal Air Force as a whole, and I believe that, except for certain questions which are still outstanding, as to youths' ration allowances and so on, the financial arrangements both for officers and for men have been generally satisfactory to all concerned. Certainly I think that the

      2427
      influx of sergeant pilots into the Auxiliary Air Force is a step forward which will receive unanimous support in the House.
      There are one or two points in regard to civil aviation with which I should like to deal. When I spoke on the report of the Cadman Committee, I ventured to suggest certain methods for the training of civilian personnel which I considered would be of great advantage to the country, and I also put forward some suggestions for the proper and full use of the aerodromes of the country. I am very pleased to see that great steps forward have been taken in both these directions. The majority of the municipal and other civil aerodromes in this country are being utilised by the Royal Air Force, the Auxiliary Air Force, training schools, or in other ways by the Air Ministry, but there are still several aerodromes where no flying of any sort, kind or description is taking place. I have in mind the aerodrome at Inverness, the aerodrome at Worcester, and the aerodrome at Ridg-way, Manchester, which last is not yet in use, but is, I know, to be used very fully shortly. Taking the aerodrome at Worcester as an example, I cannot help thinking that the corporation of that city must be extremely dissatisfied at having been persuaded to establish an aerodrome where there is not even a flying club, where no aeroplane lands or takes off, and in regard to which they have received no support at all from the Air Ministry. I cannot help thinking that, in a centre such as Worcester, there must be some use to which an aerodrome of that sort could be put.
      There are, I believe, 20 aerodromes which are not used in any way by the Royal Air Force. Nine of them are shortly to be used, but I regret to say that among the remaining 11 is the one with which I am personally associated, namely, that of the City of Leicester, which was one of the first 15 towns and cities in this country to establish an aerodrome. It seems rather hard that they, who have been among the pioneers in the establishment of civil aerodromes in this country, and who at their own expense have put in night flying equipment and a great many other services, should not have received from the Air Ministry any support at all as regards the use of their aerodrome for any of the services connected with the Royal Air Force—work-
      2428
      shops, storage, auxiliary squadrons, schools, or anything else—whereas the Air Ministry have utilised a privately owned aerodrome only three or four miles away, and have put there, not only a large flying training school, but also volunteer reserves and, I believe, a navigation school. Surely one of these could be given to the Corporation of Leicester to encourage them in the work they have done.
      I should like to say a word or two on the subject of the training of people in civilian flying. I consider that the ordinary youth of the country should start such training at the earliest possible age. Just as it is necessary, in learning to ride a horse, to start young, so it is necessary, if you are to be keen on flying, to start at an early age, and for that reason I was glad to see the new idea of air defence cadets started. I am glad to say that where I reside we have the honour of having No. 1 Squadron, the first in England. Now 82 squadrons have been formed, but I think the Air Ministry have been a little miserly in their treatment of these squadrons. I understand that the Army give 5s. per cadet per year for those who are found efficient; I think 4s. goes to the cadet corps itself, and 1s. to the Territorial Association. I know that these cadets are not working with the Territorial Association, but I feel that a larger grant should be given. I do not think it is really right to expect that the people who live in these districts should be expected to find the whole of the money for raising these Air Defence Cadet Corps, and not only raising them but keeping them up for years afterwards. I do not think a grant of £50 a squadron—that is 10s. a head—could possibly hurt the Air Ministry, and it would be of enormous advantage to the air cadet movement.
      I know that the civil aircraft scheme is very near my hon. and gallant Friend's heart, and he will be extremely gratified to realise what an enormous success it has been. First of all, it has kept in operation flying clubs which would certainly have ceased to exist if the scheme had not been put into operation. There are now 65 flying clubs operating the scheme. I walked into the Aero Club before I came here and asked the secretary how many new licences have been applied for to-day. He told me "20." That gives some idea of the number of

      2429
      "A" licence pilots which, when the days get longer and the weather better, we are going to see improved. I think it is necessary that we should have, to look after the training in these clubs, one qualified Air Ministry instructor who can see that instruction is carried on up to Air Ministry requirements. It is impossible for the commissioners themselves, who may not have the technical knowledge nor the time, to take the responsibility that these "A" licence pilots are up to the standard, but they could find one of their qualified officials to undertake that work.
      I wonder if it would be possible to include some of the people from the Dominions and Colonies. It seems hard if you get people from any part of the British Empire and the clubs are not keen to train them because they do not attract air subsidies. Under the Civil Air Guard scheme it would be impossible for them to come in unless a subsidy was provided. I am sorry that people are not able to come under the subsidy arrangement unless they are regularly resident in this country.
      Throughout the Civil Air Guard scheme there are various groups of people who may be utilised in time of emergency according to what they are best fitted to do, either in flying or in some other capacity, but I think something should be done about private owners of aircraft. I think they should be notified exactly to what use they could be put with their aircraft in time of war. They are very anxious—many of them have spoken to me—to do everything possible to serve the country, and I think that those who are qualified to fly this particular aircraft—some are fairly big ones—should be told exactly for what purpose they would be required in time of war. I am delighted to see that civil aviation is going along. I am glad that our air lines are going to some places on the Continent where we have not been for a long time. It is a pity that they cannot run right through the Continent. The ships of the British Empire travel all round the world, which benefits the prestige of the British Empire more than anything. A really good line of first-class machines travelling through the centre of Europe, as far as Stamboul, if you like, stopping at all capitals and taking mails and passengers, even if they did not pay, would bring
      2430
      trade and prestige. I hope that when the new company is formed this is one of the things to which they will be able to give their attention.
      7.7 p.m.
      Mr. Eckersley: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
      "this House welcomes the increased financial assistance proposed to be given to internal airline operators but would welcome further assistance in the development of airport facilities in this country and in the production of types of aircraft specially suitable for future requirements of civil aviation at home and overseas."
      In the first place, I wish to apologise to the House for the extremely brief speech in which I am going to introduce this Amendment, but I am just recovering from influenza and this is my first day out. Happily one of my hon. Friends will cover the ground, I hope, very fully, and so I will content myself with putting before the House one point which I feel perhaps more particularly fitted to discuss that anyone else present. I would first congratulate the Minister and the Under-Secretary upon a remarkable year's work. I hope that everyone in the House, and I am sure everyone outside, is delighted and gratified at the way in which the rearmament programme has progressed. This rearmament programme has carried with it the enormous expansion of an already great industry. The aircraft industry has assumed proportions which none of us would have believed possible a few years ago. We all hope that this great industry will not be needed for ever in the production of military aircraft to the extent that it is to-day. It may be that a great proportion of it will be used in keeping our force up to strength, but we all hope that continued expansion will not be necessary.
      The question obviously arises for all of us what is to be done with the rest of the industry. At the moment we are not in the forefront of the nations in the manufacture of civil aircraft. This is not caused in any way by lack of designing ability, or by lack of control of the various aircraft factories or by lack of ability amongst the workers themselves. We must face the fact that very fine workmen may be in less remunerative jobs in the future unless we make some move towards providing them with the possibility

      2431
      of making civil aircraft. These civil aeroplanes, which we are going to use, I suppose, in our own civil air lines, are not, as some people would have us believe, all going overseas. It is not much good having an efficient network of overseas civil air lines unless they are linked up with an efficient network of internal air lines.
      It is always a difficult job to get to the terminal airport of any major city in Europe in a short time, and London is no exception to that. Although I hope and believe that the Ministry have some plans for major airports other than Croydon, none of them, as far as I can see, can be very near the centre of the City. In that case, surely, it is not a bad idea to arrange for internal airlines to go directly to the airport from provincial cities to enable business men to make quick contact with their Continental customers. To give one example, we have at Manchester one of the very best, if not the best airport in the country, but if a Manchester business man wants to go to the London terminal airport to-day he has to go round by Liverpool and it takes him two hours. This is not really in accord with modern European practice. If I might make one small suggestion it would be that a service should be run, say, from Glasgow at about seven o'clock in the morning, which would arrive at Manchester by 8·15 and get to Croydon at about a quarter to ten in time to catch a great many of the European morning services. There is no return machine in the evening from London to the North. The only machine is one leaving in the morning and arriving in Lancashire at about half-past 11 and at Glasgow somewhere about 1.40 or 2 o'clock. If we had a return machine at about 6.15 from Croydon, which would take all the passengers from the Continental services arriving during the afternoon, it could halt at Manchester and arrive in Glasgow at nine o'clock the same evening. That sounds reasonable.
      It may be said that it is not the business of the Government to insist on this and that it is a job for the operators themselves, but when the operators are approached the answer is always the same. They say, "Give us the traffic and we will give you the service." The reply of the chamber of commerce or the city council is, "Give us the service and we will give you the traffic." The
      2432
      Ministry have fired the first shot in the way of destroying this vicious circle. They have granted £100,000 as a direct subsidy to the internal air line operators, but unless those internal operators are going to speed up their services considerably that £100,000 will to a large extent be wasted. I appeal to the Minister to ensure, through the licensing authority, who are granting long-term licences, without which a subsidy cannot operate, that something in the nature of a better service for the public is given before licences are granted. A great many promises have been held out to Lancashire by the Government, of which a great many have been kept. Here is one way in which the Lancashire and Glasgow export trade could be helped enormously, and the Government would be killing two birds with one stone, because they would be to a small extent ensuring the future of the aircraft industry and the present exporting industries from the North-West.
      7.15 p.m.
      Wing-Commander Wright: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I am sure we all regret very much that my hon. Friend has been prevented, through illness, from making the speech which he would otherwise have made, and we all wish him a speedy return to his usual robust health. None of us will quarrel with him for giving us the opportunity of discussing for a short time this very important subject of civil aviation. We are indebted to him for rising from a bed of sickness, I believe against his doctor's orders, to take part in to-day's Debate. In these unhappy days, when of necessity our first attention and our maximum effort must be directed towards the production and equipment of machines for our Royal Air Force, civil aviation is undoubtedly being relegated to a very bad second place. But this, in fact, has always been so, and the excuse has always been the same. Before there was any thought of crises or the possibility of immediate war, a financially-starved Air Ministry never gave its civil department its share of nourishment, and so some of us, who believe, without any doubt, that there is a tremendous future for this new form of transport, question very much whether this is really a genuine reason for lack of development, or whether it is not rather a convenient excuse, eagerly seized upon by those who either do not want to see development

      2433
      in this new form of transport or, through dilatoriness or failure to gauge the situation correctly, have failed to deliver the goods.
      There are two main reasons why I consider the immediate development of civil aviation to be of vital importance to the future of this country. The first is that, as my hon. Friend has said, we are in process of building up a vast capacity for production of aircraft, and we all hope that the day will come soon when the production of aircraft for military purposes will be greatly reduced. We should like to think that all the skill and knowledge, all the expensive factories and plant which we have accumulated, will not be allowed then to waste and decay, as similar organisations were allowed to do after the Great War, but that they will be utilised to capture the aircraft trade of the world. The second reason is that we have, as a country, leeway to makeup in this matter of civil aviation. It takes a long time to plan and develop all those things which have to be planned and developed before we can hope to catch, much less lead other nations which have shown greater foresight than we have so far displayed in this country.
      Why does this country lag behind? I suggest that it is because those who have directed our policy have never realised that the ultimate aim of this development should be the economical carriage of passengers and freight by air lines run to time schedules in all conditions of weather, by day and by night. The military influence has always been too strong. We do, in fact, lead the world in the matter of private flying; we lead the world in the development of individual pilots, through our subsidies to flying clubs. This is all to the good. It gives the adventurous spirit of our people, which is as strong to-day as ever it was, an outlet, and it also provides the potential reserve of pilots should war be forced upon us. But this is not the development of civil aviation as we should envisage it. You do not need to qualify for a driving licence in order to travel to the seaside by motor coach, and I look forward to the day when our works outings will travel to Continental cities and resorts by air liners. Therein lies the way to peace and better understanding among the peoples of different nations. I want to see a complete change of outlook; I want,
      2434
      above all, to get rid of this military influence. It is because of that influence that many people have thought that air transport in this country would never develop properly unless the control was transferred to another Ministry. I do not think such a drastic course necessary. In fact, I feel very strongly that it is not, after having heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about civil aviation this afternoon. I am quite sure that he and his capable assistant, my hon. and gallant Friend the Undersecretary, are equal to preserving a proper balance between the two branches which, as the Secretary of State said, need such widely different directions.
      If we accept the view that the real development of civil aviation means the economical carriage of passengers and freight in bulk by air, what are the essentials which must be provided before we can attain that end? The very first essential is the provision of suitable airports, properly equipped to deal with this traffic in all conditions of weather, by day and by night. However good your ship may be, you cannot make use of it unless there exist suitable harbours, and so we must have airports which, in fact, are airports; and we must not overlook the fact that the airport is the most costly item of all. Next, we must have directional control upon which the pilot can rely for guidance over the whole of these routes in conditions of bad visibility, by day or by night. You cannot rely on navigation from the aircraft itself without the aid of wireless. Do not forget that an aircraft cannot heave to, and it travels at a very high speed. This directional control is as vital to the pilot in conditions of bad visibility as are the roads to a motorcar or the railroad track to a train. However good your motor vehicle, it is useless if no road exists; however good your rolling stock, you cannot use it unless you provide a track for it to run along. The Maybury Committee emphasised both these essentials, and recommended the provision of this vital equipment by the Government. That was two years ago. I suggest that even then it should not have been necessary to set up a committee to teach the civil side of the Air Ministry such elementary facts.
      Next, of course, we want aircraft. We want aircraft which are designed to meet the conditions which their work demands:

      2435
      passenger aircraft to carry passengers in comfort at the highest possible speed; freight-carrying aircraft specially designed to carry large and even bulky way loads, not necessarily at such speed. I want to emphasise this matter of transport of freight. Let us take a lesson from the older forms of transport. Freight has always been necessary to put transport companies on their feet financially, but you do not try to carry freight to New York in a worn-out passenger liner or to carry goods from Birmingham to London in a worn-out motor coach. That is exactly what the air-liner companies have been trying to do, making shift with almost unusable machines because the production of specialised new types is costly beyond their means. This is not the place for me to go into technical details, but I want to stress the fact that there is a great development in the carriage of goods by air awaiting the production of specially designed machines to carry the traffic at an economic rate, and I believe it can be done.
      We state in the Amendment that we welcome the assistance which is going to be given by the Government to internal air-line operators. This will undoubtedly help a great deal, but I wish the Air Ministry would cease to draw such a rigid line between external routes and internal routes. I ask for a change of outlook in that respect. We are still in the infancy of this great new industry, and as it develops it will be quite unthinkable that all external traffic should pass through London. Beyond all question, we shall fly direct from Birmingham, not only to the Continent, but to America and to the Dominions. Therefore, I urge that a longer view should be taken in this matter. I urge the Air Ministry to plan and provide that assistance which only they can give. We ask for all possible assistance, for airports which are airports, the minimum being the implementing of the recommendations of the Maybury Committee. The Secretary for Air has on several occasions claimed that the Air Ministry has, indeed, helped municipal airports very largely, through the Volunteer Reserve schools and through the flying clubs and the new Civil Air Guard, but I rather wonder whether the boot is not really on the other foot. The Secretary of State was very lucky to find all over the country aerodromes which
      2436
      had been provided at very considerable expense by municipalities and others. The returns which many of them are likely to get through these schools, while very useful, do not represent the real object for which these aerodromes were constructed and I think they are entitled to some more lasting form of assistance.
      I ask the Minister to consider the planning and equipment of at least one internal bad visibility route which will enable aircraft in this country, for the first time, to operate under all conditions of weather, by day and by night. I know all about the radio difficulties arising from the very small number of wavelengths available, but it would be better that an aircraft should deviate from its direct route under certain conditions of weather and arrive on time, than that services should be cancelled, as frequently happens to-day, or alternatively that unnecessary risks to life should be incurred. We feel that the development of civil aviation, apart from those respects in which it can be helpful from a military point of view, has been sadly neglected. We want to drive home the fact that a service must be provided and that in order to create the demand some risk must be taken. Having heard my right hon. Friend's few remarks this afternoon with regard to the development of civil aviation I hope that now, indeed, the time is not far distant when the Air Ministry will really tackle this very urgent problem.
      7.33 P.m.
      Mr. John Rathbone: I want to support what the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have said with regard to the design of aircraft for civil air routes. Reference has already been made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to a trip in an Imperial Airways machine. I had a similar trip at almost exactly the same time, and my experience was that those people who had never done such a trip before were surprised at the conditions, while those who had done such a trip before regtetted their inability to travel by some other line. There is a good deal of progress to be made, if we are to preserve and, if possible, increase whatever reputation we have in civil aviation. At present, these Empire flying boats are neither passenger-carrying nor mail-carrying boats. They are a mixture of both with a preference for mails rather than passengers.

      2437
      On the occasion to which I refer, we started out from Southampton on an extremely cold morning. The engines had not been warmed up and it was only with some difficulty that they were started. There was some sort of backfiring explosion which effectually wrecked what was left of the hearing apparatus and incidentally poured about a gallon of burning petrol on to the water below. I did not mind that because I knew that it was an all-metal machine, but it was not a confidence-inspiring trick. Owing to wind and weather and other conditions we had to fly at a considerable height and as the heating apparatus was out of order, in order to see out one had to scrape—not wipe— one's breath off the window. We arrived, more or less on time, at Marseilles only to be informed that we were ordered—both the machine in which I was travelling and another machine which was going eastwards to India and Australia—to wait at Marseilles for mails, which were to be flown out from Croydon. They were flown out in a very obsolete aircraft which eventually decided on its way to Marseilles to spend the night in Paris. We were, therefore, kept waiting in Marseilles for the whole of the morning, the afternoon, the evening and the night, during which time I must say to the credit of Imperial Airways, they got right down to the job of transferring all the passengers and luggage to one plane in order to send them on next morning.
      This, of course, entirely altered the schedule. It meant that we could not spend the night in Rome where some of us had planned to spend it. We were thus deprived of an interesting experience, because that was the night on which the Prime Minister left Rome, and it would have been extremely interesting to have had an opportunity of studying the reactions of the Italian public on that occasion. We arrived at Cairo some 30 hours late. Those who had arranged to meet us there had given up hope of our arrival, not having been given any intimation by the local representatives of Imperial Airways as to what plane we were travelling in or when we were likely to arrive. Next, in spite of the fact that one may strike a match or light a petrol-lighter in the after-compartment of one of these machines, and that is considered entirely safe, yet there is no apparatus
      2438
      on board whereby the steward can even heat up a cup of tea. All the food has to be brought on board at the various stopping-places and put into thermoses. I do not know how many hon. Members have ever seen a sausage or a piece of bacon taken out of a thermos, but I assure them that it is not a particularly agreeable sight.
      It seems ridiculous, if these planes are to be used chiefly for mails as they were during Christmas time and for some time afterwards, that so much space should be occupied by chairs for passengers who are not there. One finds it extremely difficult to get in between the table which is provided and the chair in which one is to sit, the space being cramped owing to the fact that an effort is made to get in as many chairs as possible. I suppose the original intention was to carry more passengers than mails. I found that the little details which count for so much in travelling were missing. Any passenger likes to know the names of the pilot and the other members of the crew of the plane, and in the case of any other air line by which I have travelled in any other country in the world, the names are always available. Even in the case of Imperial Airways there were blank spaces all ready for the names to be inserted. One would imagine that each member of the crew might have the obligation of carrying with him a name plate, and that it would be easy for him to slip it into the slot when he came on board for a voyage and to take it out when he was leaving.
      Another point as regards the comfort of the passengers, was that I noticed that the automatic pilot which is, obviously, a very desirable instrument and relieves the pilot very much onlong journeys, was of a very "snatchy" kind, if I may use that expression. The result was that it was over-correcting the rudder and in the after-compartment one had the full benefit of a swing from side to side as soon as the flying boat had been put on its course and the pilot had "handed over" to the automatic pilot. I understand from people who have flown in Royal Air Force machines, that these are matters which can easily be put right. I suggest that they are all matters which ought to be watched very carefully if Imperial Airways is to continue as a firm with a reputation for studying the comfort of passengers. If, on the other hand, it is

      2439
      to be used largely for the carrying of mails then such advertisements as are now exhibited by Imperial Airways should not be exhibited by them any longer. They should not be allowed to state on their posters that Empire flying boats have a speed of approximately 200 miles an hour when, in fact, the average speed of the machine in which I flew was 95 to 105 miles an hour.
      I ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary to give us some indication of what is to be the policy of Imperial Airways. Is it to be a preference for mails with a gracious permission to passengers to travel with the mails when there happens to be room, with the expectation of being jettisoned—I believe that is the term that was used—in the middle of the trip and with no knowledge beforehand of whether or not after taking one's ticket one will be able to leave on a particular day or not, whether the heating apparatus will be working and so forth? I hope that some policy will be decided upon, whereby this overlapping between passengers and mails will be avoided so that the mails will be punctual and people who desire important letters to be conveyed long distances in a short time will be able to rely on the service. In that connection I would suggest a reversion to the old arrangement whereby the addition of an air-mail stamp ensured that a letter would, at any rate, reach its destination sooner by air than by the ordinary route over land. These things must be considered if the reputation of our air lines is to be preserved, and I hope that we shall have a reassuring statement on those lines from my hon. and gallant Friend.
      7.43 P.m.
      Captain Cazalet: May I make two short points before the Under-Secretary replies? The first is in regard to the social and recreational facilities which the Air Ministry provide at the new camps which they are establishing.
      Captain Balfour: We are confined to the Amendment now.
      Captain Cazalet: Then I pass to my second point regarding which I am almost entirely in accord with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone). I wish to supplement what he has said by putting
      2440
      one or two questions. Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that this year there is to be a great contribution from the Exchequer to civil aviation? That being so, one hopes that the muddle and confusion which has persisted in the policy of various Governments towards civil aviation is in process of being cleared up. It is extraordinary that it has taken this country 20 years or more to link up with the various parts of the Empire. As I understand—though I would like to have this reaffirmed definitely and once and for all—our policy now is to subsidise one organisation for oversea and inter-Imperial air communications which is, I think, in accordance with the findings of the Hambledon Committee. I think it vital for British prestige that our services should be efficient and up-to-date, quite apart from the great convenience and business advantage of such services and we welcome the Minister's statement that new machines will be available, I hope shortly, for these services.
      I flew to Australia a few months ago, and it is impossible to exaggerate the extreme pleasure, and I might say joy, as well as convenience, which this service three times a week brings to the inhabitants of Australia. It is impossible to exaggerate the link which that makes between this country and the people in that far-off part of the world. Can the Under-Secretary give any date by which the service will be extended to New Zealand? Although I appreciate the various observations and criticisms which my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin has just made, I have flown in Dutch, Italian and American lines, and I say quite confidently that our new flying boats compare favourably in comfort, security and regularity with those of any other air service in the world. There are various small matters which could be improved, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised them. I have a catalogue of small matters almost identical with that of his own. It is true that, although in various other ways we compare favourably, we are to-day very much behind in speed. But almost too much attention can be paid to speed. It should not be the sole criterion of the efficiency of any particular line.
      I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that there should be, in these long oversea services, two different services, one for passengers and one for mails. At the

      2441
      moment the Imperial Air Service is primarily and principally a mail-carrying concern, and the result is that no individual who wishes to take his passage to Australia, or to any intermediate station such as Palestine or elsewhere, can know until almost the day before whether he can take a passage in a particular aeroplane. There should be one very fast mail service, no doubt flying over certain parts of the route at night. That should carry mail alone, or perhaps it might have two seats available for passengers, who, if they paid an extra £10 or £20, could, if there was room and the mail allowed it, take those places. For example, in the case of grave illness or something of that kind they should be allowed to go on the mail aeroplane at an extra cost, but there should be a regular passenger service which should cater entirely for the convenience, pleasure and comfort of the passengers. It should be arranged to arrive at various places of interest at the right time, and start at hours more or less convenient. The object of this aeroplane should not be to get mail to places as quickly as possible but primarily to serve the interests of the passengers concerned.
      I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to tell us anything about a decision on the question of a central and adequate base for our modern aeroplanes in this country. There has been a great deal of discussion and a certain amount of controversy, and I do not know whether any decision has yet been reached. I realise that the Dutch to-day are ahead of us in regard to various gadgets and also in regard to propaganda. But, on the whole, we have made very considerable progress. We all believe that in a very few months maybe, and certainly by the end of this year, we shall have one of the most efficient, and perhaps the largest and most powerful air forces in the world, I hope it will not be too long before our civil aviation compares favourably with that of any other civil aviation service in the world.
      7.50 p.m.
      Captain Balfour: I feel that hon. Members of this House who heard the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Eckersley) move, and the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) second the Amendment, will all be grateful that
      2442
      they have dealt with a subject which is of vital national interest; which is not really subject to the hurly-burly of party politics but in which all Members are interested irrespective of their political views. I should particularly like to congratulate, and to express my thanks to, the hon. Member for the Exchange Division who has come here from a bed of sickness. I would only remind him that modern medical opinion is that a flight up to approximately 10,000 feet is one of the best remedies for influenza or colds.
      I regret that I cannot respond to the invitation extended to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) nor to that of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) to deal with Imperial Airways and British Airways policy, or with what the Government intend to do as regards our overseas services, nor can I deal with the unfortunate experiences of the hon. Member for Bodmin, because within the terms of the Amendment I should be out of order. But doubtless the particular questions which have been asked by these hon. Members can be replied to on the appropriate Vote should they require it. I would like to address myself to the Amendment, which does two things. It welcomes the aid which His Majesty's Government have given to internal civil aviation and it asks for certain further assistance. I hope to show, in the course of the short time that I intend to ask the House to give me their indulgence, that we are perhaps giving a greater measure of help than would appear from a scrutiny of the Estimates.
      Internal civilian aviation, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has said, is developing. We are all, the Government and operators, feeling our way, and he would be a bold person who would hazard a guess as to when internal civil aviation in this country will be economically self-supporting. The Government have allotted the sum of £100,000 for five years on the basis of an annual subsidy, diminishing—and this was announced in Parliament last May —for the express purpose of assisting internal civil aviation. It was given in the special circumstances of the times and with particular reference to the defence situation, which, as is admitted on all sides, requires the maximum trained personnel and the maximum number of aircraft to be available. Such help will, we hope, go some considerable way towards

      2443
      allowing the internal air lines to become self-sufficient during the period of the subsidy. I realise too well, as does any hon. Member in this House who has knowledge of internal civil aviation matters, that this subsidy alone would not make internal civil aviation self-supporting. It must be combined with a building up of the traffic.
      The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said quite rightly that it is not the policy of the Air Ministry or the Government to initiate air lines. That is the task of those who feel that there is a demand which can be made economically justifiable. What we are trying to do is to prime the pump with this internal subsidy money. I would like to make it clear that operators cannot expect that the whole of the £100,000 will be earned this year, because the basis of our subsidy is one which must allow for extensions to existing lines and higher frequencies of existing lines. Therefore, for these two purposes certain reserves must be retained between the maximum £100,000 and what is granted at the present time on the present time-tables.
      I am hopeful that agreement with internal companies will be arrived at in the near future, because it may be of interest to the House to know that no single air line in this country has yet made any money. One leading group in 1936–38 lost over £160,000, and another group operating northwards shows losses of £40,000 spread over three years. These are only sample figures, but they are sufficient to show the economic difficulties hitherto of pioneering internal routes. I sincerely hope that, with the aid of the building up of the traffic, with the aid of the subsidy money and of the regulation of traffic control following the setting up of a licensing authority, that uneconomic aspect may disappear.
      I think that the House will agree that the setting up of a licensing authority was well due when I tell them that that authority has rationalised routes as between 14 companies, has been sitting constantly and has issued so far 37 provisional licences. The licensing authority is administering a very different picture of internal civil aviation from that which existed a few years ago. Five or six years ago internal air lines in this country flew 1,500,000 miles and carried
      2444
      some 72,000 passengers. This year the likely mileage is 3,500,000 miles, and the number of passengers is probably going to be three times greater than the figure I gave the House a moment ago. The licensing authority permits certain schedules to be run, and it is to the licensing authority that operators must look for the co-ordination of our internal air line arrivals at terminal air ports with the departure and arrival of Continental lines.
      The Air Ministry, like other Government Departments and other bodies can make representation to the licensing authority on this or any other subject, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we feel that representations are needed on this particular aspect, we shall not hesitate to make them. I will quote the words which the licensing authority is bound to observe by order. It has to have regard to the co-ordination and development of air services generally with the object of ensuring the most effective service to the public, while avoiding uneconomical overlapping. I am sure from the way that the licensing authority has been administering its task hitherto that it will take into consideration the point which the hon. Member put.
      I would like to touch on the question of airports, and with regard to provincial airports, the House knows that the policy of the Government is that which was endorsed by the Maybury Committee and the Cadman Committee, that there is to be no direct subsidy for aerodrome purposes. Nevertheless, as the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington said, at the present time airport owners are gaining considerable financial benefits from the use of their facilities by the Royal Air Force, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the Auxiliary Air Force. I agree with him entirely that the Air Ministry owe a debt of gratitude to those who have been providing these airports during the uneconomic years in the past. It may interest the House to know that centres and schools for the training of Air Force puipls are operating at 29 civil airports— 14 municipal and 15 private—that negotiations have been concluded for the use of a further 13 before July, 1939, and that we are considering the use of a further 20. We have agreed in principle with the Aerodrome Owners' Association

      2445
      and the Association of Municipal Corporations on the basis of payment for these aerodromes, which, I think, is a somewhat novel one, and which, I hope, will be agreeable to those who are to receive it equally as it is agreeable to those who are paying, that is, the Government, in that not only are we obtaining flying facilities, but because the payment is based on number of aircraft used and average length of four dimensions of the aerodrome, i.e., so much per yard runway, we are getting an encouragement and obtaining increased landing areas, which we would not have had otherwise.
      As regards the provision of radio and meteorological facilities for civil airports, here again we are pursuing a policy of active development. We have radio, air traffic control and meteorological facilities at many main airports, and we intend to give grants for night flying equipment and to provide radio at other airports as the demand seems to look as if it justified that particular locality. For instance, the hon. Member will be glad to hear that there is a high frequency beacon to be put at Ringway, there is to be another at Doncaster, and yet another at Belfast. We are purchasing nine further beacons to be placed at other suitable aerodromes, and this makes 15 out of a total of 19 vasualised by the Maybury Committee to which the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington referred. The provision of night-flying equipment is an important matter, as I believe, in that future internal air lines may to a very large extent run at night, carrying night mails. Our policy is to give grants towards the capital cost at suitable main aerodromes, and we have in this year's Estimates provision for Southampton, Manchester (Ringway), Liverpool and Belfast Harbour as our first selections. Any hon. Members who represent constituencies that have aerodromes which are not included in that list need not feel that they are being neglected, as others are to be selected later by the Air Ministry. Meteorological service can be obtained at all the main airports, and we are extending the service so as to link up civil airports where traffic is served and main centres so that there shall be a 24–hour service everywhere. I calculate that in a very few months any civil air line pilot, by means of his radio communication with the ground, will be able to get
      2446
      weather reports in mid-air in the course of just a few moments. We are providing radio at 10 new stations, and we are making substantial progress with meteorological development. We hope to establish traffic control at Renfrew, Belfast Harbour and Shoreham by June of this year, and radio at Belfast and Liverpool by the same date. We hope to add Birmingham shortly afterwards.
      I would now like to touch on one more question concerned with airports, and that is the question of London terminal airports. There are two possibilities. One is a central airport where all London air traffic will be concentrated, both external and internal, but we have rejected that, as did the Maybury Committee, and we have preferred to concentrate upon a ring of aerodromes round London. The picture that I can see in the future is Heston, in a very different form from that in which hon. Members know it at the present time, with its present buildings demolished, reaching right up to the Great West Road, new buildings, and that by 1941–2. That should give a 2,000-yards runway in all directions. The next airport that one can see is Fairlop, and1 I think the nation owes a great debt to the City Corporation for its development. That too will have a 2,000-yards runway. Then when Heston and Fairlop are available we shall be able to turn our attention to Croydon. I hope we shall be able then to close Croydon down, because traffic facilities will be available at the other airports, in order that a major reconstruction can be undertaken and that that airport shall be made as good as nature will ever allow us to make it.
      Finally, there is the possibility, looking into the future, which is so difficult to forecast in civil or in any other form of aviation, that a fourth airport will be necessary for that ring round London. Therefore, the Air Ministry are now in the process of purchasing the land at Lullingstone, in Kent, which is probably, in fact, it is by far, the most suitable site possible south of London. There is no immediate intention of developing Lullingstone, but if we have once acquired that laind, we have sterilised it from future building or other forms of development and ensured that fourth limb, as it were, of the likely traffic requirements of civil aviation, internal and external, for London.
      Mr. Everard: Is the question of a new aerodrome north of London, for all traffic coming down from the north of England, with Customs and other services, so as not to pass over London, being considered?
      Captain Balfour: I think Fairlop will fulfil that need. Fairlop is, as it were, north-north-east of London. We also have Heston, which is west with north in it, and we have then got Croydon, and we shall have Lullingstone. We have, as it were, that circle round London, and doubtless traffic will be diverted and allocated as between these different airports according to the suitability of the particular line which is coming in.
      Lord Apsley: I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend did not make a slight mistake when he said, I believe, that the buildings at Heston would come right up to the Great West Road.
      Captain Balfour: I said there would be new buildings, but I think I said—in any case, I meant—that the land would come right up to the Great West Road. Once we have this chain of airports round London, we may need some central form of administration for them—I would use as an analogy the Port of London Authority—in order that traffic can be co-ordinated to those airports, administration centralised as far as possible, and a common provision of radio and meteorological facilities made.
      I want now to turn from the airports to the last point in the Amendment, which deals with new types of aircraft. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington, I, too, realise the unsuitability of many of the types of aircraft that internal operators have been struggling with in past years, but equally the economic aspect of internal aviation has not hitherto been one which has been likely to attract large capital expenditure for special types of aircraft suitable for internal lines only. I now have hopes that that is going to change. I hope that priming the pump and the stimulus that we have given will bring about a state of affairs which will allow the development of a new type of air liner for special internal use. We have asked the operators to get together and agree a specification for a general utility aircraft for internal aviation. It will have to be a compromise between the different
      2448
      requirements of all the separate operators. We have given a practical indication of our willingness to co-operate in the development of aircraft, not only technically, but also financially, and if hon. Members will consider the terms of the White Paper dealing with the subsidy for internal air lines they will see that it is a diminishing one year by year. Nevertheless, it contains the provision that at the discretion of the Secretary of State we may retain the subsidy at the higher level for those operators who are using an approved type of aircraft. I cannot give to-night any idea as to what type of aircraft that will be. That is not for me. It is for the operators to bring up their agreed specification, and when they do so the Air Ministry will sympathetically consider other requests for assistance in some measure for design and development of special internal aircraft, particularly if such a design could be of secondary use on feeder lines overseas. The Estimates contain details of considerable sums of money for the development of new civil types for overseas use, which is asked for and recommended in this Amendment.
      The House will be interested to have brief details of three new types of flying machine. We have the aircraft which is at present known as the Short 14/38, which is a new land aeroplane. Three prototypes are being built, two of which are for medium altitude and one is to have a high-altitude pressure cabin for what is commonly known as stratosphere flying. The cruising speed of that aircraft at 25,000 ft. is calculated at 275 miles an hour, and the cruising speed of the medium altitude one is 245 miles an hour. We hope that the first prototype, that is, the low-altitude version, will be in the air some time in 1940. We are developing another type. We are preparing and constructing a low-wing, all-metal monoplane, with two engines, which should be ready by 1941 and which is intended to be used by Imperial Airways, British Airways, and, if this House passes the necesasry legislation, the new Corporation in the future. This particular aircraft will carry 30 passengers at 205 miles an hour.
      In order that we may ensure British civil aviation having a supply of modern aircraft in the future, and in view of the fact that at present neither Imperial Airways nor British Airways are in a

      2449
      position to order aircraft of this type for the future, the Air Ministry have been able to place an order for two prototypes and 12 production machines straight away, so that there will not be any delay in supplying the new Corporation with equipment when it is required. The De Havilland Company deserve great credit for the development of the new air liner known as the Flamingo, which is flying well, and I hope the first production machine will be delivered this year. The Air Ministry have entered into a subsidy arrangement with that company on a sliding scale, in order to stimulate the early production of quantity machines. Then there is the large new G class flying boat, which is similar to the Empire boat. In order to igve some idea of the size of the new boat as compared with the Empire boat, the existing type of Empire boat has a weight of some 40,500 lbs. and the new boat has a weight of 71,000 lbs. and a range of 3,200 miles. Three of these boats are under construction, and they will be flying April, May, and June of this year.
      I have tried to give the House a brief picture in words of the operation of internal lines and of how we are trying to assist, what we are doing towards helping airports in the provision of radio and meteorology, and what we are doing in the provision of new types of aircraft, but I would stress, in conclusion, that with all the willingness to spend money on new aircraft, with all the willingness of this House to vote money for the provision of up-to-date airports, and with all the determination on the part of those who are carrying out this policy to carry it out efficiently and rapidly, what we are doing now cannot be of full benefit to civil aviation for another two years from the present time. Undoubtedly the urgency and the magnitude of the Royal Air Force expansion has hampered to a great extent our civil aviation plans in design, in labour, and in material, but the general trend the whole world over has been for civil aviation to become a factor in international politics and part, as it were, of the country's defence scheme rather than letting civil aviation development towards the ideal of self-sufficiency. I am conscious, as the rest of the House is conscious that sometime in the future, we hope soon, this rearmament race will come to an end, and when that does happen civil aviation should be able to
      2450
      come into its own in this country and the rest of the world, and we in this country must be ready to play our part to the full and lead in civil aviation as we have done in so many other peaceful commercial enterprises in the past.
      Mr. Eckersley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question again proposed.
      8.16 p.m.
      Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I wish to deal with some matters arising out of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into-the working of the Directorate of Operational Services and Intelligence which is part of the Department of Civil Aviation. When the committee was set up I had some conversations with the hon. and gallant Member who was then Undersecretary of State for Air, and who is now Under-Secretary of State for India, and I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy he showed to me in the matter, and of the fact that the undertakings he gave me in regard to the committee have been fulfilled.
      I think the injustices which are revealed by the report of the Rae Committee are only exceeded by the inefficiencies which were revealed by the report of the Cadman Committee. Out of 61 paragraphs in the report 25 deal with the complaints of individual officers. These paragraphs constitute a very severe condemnation of the heads of certain departments responsible for what happened to the officers in question. I have heard the remark expressed that the report of this committee is a whitewashing one. That is not so. On the contrary, it is a severe criticism of the heads of certain departments, especially the Director-General of Civil Aviation, the Director of Operational Services and Intelligence and the Establishment Branch officers, who were concerned in the matter. Those who were responsible ought not to escape. The cases of the gentlemen referred to as Mr. A and Mr. B would not have arisen had the Establishment Branch officers done their duty. They connived at most irregular actions, and those actions which have come to light make one wonder how many more have occurred but have not come to light, and how many more will occur if an example is not made of those who are responsible for these two particular cases.

      2451
      Let me deal with some of the points of the report. The reorganisation scheme for the Department of Civil Aviation, out of which the Directorate of Operational Services and Intelligence was evolved, was hatched in March, 1937. It was quite an elaborate scheme which provided for a new intelligence section but, by30th September, 1938, according to the report, it "had not yet been established." It provided for a staff of 44 officers for the Directorate. By August, 1938, only 29 had been appointed, so that 15 were still missing, although the report agrees that 44was "the minimum staff" necessary to enable the duties of the Directorate to be carried out. The report says:
      "Shortage of staff and an incomplete organisation led to delays in carrying out routine work and forced the Directorate to leave certain problems untouched."
      Why was the reorganisation scheme so long delayed? Why this long delay in carrying it out? Why the long delay in getting the "minimum staff" which was necessary? Why carry out a scheme of reorganisation at all if you cannot see your way to getting the necessary staff for that reorganisation? I think all these paragraphs in the report constitute a very severe criticism indeed of the Director-General. The report proceeds:
      "We have not sought to determine whether it (the Directorate of Operational Services and Intelligence) is functioning with full efficiency, as this, in our view, is not to be expected."
      That is a pretty frank condemnation of the Directorate. What a condemnation of the Director-General that this Directorate should have been allowed to fall into a state where the committee say that efficiency from it could not be expected. The report says, further:
      "The Directorate forms one section of the Department of Civil Aviation. It is important, therefore, that its relations to the other sections of the Department should be clearly understood and recognised by all concerned."
      I think we should all agree that it is desirable that the rest of the Department should know for what purpose one section of it exists, but the report says:
      "We are of opinion that this is not the case. Some witnesses have stated that they regard it as purely advisory while others have ascribed to it certain not very clearly defined executive functions."
      What a comment on the Director-General and the Director of this particular Directorate, that they could not even convey to the Air Ministry information as
      2452
      to what the Directorate exists for. The report goes onto say:
      "We recommend that an Office Notice should be issued to all concerned."
      I wonder if ever before in the history of the Civil Service a Committee of Inquiry has had to recommend to the head of a Department the issue of an Office Notice to explain that one of his Directorates really has a use, and what that use is. It is not surprising to readin the report this statement:
      "It was suggested to us by some witnesses that there was no need for a separate Directorate of Operational Services and Intel ligence."
      A section of this Directorate deals with the not unimportant question of the examination of pilots. One report says:
      "At the date of our appointment not only were those posts unfilled, but the remainder of the section exists only on paper."
      Outside help had to be brought in to do the examining of pilots. There was a decision on policy in this matter which was delayed for over a year. The report says:
      "We consider that steps should be taken to ensure that the section is able to function properly."
      Well! That is quite an idea. Revolutionary, perhaps, but still quite sound. It is very satisfactory to read that this daring idea on the part of the committee is
      "an opinion which we understand is shared by the Air Ministry."
      Another pious opinion expressed by the committee is that they
      "attach importance"—
      nothing less—
      "to the inclusion in this staff of a nucleus of really experienced officers."
      Not a lot of them. Not too much experience, but just a modest nucleus of experienced officers. The report goes on to speak of an "authorised complement never filled." "Over-pressure of work." "Important matters left on one side." "An atmosphere of strain not calculated to lead to smooth working." "The existence of two cases of alleged unfair treatment, which were the centre of a good deal of controversy within and outside the organisation." "A degree of uneasiness current among the junior staff." Such remarks constitute a severe condemnation of the Director-General, because they show every symptom of the

      2453
      results of an inefficient administrator. As regards the two cases of alleged unfair treatment, the person referred to as Mr. A was dismissed, and the report says:
      "The reasons which led the authorities to the decision to terminate the engagement were not communicated to Mr. A."
      The committee agrees that Mr. A was given no reason to suppose that his services were not proving satisfactory, or that the termination of his appointment was under consideration. They agreed that it came as a bombshell to him. They also mentioned that they were "impressed with his sincerity," and said:
      "We regard it as unfortunate that he was left without intimation that his superior officers were dissatisfied with his work."
      They agreed that this inevitably led to suspicion and a sense of bad faith. In the case of Mr. B they said:
      "It is unfortunate that, in view of his long service, he was not informed of the reasons for the decisions taken in his case."
      The result has been understandable suspicion. As regards Mr. A and Mr. B:
      "In neither case were the reasons for the decisions communicated to the officers concerned … the omission has had regrettable consequences … it undoubtedly created an atmosphere of uneasiness amongst some of the junior officers as to their own position which would not otherwise exist … if a franker attitude had been adopted the circumstances leading up to our appointment would not have arisen."
      All this is a very serious condemnation indeed of those at the head of this Department. The committee conclude with recommendations designed to secure that the Directorate of Operational Services should become "efficient and contented" so that it is quite evident it has not been in that state and those responsible should go. I must also point out what I think is a very remarkable fact indeed in connection with these matters. The Director of Operational Services and Intelligence went to the Air Ministry from the Automobile Association. He took with him two other gentlemen from that association. One of those gentlemen now holds the post from which Mr. A was dismissed and the other holds the post which Mr. B was compelled to relinquish.
      I would like to deal with the case of Mr. B in a little more detail. Following the dismissal of the last Secretary to the Air Ministry a Minute was issued as to the code by which civil servants should regulate their conduct. Taken all round,
      2454
      civil servants do live up to a very high standard of conduct and their compensation should be absolutely fair and just conditions of service, security of tenure and a reasonably good pension. A high standard of honour is expected from these men, and they ought to be treated equally honourably. In the Air Ministry one has heard tale after tale of officers passed over for promotion for no apparent reason and of others suddenly finding salaries reduced. To avoid paying pensions, numbers of them are never established, and are consequently exposed to dismissal at short notice. Many of the men who fail to get establishment have got as much as 20 years' service to their credit—they are the very men who have helped to build up the Air Ministry organisation. How long does it take to find out if a man is suitable for the Civil Service or not? It is not surprising that you do not find quite the spirit at the Air Ministry among civil servants as perhaps you find among the staffs of certain other Government Departments.
      I believe that the directorate of the Department of Civil Aviation is not efficient largely because of the manner in which it has treated its staff in the past. Mr. B. served for 18½ years as a senior assistant to the Controller-General of Civil Aviation organising and controlling the Commercial Intelligence Section. As a reward for his services he suffered progressive reductions in salary. Whereas he began with a sum of upwards of £900, by June, 1937, he had come down to £650. In January, 1937, all the intelligence work on which he was engaged was taken away from him and given to the present D.O.S.I. The only reason given to him by the Director-General was "reorganisation" and it was emphasised to him that the change had got "nothing to do with you or your work." A month or two later he was given three months' notice, and then in April the D.O.S.I. to whom the intelligence work had been transferred announced his inability to take over the work. So Mr. B. agreed to carry on with it if his salary might remain intact. The Director-General thought this was reasonable and recommended it. Suddenly Mr. B. was offered a new appointment by the Establishment Branch, and it was a very peculiar appointment. It carried a salary of £650 with no rank, and no specific duties were laid down at all for the post. After remonstration the Establishment

      2455
      Branch temporarily withdrew this offer. Towards the end of May Mr. B. had an interview with the Director-General and the head of the Establishment Branch and pointed oat that he was still doing his old intelligence duties but was told that his salary could only be£650. He sought an interview with the head of the Establishment, protesting against the injustice of the reduction of pay, and he was asked what reasons had been given to him by the Director-General when the change was made. All he could reply was that he had been told it was due to a
      "reorganisation of the Directorate and the necessity to form a Trade Section."
      At this point another member of the establishment branch joined the interview and it was then revealed—this was at the end of May—that the decision about Mr. B. had really been due to an adverse report rendered by the Director-General of Civil Aviation and two other directors. I invite the House to compare that with the fact that the Director-General stated nothing of all this when he was communicating the decision and said there were "no complaints" at all to be made about Mr. B. While the Director-General had to admit to establishment branch officials that he had made an adverse verbal report, he could not deny to Mr. B. that he made "no complaint" at all but had placed the change on the basis of "reorganisation." It came out that the adverse report had been made, and the Director-General was asked why he had taken five years to discover the inefficiency of Mr. B. He then made the astounding remark that he had given up asking for any information from Mr. B. soon after he had taken over in1930 because he found he did not get any, and Mr. B. was "incapable of producing it." When asked why he had gone on year after year with Mr. B. if he had so much to complain of he could say nothing. He fell back upon the miserable excuse of saying that he had made no adverse written report. What is the difference between making a written report and a verbal report if the result of it is that a man loses his job?
      Seven months after the re-organisation had been announced the D.O.S.I. had still not taken over Intelligence and Mr.B. was still going on doing it just as before, after losing his pay and losing his
      2456
      rank. The D.O.S.I. was asked why he could not take over intelligence and he said he had not been given his staff but he had communicated this in writing to the establishment branch and had informed the Director-General. After this Mr. B. again interviewed the Director-General and pressed the injustice of his treatment, and the Director-General then recommended to the establishment branch that his salary should go back to the old rate of £770 while intelligence work was being done, and should only go down to £650 when the work of the trade section was taken over. This was very extraordinary, because the Director-General had reported, apparently, that Mr. B.'s intelligence work was a failure and that for five years he had given up asking Mr. B. for any information. If Mr. B. was unsatisfactory in controlling the intelligence section, why did the Director-General reconfirm him in it? If he was inefficient, why not insist on the D.O.S.I. taking over the work and making it efficient? The establishment branch refused to accept the recommendation and said that Mr. B. must go on doing the intelligence work, but that his salary could be only £650.
      Then, from August to October, Mr. B was pressing the Establishment Branch to give him details of the adverse report which had been rendered. He called the attention of the Establishment Branch to the Air Ministry's Office Instructions, which, of course, lay down in the clearest possible way that when an adverse report is made against the conduct of an officer it shall be made in writing, and that the officer shall be informed in writing of the facts contained in the report on which action is taken against him. The Air Ministry's Instructions on that point are clear and unambiguous. However, the Establishment Branch preferred to ignore them. They simply referred to a letter of 12th August in which they said that:
      "It is true that no adverse report on your work had been communicated to you,"
      although they themselves had revealed to Mr. B that the adverse report had been made, although orally instead of in writing. More efforts were made by Mr. B to get the terms of the adverse report communicated to him, and finally, the Establishment Branch sent a letter in which they conveniently said:
      "This correspondence is now closed."

      2457
      The first comment I want to make is this. How can any officer be supposed to do his work properly when he is forced to carry on, in simple self-defence, such a protracted correspondence as I have outlined, which must have raised bitter feelings of injustice and ill-treatment in his mind? I know this process very well. The heads treat a man unfairly. He protests. Then they use all the weight of their authority and every Departmental trick of procedure in order to give him no redress. He is forced, out of self-respect and indeed self-interest, to press his case. Everybody concerned begins to call him a nuisance. The sycophants, knowing that he is in trouble, curry favour by giving him the cold shoulder and passing round the word that he has got a bad name. The whole course of such conduct preys on the man's mind, and not unnaturally his work falls off. Then, of course, he is not merely a nuisance, but he is inefficient, and he is damned up hill and down dale for having become what those above him have made him. I do not know that I have ever come across a more pitiable story of shuffling and double-crossing in the treatment of a subordinate. I do not think anybody comes out of this business with any right to be called a gentleman or straightforward, except the victim of the treatment; and it is a narrative which must raise a very grave question as to the fitness of certain officials to hold their posts.
      I would like to refer very briefly to what are the results of this sort of conduct. Such treatment of subordinates in a Department or in a Directorate works out inevitably in terms of inefficiency in that Department, and there is abundant and overwhelming evidence of the state of inefficiency which has existed in the work of the Directorate of Operational Services and Intelligence in this Department of Civil Aviation. The House has been most indulgent in allowing me to put this matter before it at such length, and I do not wish to weary hon. Members with more details. I will quote however, briefly, the case of the "Air Pilot," a book which was out of print for 11 months. It is exactly as if, at the Admiralty, one could not get any charts or notices for mariners for 11 months. Suppose that one was appointed to a ship in the Mediterranean and tried to draw charts and notices far mariners, and was told that they were out of print, and had
      2458
      been for 11 months. Yet the "Air Pilot," a book to which the Air Ministry themselves call attention as being most important, was out of print and not available for 11 months. The delay in getting out that new edition of the "Air Pilot" was, in my opinion, directly traceable to the present Director of Operational Services and Intelligence, who failed month after month to produce decisions on questions of policy upon which the issue of the new edition of that work depended.
      There is one instance after another of that sort of thing, about which I have chapter and verse, and which, of course, I should be very happy to produce or to quote from if time permitted. I will merely mention such matters as Control Zones, Movement Reports, Distress Procedure—a matter which was not amended until February, 1939, although I should have thought it was very important— Direction Finding, the Directional System, Aerodrome Surfaces, Aerodrome Obstructions, and the whole story of Publications. In each one of the instances which I have quoted, there is evidence of glaring inefficiency on the part of the Directorate.
      We have heard to-day the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air. Undoubtedly, that statement was in many ways very reassuring, and one feels that the right hon. Gentleman has in many directions effected great improvements and shown great energy in conducting his work at the Air Ministry. But the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on at the Air Ministry. I think the facts I have quoted point to an utterly inefficient Directorate of Operational Services and Intelligence. They point to a failure to supervise the work of the Directorate by the Director-General of Civil Aviation. The Raye Committee's report points out, in temperate and moderate language, very glaring failures on the part of the Director-General and the Directorate of Operational Services. The facts show how shockingly the two officers to whom I have referred were treated by the Establishment Branch. It is a discreditable story, not calculated to enhance the prestige of the Civil Service. While sincerely congratulating the Secretary of State on a great deal of what was contained in his statement to-day, certainly I must tell him that I shall press, in every way possible, to secure that suitable

      2459
      notice shall be taken of the facts which the House has so kindly allowed me to bring to its notice.
      8.44 p.m.
      Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary of State for Air upon the able way in which he presented the Estimates. I am sure his statement will be received with great gratification throughout the country. I have to acknowledge what was said about me by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), that I should be gratified with the amount of money to be spent on the Air Arm this year. I notice in the White Paper that in 1935 the Air Force took £31,000,000; in 1936, £55,750,000; and that this year the amount is £220,750,000. For many years I have contended in this House that the air service gets only one-sixth of the money available for the fighting services. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used to say that the other services got away with the loot. They certainly did, and now the Air Force is receiving the share which it requires to bring it up to efficiency.
      I have been a critic of the Air Ministry for many years. I have been through the White Paper and the Estimates very carefully, and I find little to criticise. The Ministry was wise in not giving too much information about the expansion of the Air Force, because foreign governments do not give us much detail, and we ought to soft-pedal all information that is circulated. We ought to congratulate the chief of staff and his officers on the efficiency of the Royal Air Force. Many of us went to Northolt last year and saw the work they were doing and the high efficiency of the officers. The Secretary of State referred to the personnel, and it is gratifying to know that so many young men are coming forward to join the Air Force. It is now becoming a very popular service. The Secretary of State will have to make greater calls this year, and I hope he will get his figures up in the current year as well as he has done in the past year. We have had an Amendment dealing with civil aviation, which was ably put forward by the Mover and the Seconder. The Undersecretary of State, in a very able speech, said that London was to have a ring of aerodromes. If that is the policy, I hope
      2460
      he will see that these aerodromes are connected with the centre of London efficiently, because it takes so long to get from the centre of London to the aerodromes. If there is to be a ring that matter ought to be gone into and money expended to get better communications.
      I hoped the Under-Secretary would say a word about the Empire Air Base, and I shall be glad if he will give us a little information about it. Controversy has been going on for many years between the Portsmouth authorities and the Air Ministry, and now Southampton has been brought into it. The Admiralty now say that Portsmouth cannot be used as an Empire Air Base, and I understand that the Ministry have looked to Southampton. I know Southampton Water very well, because I established our first sea-plane station at Calshot and I have flown over many times. Last year I flew over Southampton Water from Hythe in "Canopus," one of the Empire flying boats. There is no doubt that it is very restricted and my Royal Naval Air Service pilots would not have wanted to use Hythe for sea-plane work. The area is to be dredged so that sea-planes can use it.
      Is the policy of the Ministry to develop seaplanes or aeroplanes for the Transatlantic service? Many people believe that the aeroplane in years to come will replace the flying boat, and aero-dynamically the aeroplane, more streamlined, is more efficient than the flying boat. The selection of a place as an Empire air base depends on which form of flying we shall develop. I think we ought to have not only water for the seaplanes to takeoff from, but an aerodrome in the vicinity. Surely this great Empire of ours can develop a large Empire air base in exactly the same way as the Germans have developed their great air base at Temple of. They have two miles of runways, and it is a very fine airport indeed. In the future our Empire air traffic will increase enormously, and we ought to develop an airport that will be as important to this country as Southampton has been in the past. I should like to know whether any alternative site is in view.
      I want to pass to the South Atlantic air service and ask the Under-Secretary whether we are going to use flying boats or aeroplanes on that service. The French use aeroplanes. They have done

      2461
      some 300 crossings of the South Atlantic and have never had an accident. They tried seaplanes and had three or four accidents. The German use seaplanes for crossing about 1,800 miles, and I have heard recently that they are rather swinging towards aeroplanes on that service. It would be interesting to know what the policy of the Air Ministry is in that respect. I hope that they will press on with the development of a South Atlantic air service for this country because we are losing so much prestige in the Argentine while they see German and French machines crossing but never a British machine.
      Mr. Quibell: They are wonderful fellows, the foreigners.
      Sir M. Sueter: We might take a lesson from the foreigners. They have done great service in crossing the Atlantic and have given training to their pilots in long distance flying which may be very valuable in wartime.
      The Under-Secretary told us a good deal about new designs. It is gratifying to hear that we are pressing on with them, and I would ask him whether, when the Ministry have a new design and the machine is successful, they cannot send some of this information to Australia. In that Dominion nothing but American machines are being boosted. Whenever we have an accident in this country, whether it is a service machine or civil machine, it is always published in large print in the Australian papers. The American machines are all boosted up, and that is good business for the Americans. We ought to take a leaf out of their book and see whether the Australian papers cannot have some information about our new machines. When the rearmament programme slackens off it may be useful to have the Dominions placing orders in this country and so keeping our men in employment.
      The Secretary of State said that a Committee had been appointed to go into accidents. I saw in the Press the other day that the father of a gallant pilot who lost his life said they ought to have a curfew in the air service. I have had a good deal to do with experimental work in submarines and aircraft, and I have always impressed on the crews in the submarines and the young pilots in the Royal Naval Air Service that they ought to have a good night in when they had important
      2462
      experimental work to do. I thought that the father of this pilot rather inferred that some of the pilots have a late night, and then have the responsibility of flying a heavy bomber or some experimental machine. We ought to see that those young pilots are encouraged to go slow the night before they have important experimental work to do. We have narrowly escaped accidents due to retractable undercarriages jamming, and I should like to ask whether some of the hydraulic pipes or whatever they may be that are liable to go wrong could not be duplicated in order that accidents maybe avoided. Gun circuits in ships are-duplicated, and there are duplicate electric pumps for blowing the main ballast tanks of submarines, and I should like to know whether Farnborough has looked into the question of giving some guidance to the firms who build retractable undercarriages. They might get out some system whereby if anything went wrong the retractable under-carriage would drop its wheels into a position of safety for landing. I should imagine that it would be quite easy to devise an appliance which would make it safe for the pilot to land and so prevent accidents that might cause great loss of life. This year Farnborough is to get nearly £750,000, and I think it ought to justify its existence by giving guidance to firms in devising safety appliances on the lines I have mentioned. Further, I should like to know whether Farnborough is experimenting with catapaults, or doing anything to improve the acceleration and take-off of the railway system, because I understand that has-been suggested, and we should like to know what has been done. Farnborough is also to get £25,000 for experimental tracks, and we should like a little information on that subject.
      The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) was very much dissatisfied with his trip in a flying boat, saying that everything had to give way to the air mails at the expense of the passengers I thought the air mail service did wonderfully well this Christmas in carrying more than 300 tons of Christmas mail, and we ought to congratulate the Postmaster-General and his staff for getting all that tonnage of Christmas mail into the air. The hon. Member wanted to know whether he could not be provided with greater comfort and the mails be some other way, perhaps. I want

      2463
      the Under-Secretary whether they are going to develop a high speed mail service. We ought to develop a high speed service for mails and a slower service for passengers and for small merchandise such as they have in America. I think that is the solution to the complaint of the hon. Member for Bodmin. The Secretary of State referred to the amalgamation of Imperial Airways and British Airways. I hope that when a constitution is drawn up they will preserve the individuality of those two companies, because if that can be done there will still be a little competition between the two and that will be most valuable. There could be one control for finance and general administration at the top, but we want to keep up a little competition between the two companies, so as to ensure efficiency. I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary, or whoever is to reply, can answer the one or two points which I have put.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Batey: I was not able to listen to the whole of the speech of the Minister this afternoon, but I listened for an hour, and should like to refer to one statement which he made and to one important omission from that speech which I noted. The statement was that an order had been given to America for aeroplanes and that the last of them would be delivered by the end of the year. That impressed me as being rather a peculiar thing. We are at the beginning of March and an order which has been given to America will not be completed until the end of the year. Why should the Government have given an order for aeroplanes to another country when there are so many men out of employment here? More than once the question has been raised of shipowners in this country getting their ships built abroad, and Members on all sides of the House have been opposed to that proceeding. If it is wrong for shipowners to do that it must be wrong for the Government to spend public money in another country rather than spend it in this country and so find work for our unemployed. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) said that it would be a good thing if some of the Dominions would give orders for aeroplanes to this country so that our men might find employment. If that is important it is just as important for the Government, when they have public
      2464
      money to spend, and aeroplanes are needed, to spend the money in this country.
      The omission from the speech which struck me was that not a single word was said about the supply of oil for aeroplanes. The Minister seemed very happy that aeroplane production was increasing, pointing out that it was 150 per cent, more than in May last, but the more aeroplanes there are the more oil will be needed, and I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with the question of the supply of oil. Only a week or two ago I noticed that one Government Department, looking forward to a time when we might be at war, talked about oil for motor cars having to be rationed. The extract to which I refer is this:
      "In the foreword to his booklet the Transport Minister says that in this island road transport depends mainly upon imported fuel. Great though our resources are for storage and maintenance of supplies, the heavy demands of active and civil defence must have the first claim on these, and ordinary commercial traffic will in all probability have to be rationed severely."
      What need is there to look forward to a time when it is necessary to ration oil? At the present time this country has to depend very largely upon foreign oil, although not altogether. The supply of oil is a really important matter of defence, because if a war broke out one of the first attempts of the enemy would be to cut off our supply of oil and to make it impossible for us to get supplies from overseas. When the Government are thinking of building an increasing number of aeroplanes it will be criminal for them not to give their attention to the supply of oil in order to meet the needs of those aeroplanes.
      The first step of the Government ought to be to arrange a supply of oil as soon as possible. We stand for British oil for British aeroplanes. If there were no possibility of getting British oil, one could understand the Government being content to go on buying foreign oil, but we have passed the stage when we need to depend upon foreign oil. I ask the Under-Secretary why the Government propose to go on in the way that they are doing and why they will not make some effort to produce more oil in this country—as much oil as possible. It is well known that we do not need to depend upon foreign oil, and that oil can be extracted from coal. In 1934, 54,000,000 gallons were extracted, but in 1937 that figure had

      2465
      jumped up to 100,000,000 gallons. There is the advantage not only of an abundant supply of oil but of providing work for men who need it at the present time. While the Government were providing oil for their aeroplanes they would be providing work for the miners of this country.
      Some of us believe that the remedy for the present difficulties in the distressed areas lies in the setting up of plants for the extraction of oil from coal. The Government appointed a committee to go into this question. The committee was favourable to the setting up of plants for the extraction of oil from coal, and said:
      "It would be of considerable advantage if the establishment of a plant to work the Fischer process could be secured by private enterprise with the possibility of some Government assistance for the carrying out of research work."
      That committee recognised the necessity for something being done to set up a plant for the purpose of extracting oil. If private enterprise does not start such a plant it is the duty of the Government to do so. The Minister stated that he had been establishing shadow factories; it is equally essential that we should be independent of foreign oil and that we should produce oil from coal.
      We know that plants have been established in this country and have extracted oil from coal, but we have never been told whether those plants were a commercial success or not, and if the Government would establish some of those plants we would be able to get experience and should then know if it was possible to extract oil from coal as a commercial success. The Government should not be content to let this matter rest where it is. It is important to many of us who come from the distressed areas. We believe that oil is needed and that the Government should be prepared to use some of the money which they have borrowed in the establishment of plants for the extraction of oil from coal. We expected that the Government would have done something in this matter long before now. They appointed a Commission for the Special Areas, and when Sir Malcolm Stewart was the Commis-missioner he dealt in his report with the question of the extraction of oil from coal. That part of the report is well worth reading. It says:
      2466
      "The most practical way of creating increased employment in the coal-mining industry would be by stimulating the use of coal for purposes for which it is not now being generally employed"
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid that the hon. Member is now getting a little outside the scope of the Debate. The use of coal is not particularly relevant to an Air Estimates Debate. It is an important subject but I think the hon. Gentleman must keep a little closer to the military uses of coal in the air.
      Mr. Batey: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but there is a provision in the Estimates for a supply of petrol for this Department, and I am suggesting that instead of the Government being dependent on foreign oil it ought to use home-produced oil, and it can do so only if they have plants for extracting oil from coal.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was all right when he went only as far as that, but his argument was going beyond that point and he had begun to look at the matter from the industrial point of view.
      Mr. Batey: That may be due to my candour. I am not in the habit of hiding what I am advocating. I confess that this argument is double-edged. I want British oil for British aeroplanes, and in doing that I am hoping to help the miners of this country. I believe that if the Government were to set up a plant for the purpose of extracting oil from coal we should noa htve one miner idle in the country, and that would solve the question with which we have been dealing. However, if you say that I cannot carry on the argument any further for the establishment of plants for the extraction of oil from coal, perhaps I have said sufficient to show that we have a grievance against the Government for not establishing plants for the extraction of oil from coal. Will the Minister tell us how much oil produced from coal is being used, the price paid for it, and the price that is being paid for foreign oil? That is surety in order, and I think he should be able to give an answer. I remember that two or three years ago one of the Parliamentary Secretaries—I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty—said in this House that the home-produced oil they were using was

      2467
      perfectly satisfactory. Would the Secretary of State for Air say that the home-produced oil that is being used to-day is equally as satisfactory as the foreign oil? As far as I am concerned, the question is now how many aeroplanes we have. Whether it is 5,000 or 5,500 leaves me cold. For me the question is why, when all this work is being done, and there is a possibility of giving work to our men, we do not take steps along those lines? I hope that the Minister will give more attention to this question, and that, as he is prepared to build so many factories, he will use some of this money for the extraction of oil from coal.
      9.17 p.m.
      Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I very much regret that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), having raised a subject of great national importance, was not able to pursue it in an Air Debate. If I may be allowed to answer him in just a word, tar oil, whether produced by low temperature or high temperature carbonisation, is particularly deficient in hydrogen, and the only way of making it suitable for use in aeroplane engines is to hydrogenate it. As the hon. Member knows, hydrogenation plants are few in number and very expensive. The fuel used in modern aeroplane engines is a fuel with a tremendously high octane number, and consequently it is very difficult to convert tar oil into petrol that is suitable for aeroplanes. I must tell the hon. Member, however, that there is plenty of incentive to get oil from coal besides using it in aeroplanes. There is not a lorry up and down the country that should not be using oil from British coal, and although it is not a subject that one can discuss at length to-night, I can assure the hon. Member that there are many people in this country who are heart and soul with him in trying to get English coal turned into a more easily consumed product, namely, ordinary oil.
      We have had a series of speeches, most of them very short, considering the importance of the occasion, but we had one of an hour and a half from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and it only shows the complexity and enormous range of the subject which he had to cover that, even at the end of an hour and a half, he seemed to me not to have covered as much as I should have
      2468
      liked. He referred to the fact that it is only 21 years since the Royal Air Force was born. In the old days we could not keep a House to listen to anything about the air. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and one or two others, were the only people who were ever in the House at such times. We hammered and hammered to try to get an increased Air Force. It was almost absorbed by the Admiralty, and if the present Home Secretary had not fought for the Air Force it would have been swallowed up by the Army and Navy, To-day we are discussing astronomical figures, when only a few years ago we were trying to avoid the disappearance of the Air Force altogether.
      I am quite unrepentant. I have spoken on these Estimates for nearly 20 years, and have always asked for more year by year. Monotonously I have pleaded for more money. Now we cannot ask for more money, and we cannot ask for more attention to this subject, because undoubtedly no one is more energetic or has done more than my right hon. Friend, and he has appreciated the colossal importance to the country of this particular subject. We are told that money talks. I sincerely hope that money will scream across the world and tell the world what we are doing in connection with this subject, and that the world will not be deceived by regarding this Estimate only, but will add the loan figures to it, and will thereby see the extent of the financial effort which this country is making in order that it may not be destroyed by potential enemies.
      The Secretary of State tried to give us some information on the basis of a comparison of our present output with some typical figure in the past—I think the figure for May, 1936; but, as no one knows what the output was at that time, it really is of little use telling us what the percentage is now, because it means nothing at all. I cannot help reminding my right hon. Friend that 50 times nothing is still 50— [Laughter]—I should have said that 50 times nothing is still nothing, and even 50 times one is only 50, so that comparisons of this sort are not particularly helpful. One can see from the number of

      2469
      men employed, the amount of money that is being spent, and so on, that our output is rapidly approaching the figures which we were so afraid were being reached in other countries.
      I could ask my right hon. Friend a thousand questions, but there are one or two points in regard to which I should have liked to hear something from him. I wanted to know whether we were so well equipped now with engines that we could afford to use two engines in fighters instead of one, and could afford to use six engines in long-range bombers instead of four. At one time we could only afford to use two, although we wanted four. These questions of policy have to be decided entirely by the extent of the supply, and my right hon. Friend alone must be the judge as to policy. He said nothing, either, about the question of the supply of cannon, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmons). I raised the question of cannon three years ago. At that time it was laughed at, but now, of course, it is essential, and I hope that our long-range bombers will shortly be fitted with cannon in order to make them safe from attack.
      For the first time in my Parliamentary career I am, broadly speaking, satisfied on the question of air rearmament. I do not say that the whole thing is perfect; nobody can say that; but on this matter, for which we have fought for years, the Minister and the Under-Secretary, although, of course, their efforts are founded on the work of others, are by their drive, initiative, enthusiasm and appreciation, and, of course, their ability to "work" the Treasury, getting it into a position which no one else has even approached. We have got to the stage of national factories. The Opposition never seem to have got that satisfaction out of our national factories which I should have thought they might have derived from it. Those factories are, of course, managed to-day by various firms, but they are owned by the nation, and are always ready for use when occasion arises for national production. We have to remember, of course, that we are now waging a war, although it is a war without bloodshed; and it is a war which is going to have the effect of degenerating the lives of the poor, both in our country and in countries abroad, for generations to come.
      2470
      We cannot spend money in the way it is being spent now without it having repercussions on the people of the country.
      I really rather want to know this, though I suppose the Minister cannot tell me. It seems to me that the industrial countries of the world—take ourselves and Germany—are manoeuvring themselves into the position, from the point of view of rearmament, that their national economic prosperity is going to depend finally on rearmament. I cannot see either Germany or ourselves stopping rearmament without the most tremendous crisis occurring, and it seems to me a cynical reflection on the ability of modern statesmanship that it might indeed be a fact that both countries would have to go on making armaments in order to stop an internal crisis. Anything more ridiculous than that one cannot envisage. It is not, of course, possible for us to stop now. We have to go on with this project until we are on absolutely equal terms with, and probably better terms than, any other country, but there must come a time when someone will call a halt. Narrow nationalism is having a malignant effect upon Europe.
      What is going to occur in the future? I have said before that mechanical science has run miles ahead of political wisdom. It would seem to me that we are drifting towards Kipling's conception of the A.B.C.—the Aerial Board of Control—some international combine of air Powers which will eventually dominate the world from the point of view of a police force. I do not see how else the thing can ever end. The competitive system of armament building of the aeroplane type is so fantastically absurd that it must end eventually in the League of Nations idea embodied in some other stronger body, like a combined international force. If we could get Germany, ourselves and the United States together we could stop today every form of war throughout the world. The three of us could be the policemen of peace for ever. It is probably premature at present, but the world must drift finally towards that sort of combination. When does the time come for someone to say halt, who is to say it, and at what time do negotiations for the stopping of armaments occur? No doubt, my right hon. Friend cannot answer these questions, but they must give very sleepless nights to the governors and the statesmen of the world.

      2471
      There are two points on civil aviation that I should like to mention. My right hon. Friend, although fully appreciating the tremendous importance of the military side, made some very interesting remarks about the civil side. I am not very happy about the intention of amalgamating the two operating companies. I have always been an opponent of competition in transport. Years ago, when at the Ministry of Transport, I got generally blackguarded by my own side because I was not in favour of free competition. I always favoured the institution of a transport board. If you compete on parallel lines and one of the competitors eventually dies and gives the other control, that is a bad plan. But you get competition on healthy lines, say, for instance, in the supply of electricity, where the great power companies do not supply the same areas, but there is competition as between one company and the other on the basis of costs per kilowatt produced.
      Though I do not advocate that there should be two lines competing on parallel routes, I should like to see the admirable suggestion adopted that the two companies should keep their individuality, fly on different routes and compare their costs and efficiency one against the other for the benefit of those who, after all, are paying for these lines, that is, the taxpayers. I hope my right hon. Friend will soon tell us that the idea of using Southampton Water has been given up for ever. It lies entirely the wrong way. There is no pilot in the world who can approach it with any safety. It is probably the most dangerous piece of water. The negotiations at Southampton were done quite irrespective of Imperial Airways. I do not believe they were ever consulted in the matter at all. It would be a wise thing to give up Southampton and consider the position de novo.
      The time will come when someone, or some wise combination of nations, will say halt to this enormous expenditure. We have to remember that the call may come not only from this country but from abroad. It is ingenious and it is good for my right hon. Friend to concentrate now on making long-range commercial machines so that there shall be something ready to sell to the markets of the world, bat those are going to be very few. There is going to be a microscopic output and consumption of these machines compared
      2472
      with what is being made now in the military line. I should like him to look rather further into the future. One day we are going to use aircraft as we use motor craft. It may not be very convenient in this country, but up and down the world, and in our great Colonial possessions, some means of locomotion is wanted which will take you safely from place to place in the air. That is long overdue, but the brains of the aeronautical world have been concentrated on the military side and on long-range commercial aircraft.
      We nearly got the kind of machine that we want in the small auto-gyro. If we could get a group of people to start that type of machine there would be an enormous demand for it, as there was for the small motor car. There has got to be a new orientation altogether. What we want is a small machine which you can sell to a private man. The ordinary machine sold to-day for private flying is still very difficult to operate. If you make a mistake you go to the cemetery, not the hospital. Something different is wanted, and if, when the time comes to stop manufacturing war machines, we have something which has a potenial market and which may be mass-produced for the whole world, there will be an opportunity for our manufacturers who are at work to-day on the production of armaments to carry on.
      9.35 p.m.
      Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) certainly touched upon a very interesting and important subject when he envisaged the termination of the present armament race. He thought, and I believe with a considerable amount of foresight, that it might well be that when we came to contemplate the discontinuance of the present armaments manufacture we should find ourselves faced with a tremendous economic crisis. It would be strange if, when the nations were filled with the will to peace, they found themselves faced with economic problems which might perhaps be even driving them to war. But I do not think the hon. and gallant Member found a key to that problem when he suggested that we should turn over this vast machine to the manufacture of civil aircraft. It is true that great potentialities should be found in that connection, but it is not only the manufacture of aircraft which

      2473
      will be discontinued, but the whole range of manufacture for the Navy and the Army, which covers certainly 75 per cent, of the whole field of British industry. We must be prepared for something better than a drive for civil aviation if we are to confront the problems that will face us then.
      It might prove that Germany—and I say this with a certain amount of shame —will find it easier to turn over from war to peace than we shall, because Germany has removed one of the great obstacles which exist in this country, the belief that all manufacture must pass through the great private profit-making machine. Unless we can envisage the destruction of that idea, we shall never be able to turn over to a peace economy. We find it possible to spend £3,000,000,000, £4,000,000,000 or £5,000,000,000 on the construction of armaments, yet when we look back we remember that we found it impossible to obtain the expenditure of one-fiftieth of that sum on unemployment benefit and the improvement of the social services. The provision of £10,000,000 to £30,000,000 was said in the long run to be beyond the capacity of this country to bear. I sincerely hope that plans are being made for the day to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred, because it may come upon us more suddenly than we imagine, and I hope that we shall make those plans with a higher spirit of idealism and courage than that with which we have ever faced the question of public works and social services in the past. There are a great many suggestions which, no doubt, we could give about that.
      I want to say a word or two on a subject which has commanded much attention, and which must necessarily engage more the attention of the critics of the Government than those who are supporting the Government; that is, the system of control of the profits of the armament manufacturers. I have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air considers that he had done a great thing by fixing a proportionate profit of 6 per cent, upon turnover for the air manufacturers, [Interruption.] Yes, that is upon the estimated cost. In reading through this monumental work of the Estimates Committee, which we are quite prepared to accept if the evidence, rather than the summarised report, is taken as the test
      2474
      of what the Government are doing, we get this statement from an Air Ministry official:
      "The first batch of machines or frames in this case cost £20,000 per air frame, dropping for the next batch to £10,000 per air frame, and then £9,000. Now it is £6,500, and I am hoping that, with the full run of production, we shall be dropping down to about £5,000."
      How is it possible, with prices fluctuating so enormously with the number of aircraft orders and with the increased facility of manufacture, to get an accurate profit on the basis of any fixed formulae? But, in addition to this 6 per cent., the manufacturers are also to get 20, 25 or 30 per cent, share of any savings. That appears to be a very valuable safeguard in the eyes of the Government. Although the manufacturers are only to get 6 per cent, on the estimated cost, if they are able to reduce that by a substantial amount they will get a percentage of the savings. But if the cost is frequently 30 per cent, or 40 per cent, below the estimated cost, far more will be paid to the manufacturers in respect of their savings on the target prices than in respect of their 6 per cent. If the target price was an effective criterion, we should look at it with more equanimity, but the fact is that it is to the advantage of the manufacturer that the target price should be fixed as high as possible.
      Sir K. Wood: It is not the manufacturer who fixes it; it is an agreed estimate.
      Mr. Garro Jones: In any case, it is in the interest of the producer to get the target price fixed as high as possible. That was stated in the report. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) asked a witness this:
      "It is obviously in the interests of the producers to get the initial cost up as high as possible on the original model?"
      The witness replied: "Yes." So you frequently find these target prices fixed without any regard to the real cost. I am not in the least impressed by the fact that Sir William McLintock was going to draw up a new form of agreement. [Interruption.] That was what he said, but Sir William McLintock is going into consultation with the aircraft manufacturers, and between them they are going to hammer out a new form of agreement.

      2475
      I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would say what is the fact, because that is what we all thought he meant.
      Sir K. Wood: What the aircraft industry has done, following upon representations which I have made to them, has been to consult Sir William McLintock, who was acting on their behalf in negotiations with the Air Ministry.
      Mr. Garro Jones: Sir William McLintock is the gentleman responsible for the agreement which is in force at present at any rate. It bears his name and it is the agreement under which the Air Ministry is working, and it is an agreement which strangely enough the Air Ministry refused to publish. We recognise that there is something in the contention that it has been the practice not to publish actual contract prices, but it is a new departure for the Government to refuse to diclose to the House of Commons the formula by which prices are arrived at. I do not wish to use strong language, but I am prepared to adopt the words suggested by an hon. Member sitting near me and say that the "basis of the racket" is this agreement. Why should that be kept secret? What conceivable reason can there be for withholding the McLintock agreement from the Members of the House and the public unless it is felt that it would expose some weaknesses and defects in the method of arriving at prices? I make the specific request that the Minister should publish the new agreement and the old one so that we can compare them and see whether we cannot offer some suggestions to him about them. The opposite number to Sir William McLintock, as far as I recollect, is Sir Hardman Lever. I am sorry to say that I do not derive any tremendous feeling of confidence from his operations because he was responsible for protecting the country against profiteering in the last War at the Ministry of Munitions, and we all know the result of his labours during those years. I cannot think that he has become much wiser in the meantime, although he is 20 years older.
      I wish now to say something about civil aviation. I recognise that it is not in true perspective to devote a large amount of time to that subject with the situation as it is, but we are shortly to
      2476
      form a public corporation to take over the two leading civil aviation companies, and unless we raise our voices on this occasion we shall be confronted with a fait accompli in the form of a fixed price to be paid to the shareholders of these concerns. Before the Government decide what price they are to pay they ought to hear some views from Members of this House on the subject and I propose to trespass on the time of the House for a few minutes in order to give them one opinion, at any rate, upon this matter. We have to remember that the Government have paid close on £6,000,000 in subsidies to Imperial Airways and British Airways and that in May of last year we agreed to contribute a maximum annual subsidy of £3,000,000 for the same purpose. This company, whose shares have fluctuated from 6d. or 1s. to 62s. in the last 14 years, now has a market quotation of 28s. 6d. I shall not remind the Government that over a long period of years they could have pur chased the whole concern, lock, stock and barrel, for about £30,000. I shall not remind them of the fact that they once owned civil aviation in this country for £30,000 in cash, and £100,000 in shares. What I am trying to establish is that this company has never earned a profit without a direct subsidy and that by far the greater part of its revenue has been received from the Government.
      When we approach the question of fixing the price for this concern, there are two or three things to be borne in mind. The first is that for many years the managers and directors of Imperial Airways have been concerned in "boosting" the market value of their shares. I do not mince words about that matter. The directors have spent a considerable amount of their time in propaganda and advertisement, and it is a strange fact that many of the advertisements seeking passengers for Imperial Airways appear in the financial pages of the newspapers. One can only conclude that they are really looking for two sorts of passengers —one sort to be carried by very skilful pilots along the skyways of the world, and another sort to go for a short ride with a very charming stockbrocker. I am certain that the end of that ride, as we can see from the course of the prices of Imperial Airways shares, would be as disastrous as anything which has occurred in the realm of civil aviation proper.

      2477
      All those facts must be taken into account before the price is fixed, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary not to be too much frightened by the powerful interests which own these shares. We know that these shares are held by extremely powerful interests, but it is difficult to find out who they are. When we look into the Somerset House list of shareholders we find that a vast proportion of the shares are held in the names of nominees. Sir John Reith holds only 500 shares and we can rule him out, but Moorgate Nominees own 400,000 shares in Imperial Airways and 86,000 in British airways; Bishopsgate Nominees hold 21,000 shares, the Midland Bank Trust hold 74,000 shares, and Strand Nominees 38,000 shares, and there is a much longer list of various mysterious holders. In addition to these shares, avowedly held in the names of nominees, a large number are held in the names of private individuals who are also nominees but not on such an organised scale. We do know that the Southern Railway has 50,000 shares and we think we know the price which they paid for those shares. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that they paid 13s., and the price to-day apparently is about 26s., so he will have a considerable argument to use in that case. What are the shares worth? I propose to read one opinion upon that subject.
      "The market price depends entirely on the fact that the shareholders are going to get your money and ours, and that is morally and ethically wrong, besides being anti-social and just silly. The money of the public should not be spent in paying outrageous interest to professional financiers."
      Anyone who moves in aviation circles will recognise the style of that quotation. It comes from the editor of the "Aeroplane'' with all his impartiality in regard to these matters. The next opinion was given to me by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury about 18 months ago. At that time he was striving to establish the fact that these shares were not so valuable in spite of the large subsidies which had been paid. He was trying to point out that the average dividend which these shares had received over a number of years was only about 4 per cent, and that that therefore was the true measure of their value. I hope that measure of the value will prove equally acceptable to the Government of the day.
      2478
      This is what the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
      "The valuation of a share of this kind is largely a matter of opinion, and the fact that these shares command a premium over the issue price merely shows that the market is willing to take an optimistic view of the future of the company."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1937; col. 352, Vol. 326.]
      I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me his attention, because I am approaching a point at which I propose to give him some suggestions about what should be paid for these shares. We are in the position that anything which the Government pay over the issue price of these shares is paid merely because the market is optimistic. That would indeed be putting a premium upon optimism. If optimism is to be rewarded at its own valuation, how easy it would be for all of us to be optimists and how easy to become rich. I have more than once in my lifetime embarked upon some business proposition with tremendous optimism, but it has never been my fortune to encounter the National Government on these occasions, much less the Air Ministry, which, I believe, is the softest of all the Departments. I do not want to detain the House too long on that subject because I feel confident that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that his predecessors have had a pretty difficult time in the various Air Debates over the last 10 or 15 years in this House, and that if he comes here and pays an excessive price for these shares, whether it is British Airways or Imperial Airways, he will have as warm a reception as any Air Minister has had at that Box.
      I want to say a word or two about the very core of the problem which is engaging our attention—the comparative air strength of Germany, Britain, Russia and France. I recognise with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wallasey that there have been tremendous improvements in the output of bombing and fighting aircraft within the last few years. Nevertheless, I wish the Government would get out of the habit of attempting to reassure us by giving us multiplications of mythical and fictitious outputs at various selected periods of six months, 12 months or 18 months. I am certain that that does not result in any real concealment for those countries which are most desirous of getting at the facts. I am not saying that we should give

      2479
      away all our secrets and all our strength, and so on, but it would be possible to give much more specific information as to the comparative strengths. I have heard Members speak in this House about the tremendous number of accidents in Germany. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) said that the figure of fatal accidents in Germany is about 700 per annum—and I think that is not an over-statement—and that in this country it was about 200 per annum. From that we appear to derive great consolation as though our methods of training were much more efficient than those in Germany, when in point of fact the truth may be that the number of flying hours in Germany is twice or three times that in this country. If that is one of the clues we have as to the comparative air strength of Germany it throws upon the Air Ministry of this country the onus of rebutting the fear that we are not even now narrowing the gap in current output between our own factories and those of Germany.
      In these circumstances, surely it is incumbent upon us to face up to the problem without any prejudice against purchasing machines from the United States of America. I well remember when that idea was first mooted—and though I do not wish to make false claims, I was the first to suggest by Parliamentary Question that the United States should be approached—the tirade of criticism in the trade Press and those organs of aviation which depend for their advertisement revenue upon what they receive from the manufacturers of British aircraft. They were furious at the suggestion that we should purchase any aircraft from the United States. We ought to set aside every prejudice of that kind.
      The second suggestion which I wish to make, though I have made it before, is that we should get into closer relationship with the Soviet Union than we have been hitherto. I am sure that I shall not be charged with any ideological prejudice here, because I have not got those feelings. I think I can make that claim as much as anybody in this House, but no one can deny that the number of aircraft in the Soviet Union at any rate is far greater than that of any other country in the world. That is known and admitted. It is admitted even in the
      2480
      German estimates. Why is it then that we are so reluctant to enter into closer arrangements and understanding with that country? There are many things about that country which a great many of us dislike intensely, but there is certainly no dispute over the desire for peace in that country. Why is it we are content to rely for our information about the efficiency of the Russian air force upon a single air attache. I think that that is an inadequate answer to our problem. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day whether he would send an air mission to the Soviet Union? Why should it not be done? Has the right hon. Gentleman approached the Russian Government and asked them whether they will be willing to accept such a mission? I asked the Prime Minister a short time ago when the British Ambassador last had an interview with the head of the Russian Government, and the answer was that it was when he presented his credentials. I really think that something ought to be done so that we may understand the true position. There have been some signs of rapproachement, but why has it come so late, and is it going to be carried to its logical conclusion?
      We have now, unfortunately, embarked upon the stage when the greatest security for peace is the restoration of the equilibrium between Germany and Italy and the rest of the Powers of the world. We must face up to and recognise that fact. It is no longer on the good will of Germany that we avoid war, or on the good will of Italy for that matter. It cannot be denied that it is the equilibrium between these Powers and the democratic Powers which is the greatest safeguard for peace, and anything which tends to weight that equilibrium in favour of the democracies should be pursued to the end.
      10.4 p.m.
      Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I hope that the House will not think that because the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said a lot of very amusing things that there was not a stratum of truth in nearly everything he said to us. I think it would be fairest to the Secretary of State for Air if I were to endeavour, as a humble back-bencher, to sum up the situation, to distribute a certain modicum of criticism and to give approval wherever one can find reason for it. In listening to the Secretary of State

      2481
      this afternoon I came to certain conclusions with which I think the House will probably agree.
      Beginning with what I think to be the most important point of all, which is the personnel of the Air Force, as far as I know, the Secretary of State was telling the truth and nothing else when he suggested to us that the personnel question has been to a very large extent solved and that the number of the personnel is satisfactory if not quite as complete as we should like to see it, and that certainly the quality of the personnel is at a very high level indeed.
      There is only one small criticism I would like to make. He informed us that he was going to raise the age of entry for short service commissions. I hope that, that step is not being taken without very careful consideration indeed. When the system was first introduced, we found the older entrants were often young men who went in for short service commissions because they had been to some extent a failure in other walks of life. I am not saying that in nine cases out of ten that failure was not due to some misfortune rather than the fault of the man, but the fact remains that we did find, in the early days of the scheme, that of the older entrants there was a much higher proportion than among the younger ones who were not quite up to the standard. There is another point, that if a man enters at the age of 26 or over, at the expiration of his short service commission, he is at an age when it is almost impossible for him to get satisfactory employment in civil life. The Secretary of State referred to the committee at the Ministry which deals with the employment of ex-officers. My information is that it has not been, very successful, and I think it might be advisable if that body at the Air Ministry took more frequent counsel with the Appointments Boards of the various universities.
      Turning from the personnel to the production of aircraft, here again there is no doubt that very great progress has been made. I think the right hon. Gentleman has imported certain civilians into the Air Ministry who have been of the utmost value in speeding up production. Whether, on the other hand, we are actually narrowing the gap which exists between our production and that of a potential enemy is a matter of grave
      2482
      doubt. Although we cannot expect to get specific figures from the right hon. Gentleman, my own view, from what I can calculate and from what I know, is that that gap, if it is not actually wider, is certainly not narrower and is not likely to narrow for some little time to come.
      The next point is on the question of cost, and there, I am afraid, one cannot be complimentary to the Ministry. At the same time, it is only fair to say that the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman made to-day with regard to the McLintock agreement goes to the root of the matter, because it was that abominable document that put us absolutely in the cart and in the hands of the aircraft manufacturers. I was a little disappointed to find, from what the Secretary of State said, that in actual fact the new agreement is to be drafted by the same gentleman who drafted the original agreement. I can only say that until that agreement is very drastically modified, we cannot get out of the hole in which we were placed by Lord Swinton.
      Then we come to the question of the Staff, and there again I think there has been a certain amount of Staff work which is open to very serious criticism indeed. Let me take just one example to show what I mean. We have all heard a great deal of the new types of fighters that are coming into production. It cannot be denied that when the first Hurricanes began to go to the squadrons, about a year ago, no one had the faintest notion as to what were the tactical schemes appropriate to that particular type of aircraft. Indeed, it is open to question whether that problem has been solved to this day. Yet for four solid years it had been known very well by the Air Staff that machines of that type and armament were going to be produced and to go to the squadrons, and I say that there is something wrong when the Staff allows a new weapon, which it has been known for four years was to go to the fighting forces, to go there in circumstances in which everybody has to get busy and try to find out how to use it. There is something very defective indeed in the Staff work there.
      With regard to the relations of the Air Ministry to the Fleet Air Arm, particularly since the change was made, I would like to say a few words. To judge from the remarks of the Secretary of State, the

      2483
      House would imagine that the love felt by the Air Ministry for the Fleet Air Arm and the reciprocal love felt by the Fleet Air Arm for the Air Ministry was a love passing the love of women. I venture to say that really the wish was father to the thought and that the present situation is not quite so beautiful as the Secretary of State would have us believe. In such a case there are bound to be faults on both sides. On the one hand, you have the well known calm superiority of the Navy, which I think is intensely irritating to the Air Ministry, but, on the other side, you have the somewhat cattish outlook of the Air Ministry vis à vis the Fleet Air Arm, and if it had not been for the exercise of immense tact on the part of all the officers concerned, we should have had an even worse mess than we have already.
      Let me give an example of the sort of thing that has happened. It is well known to many of us that there are two aerodromes in the Portsmouth area so close together that one man landing at one of them must do so with a left-hand circuit or else he will run into the other fellow landing at the other aerodrome. One of these aerodromes is at Lee-on-Solent and the other at Gosport. The Lee-on-Solent one borders on the Solent at Southampton Water, and the Gosport one borders on Portsmouth Harbour, and the two inner edges almost border on one another. Yet for some reason—whether it is cattishness, I do not know, but I suspect it is— although the Air Ministry have been willing to hand over to the Fleet Air Arm the aerodrome at Lee-on-Solent, they will not hand over the Gosport aerodrome. Instead of that, they are willing to hand over the Worthy Down aerodrome north of Winchester, which has the interesting quality that if there is a bad mist anywhere in Hampshire, it is to be found there. It is not only irritating, but it is also surely rather foolish on the part of the Air Ministry. For in the case of war, consider the position of the Gosport aerodrome. It will get all the bombs intended for Portsmouth Dockyard and the Navy, and why on earth the Air Ministry should want to take the responsibility of an aerodrome that will get all the nasty stuff intended for the Navy baffles me completely.
      Furthermore, Gosport is the headquarters of the Coastal Command of the Royal Air Force. Within a few miles
      2484
      they have a magnificent new station at Thorney Island, which would make a magnificent headquarters at very small cost indeed and which would be much nicer for them. Yet merely to annoy the sailormen, merely because the Admiralty assume an attitude of calm superiority to all the other Services, we have this absurd position, that the Fleet Air Arm have been given Lee-on-Solent while the Air Ministry sticks to Gosport.
      Let me revert to what is, perhaps, the most important point of all, and that is the question of the supply and cost of aircraft. Many hon. Members will agree with me that the form in which the Estimates are presented to us is very baffling. We have a great volume, of which the bulk is composed of information such as the statement that five charwomen at the Air Ministry have special allowances of 5s. 6d. a week, whereas the other four have special allowances of only 3s. 3d. The House may or may not be delighted to debate that kind of interesting information. Doubtless the Public Accounts Committee and1 the Estimates Committee will at some future date devote the whole time available for Air Estimate matters to items of similar importance. Having gone through many pages if similarly interesting items, we come to the item "Aircraft, etc., £94,000,000." That is all the information we get about it. What it represents we do not know.
      It is impossible for the House to discuss these Estimates in the form they are presented to us year after year. When questions are asked the plea is often made that it is not in the public interest to give the information. My 20 years' experience of the House has convinced me that in nine cases out of 10 "public interest" in this connection means the interest of the particular statesman who happens to be at the head of the Department in question.
      Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Secretary of State studies his own interest before the interest of the country?
      Mr. Hopkins on: What I suggest is that the well known phrase "public interest" is very frequently used on the Treasury Bench in order that the Minister may avoid criticism. We are told, for instance, if we ask how much are we paying for a certain air frame, that it is not in the

      2485
      public interest to give the information. What possible public interest could suffer damage if the Secretary of State for Air told us that an air frame costs so much to the public? In the past when these things were done by competitive tender, it was not possible to give the information because it would be giving away the price of an individual contractor, possibly to a competitor. When it is not done by competitive tender, what earthly interest would be affected by the House of Commons being told what is actually paid for this sort of thing.
      That brings me to my final point about the production of aircraft and the price we are paying. We have now reached a stage in our programme where the competitive tender has become a perfectly feasible proposition. In the very early stages when nearly all the designs were comparatively new, some quite new, there was; some ground for not adopting the competitive system, but now when we have type after type in full production and produced by more than one constructor, I cannot see any reason whatever why tenders should not be called for. Then we should get rid of the suspicion, which may be to some extent without a basis, although it has a very definite basis in many cases—a suspicion that the taxpayer is not getting what he is paying for and that the House of Commons and the taxpayer are to a large extent being humbugged by the Treasury Bench.
      10.20 p.m.
      Mr. Grant-Ferris: It is remarkable what a different atmosphere exists to-day from that which existed during the discussion of the Air Estimates a year ago. My right hon. Friend is very much to be congratulated for the work he has done. He has asked for a further 75,000 recruits during the coming year, and I believe he will succeed in getting them before the end of the year. The hon. Gentleman opposite was very concerned about the number of aircraft coming into service, and. also about the gap between our own re-equipment and that of Germany. I have a certain amount of information which, by reason of the fact that I am a member of the Services, I cannot communicate. But I also use my eyes, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he would like to spend a fortnight going round the country he would be able to see for himself what aircraft are being flown at all Royal Air Force stations, and that
      2486
      it would be practically impossible to find a station at which new aircraft were not being flown. My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) dealt with the question of the gap in production. I believe that gap is fast closing. We read in the Press some little time ago that production in this country had reached 400 a month. No one denied that, and we have reason to believe that is has considerably passed that figure.
      Mr. Hopkinson: Does the hon. Member take that figure to represent machines suitable for going to the squadrons?
      Mr. Grant-Ferris: No, not altogether, if you mean Service aircraft pure and simple, but general aircraft for the fighting service and for the training of personnel. Germany is reputed to have a very high output of aircraft. Nobody has put it as high as 1,000 a month, and I do not suppose it reaches that. It is certain that it is bound to be falling off at present. They are having great difficulty in getting materials and also they have a great deal of trouble with labour. I know a number of people well qualified to judge, who visit that country frequently and who are conversant with the aircraft industry in this country, who say that before the end of the summer we shall close the gap, and that the gap will begin to increase on the other side. I believe that will be the-case.
      The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) discussed the question of camouflaging aerodromes, and I must confess that up to a point I agree with him. That is a matter which has been, rather neglected in the past, but I am glad that it is being taken up seriously now. It is extraordinary how easy it is, to see an aerodrome when one is not lost and how difficult it is to see it when one is lost. I have experienced that myself. Only last Sunday, my squadron-leader was leading my squadron to its war station—I am not at liberty to say where it is—and after the squadron broke up and the flights were landing, the flight: which I was leading was supposed to land at an aerodrome which I had often visited before, but which I could not see then, for the simple reason that since I had previously been there it had been camouflaged; and it was only when I saw another flight landing that I realised where it was. The problem of camouflage

      2487
      is being taken up very seriously in the Air Force now, and I believe that a great deal of good work is being done in that direction. Although one cannot expect hangars to be camouflaged perfectly, when a man has flown four or five hundred miles his eyes are tired—as indeed they are tired somewhat before he has flown that distance—and the camouflage makes it very difficult for him to see the aerodrome easily.
      I would like to pay a very high tribute to the type of aircraft coming to the squadrons now. I have not yet flown the new Hurricane aircraft, although I expect to do a good number of hours' flying in them in the course of the next few weeks; but I have examined them, and men who have flown them have expressed themselves as highly satisfied with the performance of the Hurricanes. As regards the development of bombers, the flight of the Wellesley aircraft last year speaks for itself. I am sure that we lead the world in the development of bomber aircraft at the present time. I think my right hon. Friend was right in saying that he intended to have built in this country an enormous number of the fighter aircraft. He was quick, and rightly so, to assure the country that he did not intend in any way to allow the building of bomber aircraft to slacken. It seems to me obvious that if this country is to win a war, the first essential is to make absolutely certain that the base is safe; and therefore, we must build an adequate protection for that base. That means fighter aircraft. The old military slogan, "Seek out and destroy the enemy," is the only way in which ultimately the country can win a war, but first of all we must make safe the weapons with which the country is to win the war, and we must make the country safe. That must be done primarily, as far as the Air Force is concerned, by means of fighter aircraft.
      As to personnel, I am convinced that we have in the Royal Air Force the finest personnel of any service in the world. I am on rather difficult ground, as I am a very humble member of the personnel. I am not a regular. I believe that in the regular Air Force we have the cream of our young men serving. One of its greatest advantages is that it is recruited
      2488
      irrespective of class. Men who are recruited for the Royal Air Force must primarily be physically fit, intelligent and well educated. With these qualifications they will, in all probability, make first-class pilots; in fact, they do. If these men are to give of their best and do their best, they must live like fighting cocks. They must feed absolutely perfectly. On the whole, the standard of feeding of the pilots is extremely good and in most of the messes I have visited it is very good, but I have been to one or two where it is not. I would ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to that, because I know that it is something which, as a former Minister of Health, he must have near his own heart. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that men on leaving their short-service commissions were fired on to the world with little opportunity of obtaining work and that nothing much was done for them. I have not the figures which I had last year when I brought the subject up in my speech, but I remember that between 68 and 78 per cent, of those applying for work to the Air Ministry on leaving their short-service commissions obtained work Therefore, there is little substance in what the hon. Gentleman said.
      I would like to pay a high tribute to the work of the Air Staff. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland drew across our track the old bogy which we have had in these Debates on more than one occasion, namely, that the higher command were usually out of touch with the fighting men. We have had the bogy in different ways. We have usually been told that all the Air officers were completely useless and ought to be superseded by young fellows of 28 and 30. The hon. Gentleman did not put it quite that way in his speech this year. He inferred that the complaint was in regard to Air officers who worked in the Ministry and not those in command of the various stations in this country and abroad. I can assure him that, as far as I am able to tell, the work of the Air Staff is extremely good. The fighter command and the Air Defence of Great Britain depend entirely on the skilful staff work of the higher command. A fighting man in the air, a flight-commander leading his flight, is a tool completely in their hands. He depends upon them to be put in touch with the enemy, and provided

      2489
      that he can shoot straight when he is put in touch, that is all that is required of him. Practically the whole of the work depends upon the careful mathematical calculations—and, of course, the accuracy of their information—of the Air Staff. From what I have seen of the operations rooms in the sectors and at Uxbridge I think we can safely say that the Air Staff is doing its job extremely well.
      The Auxiliary Air Force are delighted at the treatment which they have received at the hands of my right hon. Friend. We are very pleased indeed to have been converted from bomber squadrons into fighter squadrons. First, we cannot help noting that our expectation of life has one up from three days to, at any rate, a few weeks and that is a consideration when one has to put one's affairs in order in a hurry. Apart from that, it is essential, I think, that a territorial force such as the Auxiliary Air Force should be primarily for home defence, because in that capacity we are able to get to know thoroughly the sector in which we shall work should war break out. We are able to get to know thoroughly every inch of the ground we shall have to defend should an emergency arise. As bomber squadrons we could never do that, and we never got opportunities for long distance navigation practice which the regular Air Force has. Consequently, in every way it has been a great advantage to be converted to fighter squadrons. Again, as a result of the re-arrangement of our monthly allowances it is now possible for an officer in the Auxiliary Air Force to live a normal life, joining in the mess and not be out of pocket. That is only fair. In the past it was scandalous that an officer, who was giving up much of his time, should have to pay as much as £1 a week upon mess and travelling expenses. That state of affairs has been put right and we are extremely grateful.
      In connection with the Auxiliary Air Force the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) mentioned an interesting and important point, and that was the difficulty of having adjutants or assistant adjutants who did not stay long enough to get to know a squadron. I think that at the moment that is a difficulty which cannot be avoided. Promotion in the lower commissioned ranks of the Air Force is very rapid to-day. At the present moment there is a chronic shortage of flight
      2490
      lieutenants. There had been a chronic shortage of flying officers, and now it has gone up to flight lieutenants; and it is difficult to find people to fill these positions because they are being promoted and going up to a higher grade all the time. That is something which will right itself quite naturally in the course of the next year or 18 months.
      I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a lot of questions, which I am not going to ask him, about the strategy of the balloon barrage system. I should like to know how these balloons are going to be placed. Of course I have got fixed ideas about the usefulness of these balloons, and I hope that until he has a great number of them he will concentrate on putting them at places which we do not want bombed. If an airman is to bomb any object successfully these days he has to come low in order to hit it, and if the place is going to be stiff with a lot of wire ropes he will not do it twice. Until we have a great number of balloons I hope that is the strategy which is going to be adopted.
      Nothing has been said so far about the University Air Squadrons, which play a valuable part in the work of the Air Force in general. These are three of them —at Oxford, at Cambridge and in London—and their primary object is to provide officers for the other branches of the Service, including the Regular, the Auxiliary and the Volunteer Reserve. Those officers whom I have met and who come from the universities are an extremely fine type and compare well with others. The Secretary of State is very much to be congratulated upon increasing the establishment this year from 75 to 100. In the second year he will be enabled to give them an opportunity of learning to fly the Service types of machine. That will be most valuable and they are very grateful.
      One further word about something in which I am particularly interested, and that is the development of the Air Defence Cadet Corps. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the extraordinary strides that have been made in this branch of the Service. Since last August 83 squadrons have been formed of the Air Defence Cadets, each containing 100 boys, exclusive of officers. At the present time we are raising one in North St. Pancras, and I believe that other hon. Members are raising them in

      2491
      their constituencies. No doubt they are forming a counter-attraction to the Army Cadet Corps. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if the best advantage is to be had there should be co-ordination between the Army, the Navy and the Air Cadets so that one does not take unfairly from the other. If you do not do that there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction all round. Something of that nature will have to be done.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Sir L. Everard) referred to the fact that the Government can grant only 3s. 6d. per head. We have to raise the money to keep these cadets going, and it is difficult to get people to find perhaps £200 or £250 before it is possible to raise a squadron. I ask for the Minister's sympathy in increasing that grant at any rate to what the Army Cadets get, 5s. It is not very much, but it would be greatly appreciated and would make all the difference to the work of those who are trying to raise squadrons.
      Another point by way of criticism concerns radio communication in the air. I spent three week-ends sitting in an aeroplane with a helmet on endeavouring to talk to people in other aeroplanes and on the ground. Believe me, the communication is far from good. It is very difficult to get adequate communication with the ground and with other aeroplanes. Bearing in mind that the whole of the air defence of Great Britain depends upon the men in the aeroplanes being able to understand their orders spoken to them from the ground, this is something which the Air Ministry ought to use every endeavour, no matter at what cost, to get right in the shortest possible time.
      The other point is somewhat specialised. It seems to me that if you are to adopt a really sound, long-term policy it is important to attend to the education of airmen's children. At the present time, on Service stations up and down the country, transport is provided for children of airmen to go to the nearest elementary school. If you wish to get a tradition in the Service you obviously hope that the sons of your airmen will go into the Service after their fathers. The Service to-day demands from its airmen a very high standard of education —a secondary school standard; and the
      2492
      Air Ministry ought to provide facilities for secondary school education on these stations. It is of paramount importance that all children who have the capacity should have this advantage, so that they will be up to the school certificate standard when the question is asked of them, when air observers and so on are wanted, "Have you passed the school certificate examination?" That is necessary if we want them to come on after their fathers in the Service.
      If the Service were asked what they liked most of all about my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary of State, I think they would say they believe that in the Secretary of State they have a man who looks after their own personal interests, and who is interested in each and everyone of them personally. I know that that is so, because I have seen him at the stations going round and talking to the men, and I have listened to what the men have had to say afterwards. As regards the Under-Secretary, they are delighted to think that they have at last a practical man to help them—someone who can fly the fastest aircraft that are coming into the Service to-day, and see for himself what their vices and good points are. The Service is very grateful, we are all grateful, and the whole country is grateful, for the work that they have done during their period of office.
      10.47 p.m.
      Mr. Ellis Smith: During the course of this Debate I have heard references made to officers, pilots, scientists, business men and technicians, and I want now to make a few observations on behalf of the people who make the aeroplanes. As far as the technical side is concerned, I am fairly well satisfied. I believe that during the past 12 months, in particular, there has been a great improvement in the technical side. My observations will be based on page 6 of the Memorandum, from which I should like to give two extracts. It is stated that:
      "The expansion and re-equipment of the Air Force is dependent on a very great increase in the production of aircraft, engines, armament and equipment of all kinds. The volume of production is now large. There is a substantial output from the Government factories."
      Later on there is this statement:
      "Steps were taken during 1938 to create the large additions to productive capacity

      2493
      which will be required to implement the new measures announced in May and November, and to provide the necessary potential for further expansion in the event of emergency."
      This will mean an enormous increase in the employment of aircraft workers, and it is for them that I am speaking. For many years the War Office have had a National Council, which includes representatives of the Army Council, the trade unions, the employers, and others interested in whatever is being ordered by the Army Council. The same applies in the case of the Navy. The result of this machinery is direct contact between all the interests and the Government Department, whereby a large amount of unnecessary friction is eliminated and production continues without interference. Therefore, I am asked to suggest that the time has arrived, especially having regard to the enormous increase that will take place in output, when the Secretary of State should consider the setting up of a National Aircraft Consultative Council on which representatives of the Air Ministry should sit with representatives of the employers, the unions and others engaged in the industry.
      We have seen from time to time that relatively high profits are being made. No one can deny that. If necessary, one could give illustration after illustration. The Secretary of State is taking steps to deal with it. Whether they will be adequate steps remains to be seen. While those relatively enormous profits are being made, the men engaged in the production of aircraft are not getting the return that they ought to be getting. There ought to be no one earning less than 25 per cent. The National Agreement states that prices must be fixed to enable men of average ability to earn at least 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"] Overtime rates. In 1931 it was 33⅓ per cent. Owing to the state of industry and the economic position of the engineering industry, that was reduced to 25 per cent. It is quite reasonable to plead that the men ought to be earning at least 33⅓ per cent., but I am not asking for that. What I am asking is that there should be no one engaged who is coming out with anything less than 25 per cent, above the time rates. Some of us have put questions down in order to raise this with the Minister so that he could look into it in order that stoppages should be avoided. If I were engaged in the industry I should
      2494
      not be satisfied with 25 per cent. The average rate of earnings at present, compared with the huge profits that are being made, will be bound to reflect itself in some action being taken in certain parts of the country unless this question of piecework earnings is looked into.
      The question of overtime is causing a little uneasiness in various parts of the country. It is very difficult to deal with because when the Secretary of State, or those acting on his behalf, order a certain type of machine the maximum number of men are put on to it in order to increase the output as soon as possible, and the result may be that in other departments there may be slackness while this is taking place. At the same time it is not good for it to be taking place. In some works men are being discharged and others put on short time while others are working abnormal overtime and week-ends in many cases. Overtime should be eliminated where possible, and reduced to a minimum in other cases. In Manchester at present there are men working overtime while others are being discharged. This is not healthy; it creates unnecessary friction, and the necessity is evident for setting up a National Consultative Committee, in order that these questions may be raised with the Secretary of State or those representing him rather than allowing stoppages to take place as a result of these grievances. Sooner or later, there will be a reduced demand from the Air Ministry. The probability is that before then steps will have been taken to swing over on to civil aircraft production in many cases. The aircraft engines being turned out in this country are as good as those turned out in any country, and what applies to the engines applies equally to other parts of the planes.
      These highly skilled engineers employed on making these engines often go to night school, in some cases for five or six years. They have not only to become experts manually, but they have to have a good geometrical and mathematical knowledge. The interest which these men are taking in the output of their factories is as great as anyone could expect. They look upon the engines they are manufacturing as though they were manufacturing them for themselves, yet they can see before them the time when their labour will no longer be needed. It is not fair to these men

      2495
      and their relatives that they should be expected to give of their best with the prospect of the means test before them. Having got over 1931, as we have done, we have still the legacy of the means test, and it is always rankling in the minds of our men. The time has arrived when the Cabinet should consider removing that dark cloud from the horizon, so that these men shall not be humiliated by the means test, as others are being humiliated now.
      10.59 p.m.
      Captain Cazalet: I want to put one point, and if the Minister cannot answer it to-night I would ask him to consider it. It is with relation to the social amenities and recreational facilities accorded to the officers and men at the various schools which the Air Ministry are now building. I have two such schools in my constituency. If I mention one in particular, that at Gatesby, I do so only because it is typical of many others. At that school there are over 3,000 young men between 17 and 21, living on the edge of the Plain, and the only centre of entertainment is a small country town four or five miles from the camp. I know that the Ministry are doing everything possible within the boundaries of the camp and are providing facilities for football and tennis, in addition to canteens and cinemas. But the Minister knows that once the day's work is over, however attractive the canteen may be, the great majority of those in the camp want to get out of it.
      The first essential is transport, and I have heard complaints from this and from other camps as well, that there are only very limited facilities for bicycles or cars. In some cases an officer or non-commissioned officer cannot keep a car because there are no facilities for garaging it within the camp or in the neighbourhood. It seems foolish to spend £1,000,000 on a permanent camp, and not to spend a few more pounds in providing some sheds for cars and bicycles. I hope the Ministry may be able also to supply means to erect Y.M.C.A. huts in the neighbourhood of these camps. In the case which I have in mind, a site has been offered and the Y.M.C.A. are prepared to run the hut, and I ask that the Minister should provide the money to erect it. The War Office have done this in an almost similar case
      2496
      in my constituency. The civil population are playing their part in trying to provide amusement and recreation for these men, and I think the Government could and should help. We cannot expect to keep 3,000 young men confined in a camp, with very little to do in their leisure time, without the risk of trouble of some kind arising. I believe we could limit that risk, if not avoid it altogether, by the means I have suggested.
      11.3 p.m.
      Sir K. Wood: I wish to thank hon. Members in all quarters of the House for the way in which they have received these Estimates. I think we can say that we have had a very interesting and informative Debate and it is now my duty to offer some observations upon certain of the points which have been raised. I shall endeavour to deal with as many of the questions which have been put to me as possible, but they are so many that hon. Members will excuse me if I am not able, in the time at my disposal, to deal with them all to-night, and if I do not deal with all to-night, I may have an opportunity of doing so on Tuesday.
      I would first make some observations on the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who made a valuable contribution to this Debate. He said that, having regard to the fact that so much money was being spent in relation to air defence, he was concerned that we should see to it that we got full value for that money. I am as much concerned as he is in endeavouring to see to that. I recognise that a considerable responsibility, perhaps a bigger responsibility than ever, rests on my Department in that respect. As I said a few days ago, as regards the production of aircraft and matters of that kind, an elaborate system has been built up in the Department which has been personally examined by Members of this House and upon which they have expressed their judgment. I have also endeavoured to explain this afternoon that, following the examination which has been made in my Department, I am now going to take up certain of the terms of the McLintock agreement with representatives of the aircraft industry. I would explain to hon. Gentlemen who take considerable interest in this matter that the position of Sir William McLintock is that he has been consulted by the aircraft industry, and

      2497
      he will, I understand, act as their representative and carry on negotiations on their behalf. There is no question of Sir William McLintock either drafting or settling the terms of any provision that may be accepted, and I will take into favourable consideration the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made, that at the end of the negotiations upon which I am now embarking, the agreement reached should be published or some information given on it. The McLintock agreement has always been regarded as a confidential agreement, but there may be special circumstances in this case to warrant taking that course, and I will give the suggestion due consideration.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to events that took place in September and expressed the hope that I might say that such defects as existed at that time have been remedied. In any event, whatever view we may take of that time, I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I express the opinion that the Royal Air Force and the Auxiliary Air Force would have given a good account of themselves. Having said that, naturally and I think, properly, the House would expect the Air Department to review the position in detail, and I would assure the House that I have personally looked at that aspect of it. Emergency measures upon the scale of those carried out in September, and, indeed, any large scale exercises, would normally reveal room for improvement in certain directions. Advantage has been taken to remedy any defects that arose at that time and to profit by the lessons that were to be learned.
      The hon. Gentleman made a reference to discussions which he and his friends have had with me during the last few months in reference to certain questions which they had raised. I hope that I have been able to turn to benefit a number of suggestions which they have made to me from time to time. I would like any conversations of that kind to continue. I am anxious, as hon. Gentlemen will agree, to receive any suggestions which will help me in the work of my Department. I hope that some of them will have been profitable to me. I trust that hon. Members in all parts of the House will realise that they can come to me at any time and discuss matters in relation to my Department. I would like
      2498
      to thank all who have assisted in that particular way.
      The hon. Gentleman also raised the important question of the new types of aeroplane that are coming into the squadrons at the present time, and asked whether we were completely satisfied with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. I think I can say—and I think hon. Members who are associated with the Royal Air Force will agree that I am not exaggerating when I say—that the Royal Air Force and all our officers and officials are completely satisfied so far as those two types of machines are concerned, and in fact we are getting requests for them from all over the world.
      So far as the performance of bombers is concerned in September, I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assessment, but apart from that, I would like to say that in addition to the types which the House knows are now coming into service, we have even better and faster types with a longer range shortly coming forward. Therefore, apart altogether from the existing types which are known, we have others that are an improvement even upon them.
      Mr. Dalton: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "shortly"?
      Sir K. Wood: I would not like to say. I do not want to limit myself to an exact month. So far as equipment is concerned, there has been a very considerable and all-round improvement, and the great majority of the deficiencies which were referred to at one time in this House, I think it can now be said, have been remedied. I will give one illustration, because I know the House was interested in the matter. Examples have been given in the past as to deficiencies in turrets. I am glad to say that all aircraft are now being issued with their full complement of turrets, and all arrears have been made up, with the exception of a small number of aircraft of one type, and in this type too the arrears are being rapidly overtaken.
      To revert to the matter of the McLintock agreement, I shall, of course, inform the House as soon as I can of the result of the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman raised in that connection the question of costs, so far as sub-contracts are concerned, a very important matter and one which, I notice, has received par-

      2499
      ticular attention, especially with regard to those sub-contracts which are placed with associated firms. If hon. Members will look at the book which many of them have in their hands, they will find very interesting evidence by officers of the Ministry of the special steps that have been taken to deal with sub-contracts and particularly with those placed with associated firms. The hon. Gentleman made an important suggestion to me. He asked whether it would not be a good thing, in order to check costs of this kind, to have two or three Government factories erected, not factories which would be managed, as shadow factories are, by members of the industry itself, but by servants of the State, so that they would not only be owned but managed and run by the State. Apart from many other arguments that could be addressed to the point, I will content myself with one argument this evening, and that is that, from the point of view of checking costs, it would really be of no practical assistance to-day. It is true that land, plant, and buildings can be acquired by the Government, but the provision of the necessary personnel and particularly of expert management, would, of course, be essential to rapid and economical production. So far as management is concerned it would be practically impossible to recruit it to-day without taking it from other quarters already engaged in producing aircraft. Again, to train the supervisory staff would be a long process and might involve a long period of inefficiency. Again, a nucleus of skilled labour would have to be recruited from organisations already in production, and although the difficulties would be less acute than in obtaining recruits for the directing staff, still the difficulties would be very considerable. Even if you accomplished all that, I think hon. Members would agree that some years might elapse before the Government factory attained a degree of efficiency and economy comparable with private firms.
      Mr. Poole: I take it that all the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has set out would arise in precisely the same form when Lord Nuffield established his own factory.
      Sir K. Wood: The Nuffield factory was not established for the purpose of checking prices, but even Lord Nuffield's
      2500
      factory, with all the skill and energy he was able to bring to bear, could not be brought into operation without a considerable time elapsing.
      We have to take another matter into account, which is well worth considering, and that is: Are you going to include design in your Government factory? It is very difficult to say that you should not do so, if it is to be an efficient Government concern, and, if you include design in your Government factory, the difficulties would be even greater, because one of the most difficult things at the present time is to secure designing staff. That, again, would mean, at the very best, drawing the designing staff from an industry now engaged in the work. If you did not have a designing staff, it would always be said afterwards, if the Government factory failed, that if the Government factory had been able to produce its own design the results would have been very different. Therefore, we are bound to come to the conclusion that if we were to start a Government factory for aircraft production we should have to include design. If we included design for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, namely, to check prices of aircraft production, it is obvious that from the practical point of view it would have no material bearing upon the present situation.
      Mr. Jagger: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there are designers who would work for Lord Nuffield who would not work for the British Government?
      Sir K. Wood: Lord Nuffield is not designing.
      Mr. Jagger: Or any other manufacturer?
      Sir K. Wood: Every designing staff can be said, practically speaking, to be engaged on work of aircraft production. My argument was that if you started a Government factory and included design, you would have to take the designing staff from another concern. So far as Lord Nuffield is concerned, in his factory there is no designing staff.
      I will deal next with the point the hon. Gentleman made in respect of the efforts we are making in the camouflage of aerodromes and matters of that kind. I agree very largely with what he said. I think

      2501
      perhaps the passengers who accompanied him might be expected to take a more sanguine view of what they saw or did not see, but it is perfectly true that it is very difficult to get finality in matters of this kind, and I want him to feel—because I regard it as a matter of importance—that we shall go on endeavouring to perfect matters in that direction, and when we have gone a little further I hope he will have an opportunity of seeing how we have got on. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Maintenance Command and offered some criticisms on the establishment of that command. Of course the Maintenance Command was only established last year. The development of it is, of necessity, gradual. It is an entirely new development and it has no parallel in either of the other Services. I think it can be claimed on its behalf that it has, in fact, already justified its formation, and it is no small matter when you remember that this Command will in fact comprise no less than 80 different units. Naturally we shall try to improve that organisation and I will certainly examine any suggestion which may reach me in that particular respect.
      The hon. Gentleman also made—again quite properly—criticisms of the system of organisation which was introduced some two years ago. That change in the system aimed at, and I think has already achieved, speedier administration and what, I think, is very necessary— a higher degree of de-centralisation. It was only to be expected that it would require, in the light of experience, some modifications. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of the Fighter and the Bomber Commands and their views. He will be glad to know that we have made some modifications in the organisation as a result of the advice of those two Commands. I agree with him as to the importance of efficiency in administration. We have appointed quite recently the small investigating committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I would also like to say that we do welcome, and I would like to encourage, and to further it if necessary, the advice and suggestions of the younger members of the Service. One or two other members raised that this afternoon. I have myself not: only endeavoured to take the opportunity of seeing many things for myself in the Air Force but on every occasion that has been offered I have
      2502
      talked to these young officers myself and it would indeed be wrong if we did not welcome suggestions which came from that particular quarter.
      So far as the use of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve is concerned, the hon. Gentleman asked me to assess if I could what would be their value in the case of an emergency. It is very difficult indeed to give an exact assessment but I think it could quite certainly be said that the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve would have a definite and considerable value in an emergency. In this connection the hon. Gentleman may recall the statement which I made this afternoon concerning the steps we are taking to give pilots and air crews experience on service types of aircraft at regular units. Undoubtedly, that will increase considerably the usefulness of that particular section of the Force. I differentiate their value from that of the Civil Air Guard not because of the individuals concerned. Here again, one must look at the matter from the point of view of the categories that we have set up. Certainly, I would say that Categories A and B in the Civil Air Guard will be of definite value to the Royal Air Force, and Category C will certainly be useful as well.
      The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and also the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), spoke of the work of the skilled men in the aircraft firms of the country. I would like to pay my tribute to all that they are doing. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent knows—for he was present on one occasion when I visited some works— whenever I have visited such works, I have endeavoured to express my thanks to the workers. Undoubtedly, throughout the country, the very great majority of these workers are working with a loyalty, a speed and an efficiency that must be the admiration of everybody. I will examine the suggestions that have been made by the hon. Member with regard to the National Aircraft Committee. I have given the hon. Member certain answers to questions about piece-work rates and overtime, and he knows that we are largely bound by the rates in the district; but I will again examine the statement that he has been good enough to make to-night.
      The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked why we have such difficulty in

      2503
      getting wireless operators. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly on this matter. Our chief difficulty is the very large number of wireless operators that we require. It is true that they have to pass an educational test, but I would like the House to know that we are getting wireless operators in thousands. We are now training them at the rate of 6,000 a year. The difficulty is that we want such a very large number. Probably during the coming year, we shall require to train something in the nature of 10,000. The reason I specially mentioned this matter to the House was because of the size of the requirements and the further large number that we shall need.
      I think the hon. Member did not quite follow me with regard to the balloon barrage, and when it will come into operation at places other than London. What I said was that I hope that it will be possible to start the operation of a number of these barrages during the summer, and to operate all of them by the end of the year. He also put a question about production in Canada. I attach importance to that for two reasons: first, that we should be getting additional aircraft; and, second, the possibilities it has in future in the supply of aircraft. When I used the words "next year" in connection with production in Canada, I referred to the calendar year 1940.
      Mr. Dalton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make reference to the mission to Australia?
      Sir K. Wood: The mission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred has gone to Australia and will be going on to New Zealand. It has been there only a few days and I have no information how far it has progressed. Directly I receive information from the mission I will make it available to the House. There is, I think, great prospect of a reasonable arrangement being made, to the mutual benefit of Australia and this country. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), who again contributed a useful speech, put three or four questions and observations which will be given proper attention at the Air Ministry. There are, however, one or two things that I would like to say now. He raised the important question of the two-seater fighters. The Air Staff are fully alive to the possibilities of this, and in fact one type is coming into
      2504
      immediate production and others are already planned. As far as common guns are concerned, a factory already exists, and we have now entered upon production on a considerable scale. I would like to add that the possibility of adapting existing fighter types for the use of cannon, if necessary, is also being actively considered. In the meantime I would like to assert that we are quite satisfied that our present multi-gun fighters are capable of shooting down any type of bomber. The hon. Member also suggested that fighter pilots should be given practice on other types in order to increase their flying experience, and I am glad to be able to inform him that steps have already been taken to provide fighter squadrons with aircraft for that purpose.
      The last point the hon. Member raised, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) was about recreational facilities for officers and men. I cannot undertake, and he could hardly expect me to, to make contributions to the Y.M.C.A. It would create a precedent for other contributions. It was suggested that the Air Ministry should supply transport for men at stations which were at a distance from a village or town. Application should be made in such cases to the local traffic commissioners who make it a condition of a licence that such facilities should be granted. We have given serious attention to the question of recreational facilities for members of the forces. It is an important question because, with the considerable growth of the force, there is no doubt that the demand in this connection will increase. We have had a committee sitting for some time to see what could be done in relation to sports grounds, tennis courts, gymnasia and the like, and I will keep the matter under constant review, and will take what steps are possible to increase the facilities which I agree are so necessary Another important question which the hon. Baronet raised concerned the Staff talks with France. He asked what was the position of the Air Ministry in regard to them. The answer is that the conversations already begun between the respective Staffs are being continued, and that they quite naturally include the respective rôles of the different services, including the Royal Air Force.
      An important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr.

      2505
      Simmonds) was what we are doing in regard to wooden aircraft. I think I have indicated in previous Debates that we are fully alive to the advantages of using alternative materials, such as wood, when they fulfil modern specifications. As the hon. Member knows, the training requirements of the Royal Air Force, which are very considerable, are, in fact, largely met by wooden aircraft, and we are experimenting with wood alone and in combination with other materials. I can assure him that I am keeping an entirely open mind on the matter. He also raised the question whether we could not utilise pilots over 40 with war-time experience. The answer to that is that war-time pilots who have kept up their flying since the War can be accepted in the R.A.F.V.R. up to the age of 42, but each case is considered specially, as 25 is the normal age-limit. There are also open to them the administrative and specialist sections. War-time pilots over the age of 40 who have kept up their flying experience, can also be accepted for Class A2 of the Civil Air Guard for use as instructors in case of emergency, and War-time pilots over the age of 40 with no recent flying experience may be accepted for Class C.
      I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but I will examine it. He asked about the Nuffield factory. I am not prepared to commit myself to the precise date when the Nuffield factory will be completed and in full production, but will only say that at this moment steps are being taken to complete a part of the factory in advance of the whole and that I hope that some preliminary deliveries will be made, with the aid of associated sub-contractors, during the present calendar year.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Sir W. Lindsay Everard) raised a number of questions. One was: Could the Air Ministry take in candidates who are technically suitable but not medically so? To meet those cases there has been a lowering of medical standards. Briefly the position is that men are now expected to reach standards known as "Fit, grade 2, general service" or "Fit, grade 2, home service." To that extent we meet the position which my hon. Friend put before the House this afternoon. Another question was, whether
      2506
      arrangements are being made to train in the skilled trades of the Royal Air Force men who have enlisted as unskilled men. The answer is "Yes." There are, in fact, excellent opportunities for men of sufficient education and aptitude to train in certain of the trades of the Royal Air Force if they enlist in the first instance as unskilled personnel. During the first year of his service an unskilled man, on being recommended, may be sent forward for training in certain skilled trades. A large proportion of the unskilled entrants among aircraft hands may be selected for training if they express a desire to do so.
      I am looking into the cases, to which the hon. Member referred, of municipal aerodromes that are not at present being used for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and Civil Air Guard. The question of our fuel needs was raised by two or three hon. Members. We have made a careful examination of the fuel needs of the Services, and our scrutiny and calculation showed that if war broke out, the fuel would be available for our requirements, and that this supply would not become a limiting factor in our ability to sustain our Forces.
      An appeal has been made to me by several hon. Members whether something further cannot be done by way of increasing the grants for the air cadet scheme. I have noted what has been said, but hon. Members will appreciate that as this is a matter on which I should have to consult the Treasury I have in consequence to be cautious what I say in that connection.
      Another question was: Why have not private owners of aircraft been told how they and their aircraft would be used in time of war? In fact, we are now working on a comprehensive scheme for the whole of civil aviation in war, which will include privately-owned aircraft.
      The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Bates) will expect me to make some reply to him. I will give attention to what he has said, but there are two observations I would offer upon the advocacy he is making, and has so constantly made, for the use of home-produced aviation spirit. As he knows, there is first hydrogenation. Quantities of aviation spirit produced in that way were bought in 1938 and in 1939, and will be bought during the coming financial year. The spirit can be used

      2507
      as produced and, in fact, forms part of the normal issue of standard fuel to Royal Air Force units at home. So far as low-temperature carbonisation is concerned, a small proportion of this fuel has to meet present requirements to be mixed with ordinary petrol. I will give further attention to the advocacy which I know, the hon. Gentleman has at heart. I am also indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieutenant-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) for what he has said. I have dealt with a number of the questions that he raised in connection with cannon and the equipment of fighters. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) put forward suggestions regarding the control of profits and matters of that knd. I will consider his suggestion as to the publication of the new agreement with the old one, when it is completed.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) raised some questions about the Rae Committee. I was not able to be here at the time, but he will recollect that I told him we were carrying out the recommendations of that committee. I believe he said some rather severe things about it and about the Air Ministry, particularly with reference, I understand, to a gentleman who is referred to as Mr. B. on page 16 of the report. I may say that both Mr. A. and Mr. B. gave evidence before the committee, and presumably put before it the points which the hon. and gallant Member has now brought forward. I would refer him to paragraph 51 of the report, in which the Committee say:
      "It will be seen that in the case of both Mr. A. and Mr. B. correct decisions were in our view taken."
      With regard to the equity accorded to Mr. B., I would like the hon. and gallant Member to look at paragraphs 47 and 48 of the report, where I think he will find an answer to his criticisms. As regards the point he made as to the delay in filling the establishment of the Directorate of Operational Services, the staff was recruited as soon as it could be assimilated
      and trained. I will examine the matter further, but at any rate I have given the hon. and gallant Member some brief reply.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) made a number of suggestions with regard to the avoidance of accidents, the institution of a curfew, and the merger of Imperial Airways and British Airways; and he also asked about Southampton and the Empire Air Base. My reply is that, so far as I am concerned, that matter remains, and must remain, in the position stated by the Parliamentary Secretary on 21st December last. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question about the South Atlantic, the proposal is to use flying boats there. Perhaps he will allow me to study the other matters that he raised, and communicate with him in regard to them. In endeavouring to give replies to the questions which have been put to me, I hope I have not trespassed too much on the time of the House, but I thought that, as hon. Members had gone to the trouble of putting these questions, it was right and courteous and proper that I should reply to them, and I thank the House for allowing me so much time, both at the beginning and at the end of the Debate.
      Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
      [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

      NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 118,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding those on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."
      Motion made, and Question put,
      "That a number not exceeding 117,900, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service." — [Mr. Dalton.]
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 149.

      Division No. 62.]

      AYES.

      [11.53 p.m.

      Adams, D. (Consett)

      Banfield, J.W.

      Bevan, A.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

      Barnes, A.J.

      Burks, W.A.

      Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

      Batey, J.

      Charieton, H. C.

      Ammon, C. G.

      Bellenger, F. J.

      Chater, D.

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

      Cocks, F. S.

      Daggar, G.

      Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

      Quibell, D. J. K.

      Dalton, H.

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.

      Richards, R. (Wrexham)

      Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

      Kirby, B. V.

      Ridley, G.

      Davits, R. J. (Westhoughton)

      Lathan, G.

      Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

      Day, H.

      Lawson, J. J.

      Silverman, S. S.

      Dobbie, W.

      Leach, W.

      Simpson, F. B.

      Dunn, E, (Rothar Valley)

      Lunn, W.

      Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

      Ede, J. C.

      Macdonald, G. (Ince)

      Smith, E. (Stoke)

      Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

      McEntee, V. La T.

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

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

      McGhee, H. G.

      Stokes, R. R.

      Frankel, D.

      MacLaren, A.

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

      Gardner, B. W.

      Mainwaring, W. H.

      Summerskill, Dr. Edith

      Garro Jones, G. M.

      Marshall, F.

      Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

      Milner, Major J.

      Tinker, J. J.

      Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

      Tomlinson, G.

      Grenfell, D. ft

      Muff, G,

      Viant, S. P.

      Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

      Nathan, Colonel H. L.

      Walkins, F. C.

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

      Noel-Baker, P. J.

      Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Wilkinson, Ellen

      Hayday, A.

      Parker, J.

      Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

      Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

      Parkinson, J. A.

      Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

      Hills, A. (Pontefract)

      Pearson, A.

      Young, Sir R. (Newton)

      Jagger, J.

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

      Jenkins, A. (Pontypeol)

      Poole, C. C.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

      Price, M. P.

      Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

      John, W.

      Pritt, D. N.

      NOES.

      Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

      Fox, Sir G. W. G.

      Procter, Major H. A.

      Albery, Sir Irving

      Fremantle, Sir F. E.

      Radford, E. A.

      Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

      Furness, S. N

      Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

      Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

      George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

      Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

      Apsley, Lord

      Gledhill, G.

      Remer, J. R.

      Aske, Sir R. W.

      Gluckstein, L. H.

      Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Ropner, Colonel L.

      Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

      Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

      Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

      Cridtey, Sir A. B.

      Rowlands, G.

      Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

      Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

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

      Guest, Lieut-Colonel H. (Drake)

      Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

      Beit, Sir A. L.

      Guinness, T. L. E. B.

      Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

      Boulton, W. W.

      Hannah, I. C.

      Salmon, Sir I.

      Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

      Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

      Salt, E. W.

      Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

      Harris, Sir P. A.

      Samuel, M. R. A.

      Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)

      Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

      Seely, Sir H. M.

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

      Heneage, Lieut-Colonel A. P.

      Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

      Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

      Higgs, W. F.

      Shepperson, Sir E. W.

      Campbell, Sir E. T.

      Holmes, J. S.

      Simmonds, O. E.

      Cartland, J. R. H.

      Hopkinson, A.

      Somarvell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Cary, R. A.

      Hulbert, N. J.

      Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

      Cazalet, Capl. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

      Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

      Channon, H.

      Jarvis, Sir J. J.

      Spens. W. P.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

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

      Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

      Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

      Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

      Colfox, Major W. P.

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Latham, Sir P.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

      Colville, Rt. Hon. John

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

      Thomas, J. P. L.

      Conant, Captain R. J. E.

      Lipson, D. L.

      Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

      Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

      Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

      Craven-Ellis, W.

      Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

      Titchfield, Marquess of

      Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Han. H. F. C.

      MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

      Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.

      Cross, R. H.

      McCorquodale. M. S.

      Wakefield, W. W.

      Crossley, A. C.

      MaeDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

      Cruddas, Col. B.

      McKis, J. H.

      Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

      Culverwell, C. T.

      Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J, R. J.

      Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

      Donner, P. W.

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

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

      Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.

      Markham, S. F.

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

      Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

      Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

      Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin

      Duncan, J. A. L.

      Medlicott, F.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.

      Dunglass, Lord

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

      Womersley, Sir W. J.

      Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

      Elliston, Capt. G. S.

      Morgan, R, H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

      Wragg, H.

      Emrys-Evans,P. V.

      Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

      Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

      Entwistle, Sir C. F.

      Nail, Sir J.

      York, C.

      Errington, E.

      Nicholson, G. (Farnnam)

      Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

      Enkine-Hill, A. G.

      O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

      Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

      Patrick, C. M.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Everard, Sir William Lindsay

      Perkins, W. R. D.

      Mr. Munro and Lieut.-Colonel

      Fildes, Sir H.

      Petherick, M.

      Kerr.

      Foot, D. M.

      Pilkington, R.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £14,670,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c, of the Royal Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

      WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £4,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

      TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £16,870,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores, including Research and Development Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

      CIVIL AVIATION.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £4,787,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

    AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.

      ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.
      Resolved,
      "That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 6,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding those on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939."

    AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

    SCHEDULE.

    —

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    Vote.

    £

    £

    2. Quartering, non-technical stores, supplies and transportation.

    Cr. 227,000

    14,000

    3. Technical and warlike stores (including experimental and research services).

    168,000

    2,540,000

    4. Works, buildings and lands.

    690,000

    5,470,000

    7. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.

    Cr. 130,900

    —

    8. Civil aviation

    Cr. 360,000

    *—34,000

    9. Meteorological and miscellaneous effective services.

    Cr. 140,000

    —

    Total, Air Services (Supplementary), 1938. £

    100

    7,990,000

    * Deficit.

    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March]:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  Resolved
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provisional Legislative Assemblies) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March]:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft kid before Parliament."
  Resolved,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  To be presented by Privy Councillers or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March]:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of
  2514
  Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  Resolved,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  SPECIAL AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).
  SPECIAL AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, GLAMORGAN.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, GLAMORGAN.
  LICENSED TRADE EMPLOYES.
  LICENSED TRADE EMPLOYES.
  BRICK-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  BRICK-MAKING INDUSTRY.
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  BACON INDUSTRY.
  BACON INDUSTRY.
  FLAX-GROWING.
  FLAX-GROWING.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  FISHING INDUSTRY (IMMATURE FISH).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (IMMATURE FISH).
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  VOLUNTARY NATIONAL SERVICE.
  VOLUNTARY NATIONAL SERVICE.
EDUCATION.
  STAFFING OF SCHOOLS (UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS).
  STAFFING OF SCHOOLS (UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS).
  LUTON.
  LUTON.
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OFFICERS (WOMEN).
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OFFICERS (WOMEN).
  YORK.
  YORK.
  ST. HILARY TRELEASE, CORNWALL
  ST. HILARY TRELEASE, CORNWALL
  CHOBHAM, SURREY.
  CHOBHAM, SURREY.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  PRIVATE SCHOOLS (INSPECTION).
  PRIVATE SCHOOLS (INSPECTION).
  REFUGEE CHILDREN.
  REFUGEE CHILDREN.
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (AMERICAN STUDENT).
  LONDON UNIVERSITY (AMERICAN STUDENT).
  POST OFFICE (MAILS FOR IRAQ).
  POST OFFICE (MAILS FOR IRAQ).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  PIT-HEAD BATHS ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION).
  PIT-HEAD BATHS ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION).
  THE BUDGET.
  THE BUDGET.
  NEW URBAN DISTRICTS AND BOROUGHS.
  NEW URBAN DISTRICTS AND BOROUGHS.
  DIPHTHERIA.
  DIPHTHERIA.
  HOUSING (DURABILITY OF HOUSES).
  HOUSING (DURABILITY OF HOUSES).
  EVACUATION CAMPS (SITES).
  EVACUATION CAMPS (SITES).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (INQUIRY).
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (INQUIRY).
  WAGES AND SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  WAGES AND SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SMALLPOX (BRITISH FREIGHTER "RUGELEY").
  SMALLPOX (BRITISH FREIGHTER "RUGELEY").
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  NEW CONSUMERS (GRID).
  NEW CONSUMERS (GRID).
  UXBRIDGE AND EALING.
  UXBRIDGE AND EALING.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  OILS AND MOTOR SPIRIT (IMPORTS).
  OILS AND MOTOR SPIRIT (IMPORTS).
  KIEL CANAL.
  KIEL CANAL.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (COMMISSIONS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (COMMISSIONS).
  LINE REGIMENTS (CAPTAINS' PAY).
  LINE REGIMENTS (CAPTAINS' PAY).
  MARRIED TERRITORIAL SOLDIERS (PAY ALLOTMENTS).
  MARRIED TERRITORIAL SOLDIERS (PAY ALLOTMENTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DE-ICING APPARATUS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DE-ICING APPARATUS).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  BRITISH AIRWAYSTRAINING SCHOOL.
  BRITISH AIRWAYSTRAINING SCHOOL.
  FLYING-BOAT "CAVALIER" (ACCIDENT INQUIRY).
  FLYING-BOAT "CAVALIER" (ACCIDENT INQUIRY).
  SCOTTISH OFFICE DEPARTMENTS (PUBLICITY OFFICER).
  SCOTTISH OFFICE DEPARTMENTS (PUBLICITY OFFICER).
ROYAL NAVY.
  ENGINEER BRANCHCOMMISSIONS.
  ENGINEER BRANCHCOMMISSIONS.
  BOYS.
  BOYS.
  APPELLANTS, HOUSE OF LORDS (POOR PERSONS).
  APPELLANTS, HOUSE OF LORDS (POOR PERSONS).
  TAXES OFFICE, RICHMOND (SURREY).
  TAXES OFFICE, RICHMOND (SURREY).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, BRIDGEND.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, BRIDGEND.
  AUSTRIA AND CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (BRITISH PROPERTY).
  AUSTRIA AND CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (BRITISH PROPERTY).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MARYPORT HARBOUR BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SPAIN.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to move to resolve, That the policy of His Majesty's Government towards Spain since the beginning of the rebellion has been a failure and detrimental to British interests; that vigilance is now required to ensure that the pledges with regard to the integrity of Spanish territory are respected; and that every possible assistance should be given in evacuating and helping refugees and safeguarding those remaining on Spanish soil whose only crime is loyalty to their constitutionally elected Government and to democratic principles.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the very beginning of my remarks to-day I wish to say—I am sure with the cordial support of all your Lordships—with what real pleasure and relief I see the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place to-day. In extending to him the general welcome of the House I express the sincere hope that he is completely restored to health and strength. The least pleasant of my duties is the frequency with which I have to criticise the policy with which his name is associated. My dentist has a very provoking habit of informing me in moments of acute agony that what he is doing to me hurts him more than it hurts me, and I sometimes wish it did. I assure the noble Viscount that my task to-day gives me very little personal pleasure, but my sorrow is mitigated by the feeling that when the noble Viscount comes to reply to me the castigation which

79
he will put upon me will be so stimulating to him that it will be a factor in his convalescence.
Now, my Lords, whatever your views may be respecting the recognition by His Majesty's Government of General Franco, you will admit that a matter so important should not be ignored by your Lordships' House, and in accordance with my duty I am providing the occasion for its consideration. The views of the Party for which I speak are well known on this matter and I need not rehearse them at any length. As, however, we are now parting with this issue of recognition for good or for ill, we want to say a final and strenuous word about it. We therefore formally and with complete sincerity disavow any responsibility for the situation which has arisen and we have neither excuse nor respect for the policy which produced it. If your Lordships will be good enough to refer to the terms of the Motion standing on the Paper in my name, you will note that the emphasis is placed upon our present and future responsibilities rather than upon what we regard as past failures; but it is quite impossible for me to suppress our very deep conviction that for the sacrifice of a democratically-elected Government in Spain, with all the broken faith and physical brutality attending it, His Majesty's Government, before both history and the conscience of mankind, bear a heavy and a shameful responsibility.
What has happened they intended to happen. They wished the end and they willed the means. They adopted, as we see it, a policy of fraudulent non-intervention; they consistently ignored the fact of effective intervention of foreign nations in the internal disputes of another country; and they seized upon the fact that a trickle of material and human aid had crossed the Spanish frontier in support of the legitimate Government of Spain to connive at the presence of these invading armies of foreign Powers. In support of this desired end, the Government tolerated repeated attacks upon British ships and lives. They remained passive while dangers to the vital communications of the Empire were steadily increased, and they thus gave aid and comfort to rebels against their rightful Government while denying to that Government the means of
80
self-defence that were their undoubted right.
With this record of preparation, it is not altogether surprising that, without consulting Parliament, His Majesty's Government took the shameful initiative in recognising the Franco rebellion and in bringing pressure to bear upon France to do the same thing. M. Daladier has put upon record the part played by His Majesty's Government. He said:
"On the 22nd of February we received advice that the British Government considered the hour had come to recognise General Franco and that we should wait no longer."
The Government have now the temerity to ask the nation, in the name of political realism, to approve their action and to applaud their decision. They ask us to believe that such recognition was inevitable. But it need not have been inevitable. That is our case. If the legitimate Government of Spain had not been starved as well as betrayed, they would have produced an entirely different situation. If you deliberately deprive a starving man of food until his bodily powers are exhausted, you are not entitled to say that his death was inevitable. That he will die is certain and foreseen; that he does die is your responsibility.
The loyalists of Spain were compelled, with one arm handcuffed behind their back by British and French policemen, to fight not only the traitors to their own land but also the armed might of two foreign nations. We did not await events, we actually forestalled them. Only a week or two ago, before the act of recognition, a British warship organised the surrender to Fascism of Minorca, one of the last strongholds of Democracy in the Mediterranean. We have indeed been obedient followers of General Franco ! "All these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and—recognise me." In effect His Majesty's Government said: "Of course we planned to do so all along, but it was more convenient to wait until now." The Times recently committed itself to the statement that "recognition now is an act of appreciation." It was indeed. It was also the culmination of a policy.
Let me now recall some of the true realities of the situation. Two and a half years ago Spain had a democratic Government elected at least as honourably as His Majesty's Government were elected. There is no doubt about that. His Majesty's Government went to the

81
country to defend to the death the League of Nations, and everybody knows the way in which they have kept their promises. The Government so elected in Spain were friendly to this country. They had not endangered any of our interests and had aimed at no foreign domination or aggression. That is one reality. Another is that a traitor General rebelled against that Government and was assisted by foreign arms, men and money. A third reality is that this rebellion was conducted with unexampled brutality. The useless massacres of Badajos and Guernica, the bombing of towns, and the senseless machine-gunning of fleeing women and children, are only samples of the acts of the rebel commander that we have now recognised. Now a decent English gentleman has to go to Spain to deal with a man whose appropriate garlands of victory would be the battered bodies of thousands of beautiful Spanish children.
A final reality is that the Government inherited from the Labour Government a peaceful Europe, a world disposed to peace and to disarmament. They have brought the country to the brink of irreparable calamity. This National Government bid fair to be known in history as Britain's "National Decline and Fall Government." The Government appear indeed to have no constructive contribution to make to humanity's need for better international relations. Of wise planning towards that end there is no sign. The world cries aloud for peace through comprehension and reorganisation. His Majesty's Government offer "appeasement"—and the very word which they have chosen to describe their motives and their policy is in itself revealing. Appeasement! It indicates that they have no plan of their own, no sense of direction, and nothing in the way of reconstruction to offer. It appeases by the method of retreat.
I must now leave the tragedy of the past for the anxious problems of the present and the future. There is first of all our responsibility for the lives and freedom of the defeated loyalists. The recognition of Franco is unconditional. No guarantee for their safety has apparently either been demanded or granted. The Prime Minister has said that unconditional recognition of Franco was given because it would have been "inhuman to prolong the struggle."
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD SNELL: But, my Lords, is there no touch of inhumanity in leaving brave and helpless men to the mercy of a man who has such a record, and who has all the characteristic limitations of the incompetent? His Majesty's Government may tell us that they have some assurances from him. Do they accept those assurances? Coming from such a source, what are such assurances worth? A man who has betrayed the Government of his own country will not hesitate to betray the Government of ours. Only two days ago there was an official wireless announcement from Spain which said that:
"The great democracies … once more wish to present General Franco with the opportunity of being magnanimous. … General Franco does not need pacts of surrender to enter Madrid. … Once General Franco says that he will not admit one single condition the great democracies can keep their humanitarian manœuvres to themselves."
That is the gentleman to whom the lives of these men are to be entrusted in the future.
Only "criminals" are to be punished, we are told. Did His Majesty's Government get any definition from this "great Christian gentleman" of the word "criminal"? Who is a criminal in his eyes? We may be perfectly sure that it will not include anyone who is a professional traitor; but that it will most certainly include hundreds of loyal Spanish soldiers. Of that there is no doubt. Yet what is their crime? These men did what every Englishman would do, I hope—resist a foreign-led attack on their nation. These men, who are to be handed over as sheep to the slaughter, have made their names immortal by their fidelity and their bravery. Men do not suffer as they have suffered, nor endure as they have endured, for anything less than a deep spiritual conviction. Criminals they may be in the eyes of the man who is to decide their destiny, but for my part—and I believe I am supported by millions of my fellow countrymen—I offer them a respectful homage.
I understand that General Miaja is already on the list of those who are to be regarded as criminals. If that were to take place it could only be paralleled if, in the American Civil War, General Grant had sacrificed Robert Lee. We have given General Franco a free hand with regard

83
to the future of these men, and I want to say, in all sincerity, that they deserved better things at our hands. While we have been imitating the priest and the Levite, they have been saving the peace of Europe, and perhaps of the world. They have been keeping war from our shores, and defending Democracy. If peace has been preserved in Europe up to now, a decisive reason is not a bargain made at Munich, but the sterner arguments of Madrid and Barcelona. To these Spanish "criminals," and to the Chinese peasants and the Ethiopian natives, we owe the fact that, as we have been told, our "tails are again up."
There is a point in my Motion concerning the integrity of Spanish territory. I hope the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply, will be able to say something reassuring about that. Unless there are factors that we do not know, the outlook appears to me to be grim. There is no guarantee that the impeccable man who now rules over Spain will not connive with his spiritual associates in Rome and Berlin to make the Mediterranean a dangerous sea of trouble for us. The Corriere della Sera has said quite recently that:
"From a strategical point of view the victory of General Franco clears up and modifies the situation in the Mediterranean and, in consequence, of entire Western Europe. France loses her overland route of communication with North Africa, which is the quickest. Gibraltar is rendered practically useless."
I venture to suggest that such statements cause us justifiable alarm.
Then there is also the question of religious freedom in Spain. Let Catholics, let the great Roman Catholic Church, note the future awaiting their Church. The National Zeitung tells us what it is to be:
"No Government, no dictatorship, will hold Spain unless they have the courage to break down the arrogance of the Catholic Church, which was still able to strive under the last king. Its power over secular and religious affairs … must be broken."
The Catholic hierarchy in Spain, or some portion of it, gave their support to General Franco. That was their right if they so wished, but they now will have to receive their wages. The last point which I desire to mention is the hard problem of the refugees, the consideration of which I must leave to subsequent
84
speakers, but I venture to implore His Majesty's Government to co-operate in its solution. I am sorry if in these remarks I have appeared to be unfair or ungenerous, but it is a subject that arouses my very deepest feelings, and in dealing with this question I felt that I had at least to say what was on my conscience. The only satisfaction which I get out of it is that this unclean business is now almost completed. Like Pilate, we can now take water and wash our hands, and, if we are fortunate, blush our way into forgetfulness. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the policy of His Majesty's Government towards Spain since the beginning of the rebellion has been a failure and detrimental to British interests; that vigilance is now required to ensure that the pledges with regard to the integrity of Spanish territory are respected; and that every possible assistance should be given in evacuating and helping refugees and safeguarding those remaining on Spanish soil whose only crime is loyalty to their constitutionally elected Government and to democratic principles.—(Lord Snell.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we can all agree that the postponement of this debate from the date originally intended is no disadvantage, due as it was to the illness of the noble Viscount opposite, of which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, spoke so gracefully and with the full agreement of the entire House. I join in the hope that the noble Viscount is entirely restored to health. The fifth act of the Spanish tragedy has passed through many rapid scenes since the date of February 27, when animated discussion took place in another place on the question of the recognition of General Franco's Government, and other things have happened since the noble Lord's Resolution was placed on the Paper. The terms of that Resolution, some people might say, are in themselves perhaps more suited to the full-blooded declamation of a public platform than to the careful discussions of your Lordships' House. But it is evident from what the noble Lord has said that he feels most strongly regarding the whole situation, and it was impossible not to conclude while he was speaking that he would have liked to speak in far stronger terms than he actually did.
Considering the past for a moment, it is necessary to go back to January, 1936,

85
when the Popular Government was formed, a Government of which I am bound to say, in my opinion, the Resolution speaks in somewhat flattering terms, which were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in his speech. In the following July a military rising took place of a kind very familiar in Spanish politics, and that led to the formation of the Insurgent Party, which styled itself the National Party. It seems to me that the whole division of opinion that exists in this House and elsewhere depends on the opinion of what would have happened if the Spanish Government had been able to repress that rising almost at once, or within a few months of its coming into being. According to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, the sequel would have been the triumph of a soberly conducted Government, passing no doubt what some would consider extreme measures relating to the land, perhaps to the position of the Army, and to the privileges of the Church, but still a Government maintaining that degree of respect for law and order without which no Government is said to be a Government at all. On the other hand the view was held that if the Government had then succeeded, the more moderate clement in it would have been swamped by the violent element of revolutionary anarchy, that scenes of bloodshed would have followed, and that probably the officers of the Navy and Army and landowners and priests would have been liable in many cases to massacre. Those two entirely incompatible views have been held, and it seems to me extremely possible that neither of them is correct, but it would only be somebody who knows not merely one section of Spain but something of the whole of Spain who could give an opinion as to what the result of those proceedings would have been.
The noble Lord condemns without any reserve the entire action of His Majesty's Government, and I think it is fair to express my opinion that if the Spanish Government had succeeded in quelling that rebellion there would not have been in reality any danger of a general turning by Spain in the direction of Communism, possibly to the disadvantage both of France and of ourselves. I think that what has happened in the last few days, that is to say, the suppression of the Communist element in what is left of Government territory, shows—what I
86
have always supposed to be the case—that the full-blown Communist faith has little or no support in Spain itself. The fortunes of war having gone the other way, have we, as the noble Lord said we had, reason to dread the opposite danger—that France and ourselves will have to fear the conversion of Spain into an imitation either of Germany or of Italy (I am not quite sure which) and that therefore our French friends and ourselves will find ourselves in the awkward position of having a presumably hostile country on our flank? Well, I trust most sincerely that that risk does not in fact exist. But at the same time I think it cannot be denied that His Majesty's Government have incurred considerable danger in the line which they have taken on the question of intervention.
I take it that the case of His Majesty's Government is something like this. They would say: "Well, there ought to have been none of this evasion of the rule of non-intervention, but, after all, the presence of a few thousand foreign troops more or less in Spain is not so serious a matter as to warrant us in incurring the probability, if we attempt to check it, of starting a war which may involve the whole of Europe and possibly the whole world; therefore it is better to acquiesce." I wonder. Did that risk of a general war really exist in at all the degree which His Majesty's Government seem to suppose? We do not know precisely what occurred. Mr. Anthony Eden never had the chance of pursuing whatever line of policy he thought would be the soundest, and when the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Halifax) came into his present office it was too late to make any change. The Government had decided on their line, and there could be no question of departing from it.
I cannot help feeling that there is a body of opinion, not only confined to the regular Opposition nor to those who do not support His Majesty's Government, who feel that, to go back to the days before the War, somehow or other Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery, or Sir Edward Grey would have been able to state the position of this country rather more strongly than His Majesty's Government have found it possible to do. If that is not so, the alternative is not a pleasant one to consider. Assuming that His Majesty's Government have done everything that they could, that can only mean

87
that the position of Britain in the councils of Europe is not what it was before the War. It is painful even to think of accepting that as a necessity of the situation.
With regard to the situation in Spain, we must all agree that it is not possible that His Majesty's Government should address a formal lecture to the Government of Spain on the way in which that Government are to treat their own nationals, any more than they can do so to the German Government or the Russian Government. It is obviously contrary to all diplomatic practice to engage in a lecture of that kind, and any such formal representation, unless it was to convey a threat of the possible use of force, would unquestionably be absolutely ignored by those to whom it was addressed. But that does not mean that friendly conversations, unpublished conversations, may not take place in both capitals, and even in other capitals, between the representatives of the different countries, talking over the difficulties of the situation and expressing candid views as to the way in which they should be met. Apart from that, outsiders—people not in the Government—can express their views frankly in urging action or inaction by a particular Government.
I am bound to say that I am not quite sure that the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, couched his very direct criticisms of the Spanish Government is a real help to the cause which he desires to serve. I do not think expressions of the kind used by the noble Lord, arising of course from the very strong feelings of humanity and justice by which he is actuated, really help the probability of humane and generous dealing with those on whose behalf he speaks. I most entirely agree that we should all desire to see severe measures—capital punishment—confined to those who, in the strict sense, can be convicted of crimes such as murder, or robbery, or other crimes which undoubtedly have been committed, and it is a satisfaction to express that view, which I trust will, by various indirect means, be conveyed to the Spanish Government as representing practically the whole body of British opinion.
So far as expression of outside opinion is possible, I confess that it is impossible not to feel anxiety of a different
88
kind on behalf of the various nationalities of which Spain is composed. Take, in particular, the Basques. The Basques, as we know, went through their suffering in the spring of 1937. How it was that the Basque community joined up as they did with the Government forces, I always think has been rather difficult to explain. Nobody can suppose that the ordinary Basque peasant studies the theories of Karl Marx. I think the explanation would be—and it is one which ought to commend itself to the noble Lords opposite—that they dreaded their extinction as a separate community. As I say, it ought to appeal to noble Lords opposite because their position is in a way analagous to that of Ulster fifty years ago, when Mr. Gladstone introduced his Home Rule Bill and when Ulster thought that its identity was threatened. I do feel that if the present rulers of Spain attempt to do away with the different distinctions of race and language which have in a way made the Peninsula so remarkable, and if they do this in a sort of attempt to copy the methods which have been pursued in Germany and in Italy, they will be making a most grievous mistake and will alienate a great deal of the sympathy which in some quarters they might obtain.
Lastly, as regards the independence of Spain, of which the noble Lord has spoken so fully, I cannot myself believe that Spain with all its splendid traditions in letters, in art, and in resistance to foreign domination, would ever consent to be dragged at the heels of any other country. That, I think, would be the most dreadful end to this unhappy business, which in many ways has been so deplorable, and I am afraid in many ways disgraceful. But there exists the possibility of a complete recovery, and we hope, as friends of Spain, that it will not be long postponed.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, listening to the speech of the noble Lord who introduced this Motion, I could not help thinking of a saying of, I think it was, Professor Huxley, that there is no more hopeless tragedy in life than the conflict between a theory and a fact. Nobody would wish to associate anyone so agreeable and urbane as the noble Lord with a tragic end, but I think most of your Lordships will agree, listening to his speech and hearing what he said, and still more thinking of what he refrained

89
from saying, what a striking example of that conflict between theory and fact was that speech, and indeed the whole attitude which his Party has adopted. He challenges His Majesty's Government all along the line in the Motion, not only for the past—and I will say a word about that in a moment—but even on the recognition that has taken place. As regards recognition I really find it absolutely impossible to follow him. All legal precedents—and I am certainly not going to trouble your Lordships with a long list of quotations—are against him. There is not a lawyer in this House who would challenge the statement that legally the test of recognition of a Government is whether that Government is in fact in effective control of the greater part of the country which it claims to represent. That, there is no doubt about it, is the legal position.
What, then, was the position with which His Majesty's Government were faced? Not only was General Franco in control of the greater part of Spain, but nobody was in control of the other part of Spain at all. It is quite impossible to pretend that a certain number of no doubt very eminent gentlemen who had for the moment vacated Spain and were either in Switzerland, or in Paris, or in transit between the two, could be regarded as a representative Government of anybody except, possibly, themselves; and indeed, when they, or some of them, did return to that part of Spain which they could still claim to represent, it became evident from the happenings of the last 24 or 48 hours that they did not represent even the fraction for whom they still claimed to speak. They very wisely, very rapidly, and fortunately for themselves, vacated the scene of action. In those circumstances, in law, what other possible course could have been open to His Majesty's Government except to recognise the Government which was in fact in control of the greater part of Spain?
So much for the legal position. But it may be said that there are occasions on which other considerations must override all precedent. Far be it from me to say that such occasions may not arise. What earthly good would have been served by refraining from recognising the Government of General Franco at this moment? Could it have served British interests to do so? If so, in what way? I apply the
90
test of the noble Lord. Could it in any way have served the interests of anybody in Spain? What could have been the result? Indeed, I think, if I do not misinterpret his speech, he admitted himself what it might have done: it might have encouraged some people to fight on. It might have encouraged more useless bloodshed where far too much blood has been shed already. He asks my noble friend the Foreign Secretary how he can reconcile what has been done with his conscience. In all sincerity I ask him, if he had been in Lord Halifax's place, had he been Foreign Secretary and a member of a Government could he have reconciled with his conscience the taking of action the only result of which could have been that Spaniards would have hopelessly gone on fighting, with more casualties of a more tragic kind, casualties not only to the combatants but to non-combatants, and a still increasing bitterness, at a moment when all our efforts should be directed to try and assuage the bitterness between the factions on both sides?
I think the facts are uncontroverted, and His Majesty's Government would have been guilty of a great dereliction of duty, and would have served neither the interests of this country nor any party in Spain, had they refrained from recognising General Franco's Government. I have no means of knowing what were the precise conversations which took place between His Majesty's Government and the French Government. In the conversations which took place it was obviously right that His Majesty's Government should say to the French Government what they honestly thought was the proper course. I only know the published evidence. The Foreign Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a vestige of evidence for suggesting that there was at any time any difference of opinion between His Majesty's Government and the French Government as to what was the proper course to pursue.
Then the noble Lord goes back and challenges the past. Again his theory is supported by a very convenient ignoring of facts. In his Motion he says the course of action of His Majesty's Government has been against British interests. I deny that entirely. What was the supreme British interest in this matter?

91
Surely it was to localise the war. They could not stop it happening, and they could not stop it going on, but surely the interest of the British Government was to localise the war, to keep that war, if it had to take place, in Spain and not to allow it to swell into a world war. Whatever may be said of any other part of the policy of His Majesty's Government, so far as that supreme British interest is concerned their policy has certainly succeeded—just as, I believe, the policy of the noble Lord, had it been adopted, would have failed.
The noble Lord—and it is a very easy thing to do—scoffed at the policy of nonintervention. Incidentally, I always feel this difficulty when I listen to the speeches of members of the Labour party about non-intervention. They blame other people for intervention, and they blame His Majesty's Government for not intervening:
"Whatever I do, whatever I say,
Aunt Tabitha tells me it isn't the way."
There is a certain lack of logic in that attitude. A great deal may be and can properly be said against intervention, but do not let it be supposed for a moment that the intervention has been all on one side. The noble Lord spoke to-day of the intervention by the Germans and by the Italians. Well, nobody is going to minimise either the scale or the scope of that intervention. But do not let us suppose for a moment that they stand alone. There was not a word about Russian intervention. Not a word. If we really are to go into an inquiry into the order of time in this matter, I am not at all sure that the evidence of history will not show that Russian intervention took place before any other intervention.
In this matter I have only one interest, the British interest, and I am a noninterventionist, but in appraising intervention and non-intervention, in fairness we should have a true picture presented. When we talk about Italian and German intervention, in common courtesy to Russia do not let us forget the scale of Russian intervention. I think, too, that the noble Lord should not have forgotten the International Brigade, to whom his leader in another place paid such a striking tribute that I think a battalion or even a division of that Brigade was called after him. There was the International Brigade.
92
Brigade is rather an elastic term for a force which, on a conservative estimate, must have much more closely resembled an army corps than what we in the British Army have hitherto understood by a brigade. I am not defending intervention—I am against intervention by anybody—but I do say that when we are speaking about intervention we should try to get a fair picture of the intervention which has taken place from a very great many quarters. I am not sure that I have exhausted all the quarters from which it came, but I have said enough for my argument.
I think there is a great deal that can be said against non-intervention, but there is also a great deal which can be said, if I may say so quite respectfully to the noble Lord, in favour of both countries and people minding their own business. But do let us be consistent. Really I think the noble Lord is an opponent of intervention when it takes place on the side which he is not backing at the time. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned—and it is they who are charged—they certainly have not intervened. Indeed, I think the charge against them is that they have refrained from intervening. They have been guilty of no intervention of any kind except where the cause of humanity could be served. Either on the side of the "Reds" or on the side of the "Whites," on the side of the Government or of the insurgents, by whatever name you like to call them, quite irrespective of Party, side or interest, His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Fleet have gone to succour sufferers in any part of Spain. I am not at all sure that in the years to come that form of intervention will not be more gratefully remembered by the people of Spain than any other form.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the noble Viscount in favour of that continuing just now?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly I am in favour of humanitarian action continuing, and I have every reason to believe that His Majesty's Government will lose no opportunity of intervening for the purpose of taking humane action. Really I was amazed at the travesty of a story which the noble Lord presented about Minorca. According to him, His Majesty's Government sent a cruiser in order to take

93
away Minorca from loyalist Spain, or whatever I am to call it, and to hand it over to the insurgents. What on earth could be further from the facts? What I understand happened was characteristic of the action of His Majesty's Fleet. It quite naturally fell to the lot of the British Government, when there was a chance of getting a settlement between the people who were warring in Minorca and the people in Spain, to provide through the agency of a British ship a meeting ground where the parties were able to meet and come to an agreement. If that is to be characterised as a wicked form of intervention, I do not know what the noble Lord desires. It seemed to me almost equal to the curious view he expressed that the Catholic Church was likely to suffer far worse depredations and assaults at the hands of General Franco than it had suffered at the hands of other persons who had occupied other parts of Spain.
LORD SNELL: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I quoted from a German newspaper. It was not my view.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord does not associate himself with what was said in the German newspaper—well then, I do not know why it was quoted. There is one thing which I think might be open to criticism. I have always felt that there was a good deal to be said—no doubt a great deal may be said on the other side—once this war was in full swing and once the parties were, as they were, very equally matched in combat, for granting belligerent rights to both sides, not in order to give advantage to one side or the other, but simply for the reason that when belligerent rights are granted to the parties to a war everybody knows where they stand. A perfectly recognised code of International Law binds both combatants and neutrals. I always felt that an extremely difficult task was set the British Navy in telling them to go out and navigate a wholly uncharted naval legal sea. It might have been a much simpler business all round if belligerent rights had been granted. That, however, would not have satisfied the noble Lord: if belligerent rights were to be granted at all, according to him, they should have been granted to one side and not to the other. I will therefore not pursue that argument, as I do not think it is really germane to the debate.
94
But in his assessment of Spanish feeling, I really think that the noble Lord and his friends could only maintain their theory by complete subordination of facts. He is indeed a master of a rather cynical political maxim: "Never make a mistake in your logic; the facts remain at your disposal." But what are the facts? Again the noble Lord has pictured to us an insurgent Spain with no national backing, a few disgruntled generals only able to make their way with foreign aid. Surely nothing could be further from the truth. If Spanish feeling had been as one-sided as that, I do not think General Franco would have won many victories. I am quite sure of this: that he could never have held and administered the country behind him with hardly a rearguard left to control it. I am not a partisan of either side. I am sure the real truth is that on both sides thousands and thousands of Spaniards fought and died for what they believed to be right, and if we want to appraise this tragedy of Spain and the actions of Spaniards, whatever their colour, we shall do it better by looking back in our own history to our own Civil War, when passions ran high, when people felt sincere convictions; or to the time of the American Civil War. Surely the hope of all true friends of Spain to-day must be that this fratricidal strife may cease and that Spaniards may join in building up a great country worthy of its gallant people and of its great past. I am quite sure of this: that my noble friend and this country will not be in a worse position to help in that reconstruction of Spain by the Spaniards because they have not been guilty of any intervention except the offering of humane aid wherever and whenever they could.
The Motion goes on to say that vigilance is now required to ensure that the pledges with regard to the integrity of Spanish territory may be preserved. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that very much depends on what you mean by a Motion of that kind. The vigilance of an understanding friend may be of great value; the meddling of a mischievous busybody may do nothing but harm. I would make just two observations on that part of the Motion, and they are these. The best way to make a man break a promise that he has made to you is to go about all the time saying you are perfectly certain he is not going to keep his word. Of course, if you do

95
that, the man says: "You never were at one with me; you never believed me." I cannot imagine a greater encouragement to anybody to break his word. That is not the attitude that His Majesty's Government take in this matter, and they would be very unwise if they did take any such attitude.
I would also say this, and it is a view which I share with the noble Marquess from such experience as I have. The Spaniards are a proud and independent people. I wonder if any of your Lordships remember the story told of the Duke of Wellington. When the last Marshal of France in the last French Army had been defeated and driven across the Pyrenees, the Duke is reported to have said to the General Franco of the day: "I have driven out the last invader of Spain." The answer of the Spaniard is said to have been this: "Yes, Excellency, you have driven out a very had stink by a stink not quite so bad." That story certainly has an element of truth. It has come down for more than a century; it shows the pride of Spain in Spain and the determination of Spaniards to keep their own country. For my part, from such knowledge as I have I should not envy the man who tried to make Spain a satellite State. In a long and difficult task I think the Foreign Secretary has rightly interpreted the mind and wishes of his fellow-countrymen. He has served their interests, and he has served the interests of world peace. His position and theirs have not suffered at his hands, and I believe that not only the majority of your Lordships but the majority of the people in this country are profoundly thankful that in these difficult times the conduct of foreign affairs has been, and remains, in his charge.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I hate to find myself opposed to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, because in debate he is one of the most courteous members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord said he was going to make a strenuous speech. He has certainly done that. It was also a controversial one, and I realise quite well that it was absolutely sincere. But he has made certain statements and pointed out certain implications which should not go out of your Lordships' House without another interpretation being put upon them. I realise that the noble Viscount,
96
when he speaks, will answer some of the noble Lord's arguments, but perhaps he is still under a corner of the cloak of nonintervention, and may not wish to descend into the depths of controversy as I propose to do. The noble Lord has made a case for his Party, and also, of course, a case for those who oppose the National Government. With all respect to him, I do not think I have ever heard arguments so futile. This is another occasion when the Labour Party seem quite unable to face up to reality. The noble Lord stated that he had no respect for Government policy. It has been pointed out in this House time and time again, and the noble Viscount who has just sat down pointed it out, that the policy of non-intervention adopted by the Government was the only policy that the Government could have carried out. If any other policy had been carried out, there was every danger of war in Europe.
The Labour Party used to be a peace party, but now they are the most ferocious and bellicose of people. I cannot understand it. I am not going to stress that point, because we have thrashed it out so many times in this House. The truth is that the whole of the noble Lord's arguments, with all respect, are based on false premises. For two years he and those who think with him have been enveloped in a blinding mist of false information and mendacity. Those, I think, are not too strong words. The noble Lord objects to the sinking of British ships. However much that is to be deplored, with all fairness it must be remembered that these seamen—some of them not of British nationality, although a great many were—were running a blockade, just as the blockade was run in the American Civil War. They took their risks, and took them gladly. They knew the risks they were taking, and they did it with hardly a complaint. The outcries and squeals come from the Red propagandists in this country, who wish to exploit those gallant sailors for their own ends. I am not blaming the noble Lord, nor am I blaming Lord Strabolgi, who spoke in this House on this subject a short time ago, because I am sure they are perfectly sincere in putting forward their own case, but there are many on the other side who consider that the prestige of this country has been weakened because we have allowed this bombing of British ships. I,

97
on the contrary, think that our prestige has been enhanced, because foreign countries now know that we still have men here who are prepared to face death in order to carry out the contract they have made, and we have officers and men who are still ready to show that old adventurous spirit which has made this Empire great. I do not think that our prestige can possibly have suffered in any way.
The noble Lord has made the well-worn and misleading assertion that this has been a war between Fascism and Democracy. Franco has not called himself a Fascist, nor has he bound himself to follow the example either of Italy or of Germany. He is first of all a Spaniard, and he will probably govern the country in the Spanish way, which is not necessarily the Italian or the German way. The truth is that Franco is a man who rose to save his country from Anarchy and Red Revolution. Franco may be called a counter-revolutionary, but certainly not a Fascist, and before he is given any ideological name let us wait and see what Government he gives to Spain. With regard to the so-called democratic Government and democratic principles mentioned in the Motion, how many of your Lordships remember the Proclamation which was made by Franco at the beginning of the Civil War. It was given scant publicity by the British Press, because the British Press, with few exceptions, has always been biased against the National Government. Franco, in his Proclamation asking for recruits, said:
"It is the duty of every man to enter into this definite struggle between Russia and Spain."
That is the only Proclamation he made, and if it had not been perfectly true, and understood by every Spaniard, then he would have required to use other words and give other reasons. Were the agents of Russia in Spain really the agents of a democratic country trying to convert Spain into the ways of democracy? It is evident that the so-called democratic Government was nothing more than a myth.
The noble Lord has spoken of Franco's vengeance and brutality, the inference being that Franco has been carrying out brutalities in Spain in the past. That is entirely a misconception. The Nationalist Government have a settled policy with regard to prisoners. They are taken care
98
of, fed and looked after. After a time they are released with the exception of some whose dossiers are in the hands of the police and who are accused of murder. When captured these men are brought before a competent court and tried. Sometimes they suffer the supreme penalty, and sometimes they are reprieved. Who are these men whom the Nationalists accuse of murder, and to whom the noble Lord—I could not understand it—did homage? How can he pay homage to murderers? Who are these men? They are the leaders of irresponsible bands who have been guilty of the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Spanish men and women on Red territory, without trial. I do not want to speak of things of which we all know, but it is beyond doubt that not only in Madrid but in many other Spanish cities people were pulled out of their beds, hauled into the streets, and there shot, the results of the night's killing being left lying about the streets until they were removed. In Spain I met a lady of British birth who lived in a house over-looking the spot where these victims lay, and she told me that she had counted up to 10,000 corpses. I have reason to think that her statement can be accepted.
I shall, of course, be told that there is nothing to choose between the savagery on one side and the other, but I ask your Lordships to compare the methods of Red Spain as they are known with the methods of order and justice carried out by the Nationalists. I ask your Lordships to consider this. Suppose a murderer entered one of your houses in London and took out the son of the house and shot him. Would you not consider it just if the murderer, when caught, was brought before a Judge and jury, tried, and given the supreme penalty? Would you consider that right, as is apparently the opinion of the noble Lord, or would you consider that the Judge and jury were carrying out an act of vengeance? There is no doubt, speaking generally, that there have been acts of savagery on the part of Russian Spain, and methods of order and justice on the side of the Nationalists.
Of course we all deplore the senseless slaughter of civilians in modern warfare, but the implication of the noble Lord is that there has been deliberate bombing and machine gunning of women and children. It is unfortunately true that

99
civilians have been machine gunned on the roads, as occurred in the retreat from Barcelona. It is impossible to say whether there were troops with them, but I think it is probable. If there were it was legitimate; if not, it was disgraceful. But the point that I want to make is that these things are not being done by the order of General Franco. I do not believe for a moment that he would have given instructions for the bombing of women and children. There are of course such things as military objectives, and I lay the responsibility on the Barcelona Government for the slaughter and misery that these people suffered. They were driven out of the towns, and told to fly, and were caused to fly north by the lies and propaganda of the Barcelona Government. The result was that many of them were slaughtered and the Republican Government are responsible entirely for that slaughter.
I am glad, and I am sure your Lordships are glad, that at long last the Government have recognised the Nationalist Government. However ardent supporters we may be of the policy of His Majesty's Government, surely there are times when we may in your Lordships' House criticise a part of that policy with which we may not be in entire agreement. I am very sorry that General Franco's Government was not recognised ten months ago, because it would have made for very much greater friendliness with the new Spain. As it is, we waited until the fait accompli, and we are now in exactly the same position as we were after the war between Italy and Abyssinia. Of course, I realise that our Government had really a very difficult role to play, and no doubt it was a matter of high policy—perhaps high internal policy. There is probably some good reason for it. I only hope that General Franco, having been a democrat, will have a sense of humour and that he will realise it is sometimes necessary to throw a sop to the wolves. I apologise for this continual assertion and counter-assertion in Spanish matters. I am sick and tired of it, and I am sure your Lordships are. But when statements are made which have been made to-day in your Lordships' House I think they ought to be answered. Somebody has got to answer, and that is my justification.
100
Already the mist is lifting. People have got their heads up. General Franco is no longer the ogre that he was. Fascism versus Democracy, the savagery of the Nationalists—all these things are coming out into the sunshine and are being seen in their proper light. The miasma of false propaganda, which has been going on for two years in Red territory, will not clear until the verdict of history has shown the nonsense of it all, and I do not think that it will be very long in coming. I believe the Red Sea is a good place to see a waterspout. The column of water is getting thin. The spate of false information and false statement which has been going up to the skies for so long is diminishing. I am told, and I know it is true, that a gun will dispel a waterspout, and when the verdict of history fires that gun all this flood of mendacity will fall down into that blood-red sea from which it emerged.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Resolution will probably not be surprised to hear that his impatient attack on the Government made little or no impression on me, and I rise, like previous speakers, to express my congratulations to the Government upon the complete success—not the failure—of their policy with regard to Spain. I do so with all the more pleasure and all the more sincerity because it occurs to me that the British Government are the only Government to come out of the business with comparatively clean hands. Let me recall the circumstances. There were five Governments who possessed, or thought they possessed, interests in Spain. There were ourselves, there were the Soviet Government, the German Government, the Italian Government and the French Government. Let me point out quite shortly what happened.
The Soviet Government had been at work before the war began. It might almost be said that the war was the result of their work. They had long looked upon Barcelona as a centre for developing their activities, and the war came as a godsend to them. Ever since the war began they have done all they possibly could to help the Republican Government in various ways, and it would be interesting to know how many millions they have wasted in attempting to achieve their purpose. I pass to the French Government, and I regret to say that the

101
record of the French Government is an extremely unsatisfactory one. M. Blum, if I am not mistaken, was in office during the earlier portion of the war, and the result was that there was a continual flow of men and military supplies of all kinds to help the Spanish Republicans. It reached such a pitch that, as I have read in evidence which was brought before the French Parliamentary Committees, military material was sent to Spain in such quantities that it seriously depleted the stocks of the French Army.
Now I pass from France to Germany. Well, we all know the part that Germany has played and the assistance that the Germans gave to General Franco. It was probably very much more valuable than the assistance which he obtained elsewhere, but they were clever enough not to make too much of a parade of it, and they never boasted of their achievement. They were content with solid achievement. The case of the Italians was quite different. Signor Mussolini was quite unable to restrain his intense desire to show that his countrymen were the equals, if not the superiors, of anybody else. He trumpeted his successes all over the world. Naturally attention was concentrated upon him, and a lot of foolish people thought that it was owing to the Italians that General Franco eventually won the war. Of course nothing of the kind happened.
What was the case with us? We were absolutely neutral all through. If we erred at all it was in the direction of being too severe with regard to General Franco. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, commented on that particular point. I have always thought, as I think he did, that it was a very great pity that His Majesty's Government did not make up their minds to recognise General Franco and accord belligerent rights long ago. There would have been nothing unfair about it, and the war would have terminated probably a year or two ago. An enormous number of lives and an incalculable amount of money would thus have been saved. I do not know what reason actually prevented His Majesty's Government from recognising General Franco. No doubt the noble Viscount when he speaks will give the reasons, and they will probably be technical reasons. But surely the broad principle with regard to according belligerent rights or recognising a revolutionary government depends en-
102
tirely upon the support behind the movement. If it is a purely military revolution, of course you do not accord anything of the kind, but the case for according belligerent rights to General Franco was every bit as strong as the case of the Southern States fighting in America, or the case of the Greeks fighting against the Turks, and many others.
I repeat that it was a most unfortunate thing that this decision was not made earlier. I have a very strong suspicion in my mind that His Majesty's Government did not take this step, not because they were frightened of the noble Lords opposite—of firebrands like the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and Mr. Gilbert Murray and people of that kind—but because they were prevented from doing so by the French Government. The result is that France is now flooded with refugees, and it would not surprise me if before long they came to us and said we ought to share the burden. It seems to me that they brought this misfortune upon themselves. It was they who were responsible for it, and, although I am the last person to deprecate any humane work, it does not seem to me that they have any claim upon us.
The attack of the noble Lord upon the Government was so fierce that I can hardly think that he believed in it himself. When, for instance, he talked about prisoners being handed over like sheep to be butchered by General Franco, surely he cannot have meant it seriously. Can he produce any instances in which General Franco has maltreated prisoners, or committed any atrocities of any kind against combatants? I am quite sure that he can not do anything of the kind. Of course one must make allowances for people who have backed the wrong horse. In this case the horse they backed was recommended to them by their own particular military and naval adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who acts in that capacity during his spare time. I might add that not only were his prophecies in this particular case upset, but he told us not very long ago that the Czecho-Slovak Army would fight to the death and would probably beat the Germans. I am afraid that the noble Lord's reputation as a war prophet will suffer considerably. However, that is not a very important point.

103
What strikes me about the whole business, putting myself in the position of the Opposition, is the deplorable and cruel fact that Spain is no longer attached to the democratic principle at all. The democratic principle is at a complete discount in Spain at this moment. There is nothing whatever to show that the Spaniards are enamoured of what is called the democratic principle. It seems to be quite the other way about. I observed that the noble Lord was very much concerned as to the future. In his Resolution he not only evidently envisages the prospect of cruelties being inflicted on combatants, but he is also very much alarmed on behalf of the people who admire the democratic principle. All that sounds very well on paper, but what has fidelity to the democratic principle to do with murder and outrage? Surely he would not say that the murders that took place during the retreat of the Catalan force the other day had anything to do with the democratic principle? It seems to me grotesque to suggest anything of the kind. Why on earth should people who entertain those ideas be molested by General Franco? I am not sure whether General Franco is a very intelligent man, because he completely despised all attempts at propaganda on his behalf and took no trouble to defend himself, thereby allowing his opponents to have it all their own way; but I cannot believe that he is a man who has not got sufficient sense to realise that government would be impossible if he had an outraged minority living under him. I consider these people are perfectly safe and have nothing to worry about at all.
Evidently the noble Lord is concerned, and I can read into his Resolution an aspiration that we should do our best to safeguard the democratic principle in Spain. I sincerely hope we shall do nothing of the kind. What the Government is in Spain does not concern us in the least. It does not matter whether it is Fascist or Socialist, Conservative or Liberal. What we want is a Government that will be friendly to us. The besetting fault of this nation is that it always thinks it knows better than other people how they ought to be governed. We have got into endless trouble in the course of history through trying to force forms of government on people who did not want
104
them in the least. I sincerely hope we shall not commit that mistake this time. All we ought to strive for is to see that our own interests do not suffer and that our nationals in Spain do not suffer. If we try to introduce some ideas suggested by noble Lords opposite and by their friends in the country we shall assuredly come to grief, because nobody will support us. As long as we confine ourselves merely to the object of restoring Spain to a stable, peaceful condition, there our work ought to end. If we set to work to try and graft other ideas upon the Spaniards and try to mould them according to what we think is the right form of political ideas, we shall infallibly come to grief.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in the greater part of what he has just said. I heard him denounce the democratic principle with great fervour, and indeed I was not surprised to hear that from his lips. He said that nothing could be more ridiculous than for the present Government to assist in maintaining the democratic principle. Certainly I should not go to the noble Lord with that object. But I do not propose to go into the rest of his arguments at any length. He was good enough to refer to me as a firebrand. That I do not mind. Indeed I call it rather a compliment, on the whole, considering the quarter from which it comes. Certainly it was rather strange, in the case of a noble Lord who objects to firebrands, that a good part of his speech should be taken up in denunciation of most of the Governments in Europe. But I do not propose to deal with that part of the case at all.
The Resolution before us has three parts. The first part deals with criticisms of the present Government and of their conduct in this case. I do not propose to say anything about that for two reasons. In the first place the matter has been very fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Snell, and to a great extent by my noble friend Lord Crewe. I am sure it will also be dealt with by a good many other speakers in this debate on one side or the other, and I do not feel I can add anything useful to what has been said. I cannot pretend to be of the opinion of the noble Lord who has just sat down, that the policy of the Government has been a great success, unless their object was to secure the

105
victory of General Franco. That is sometimes thought in certain quarters. I prefer to think that was not their object, but that they really did mean to be perfectly neutral in their conduct. My only criticism is that when they found that nobody was really prepared to act on the principles of non-intervention, they would have done better to have abandoned that plan altogether and not allowed it to drag on, a miserable farce, for months and months when everybody knew that none of the negotiators were really in earnest except, perhaps, ourselves. That is all I desire to say on that part of the subject, because I know there are many noble Lords who desire to address your Lordships, and I do not want to take up more time than I can possibly help.
Of the other two aspects of the Resolution, one is an expression of the wish that the independence of Spain may be maintained. I do not believe there is any difference of opinion in your Lordships' House on that point, and I hope we may receive an assurance from the Government that they also think it of great importance. It is on the other point I wish to say a few words—and I shall keep them as short as I possibly can—that is, the subject of refugees. We know that literally hundreds of thousands of Spaniards are now refugees in France. We know that, in all probability, their numbers will be increased when the remainder of Spain is occupied by the troops of General Franco. That may be reasonable or it may be unreasonable, but it is a fact. I have heard, and I have no doubt many of your Lordships have heard, the most heartrending accounts of the condition of these unhappy people who have fled because they thought they were in danger of immediate slaughter, and very likely through no fault of the French Government have, in fact, suffered grievious hardships. I feel that is a very strong case and it is one that would appeal, I hope, to every noble Lord present. Certainly it must appeal to all of us who feel that we have, wittingly or unwittingly, not treated the late Government of Spain with quite the same impartiality that we designed no doubt to exercise, and certainly with not quite the same favour as we have treated their opponents.
Here are these people to whom we are in a degree responsible. I am not talking for the moment, and I am not going
106
to talk, about the so-called criminals, or the possibilities—I hope they will not eventuate in actual facts—of extensive executions by the victorious party. That is a terrible consequence of civil war on both sides. There is a tendency to regard everybody on the other side as a traitor and guilty of high treason, and therefore liable to the severest penalties. It is quite true that in the only civil war we have had in this country both sides treated their opponents with extraordinary leniency and clemency, and at the Restoration I doubt whether anybody was executed. I think there were some people whose bodies were dug up and their ashes scattered, but I do not remember anyone being actually executed. But that is a very rare case. Normally the successful party thinks it even necessary or desirable to slaughter a great many of his late opponents. Anything that the Government can do to mitigate that danger I hope that they will do.
There was a statement made on very high authority that the Government would not facilitate the escape of any of the beaten party from the portion of Spain which has not yet been occupied by General Franco. It is possible the statement was misunderstood, but as it reads in the public prints this morning it is very disquieting. It certainly looks as if the Prime Minister of this country was not prepared to do anything to assist these miserable refugees unless General Franco gave him leave to do so. That is a new doctrine so far as I know in our attitude to political refugees, and I earnestly trust there has been some misapprehension as to what was really meant by the Prime Minister. But I do not want to deal with that; I want just to say a word about the refugee question.
These Spanish refugees are only part of what has now become the enormous question; what are you to do with political refugees? They come from Spain, as we know in reference to this Motion, and there are of course a whole class of them that come from Germany, and quite a large number from CzechoSlovakia, from Hungary, and I believe from Poland. Certainly there is a danger of their coming from Poland. There are hundreds of thousands of them, probably running into millions by now. These people are dumped down on to the other countries, being generally just excluded

107
from the country from which they are flying. Either they are actually excluded, or they fly because they are in danger of capital punishment. It is a frightful question. What should be done with them is a question of immense complication. I do not pretend that it is a simple matter. There are provisions for settling them in Guiana, I believe. And there is the question, which touches another very burning question of the day, how far some of them, the Jewish ones, can be accommodated in Palestine.
When you come to deal with the matter here in this country you find that it is a frightfully complicated matter. Three Departments at least are affected—the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Ministry of Labour; and in some cases the Board of Trade. The methods by which they are to be dealt with by the international authorities are almost equally complex. In these circumstances I venture very earnestly to press on the Government that they should consider the whole administration of this question. I know it is complicated, but it really belongs to the same order of complications that occurred in some respects during the War. The expedient usually employed then was to put some particular branch under a Minister altogether and give him complete control, subject of course to proper consideration for other Departments. Indeed, only in that kind of way will you get any satisfactory method of dealing with them. But it is not only the Government. My complaints such as they are do not touch the Government directly very much. So far as I have had any relations with Government Departments in this matter—and like many of your Lordships I have had appeals made to me to save particular refugees—I must say that when I have been able to get in touch with the proper official he has generally shown the utmost consideration and done his best to help the case in question. But in addition to the Government, there is a number of societies and organisations that exist for assisting. Some I have no doubt are excellently efficient. I am not going to mention any names, but some are very much the reverse of efficient, and the result is that you are told to apply to such and such an assistant and you find it impossible to get any answer at all out of them.
108
I do not think one ought to blame anybody very much, because the urgency of the question and the complication of it is so great that it must tax anybody's exertions to deal with it properly, but I think the Government ought to deal with it very seriously as one of the gravest questions they have to face in these troublous times. This question of refugees is really tremendously serious. It is not merely—bad as that is—the hardship that afflicts each refugee; it is the great international question involved as well. I beg the Government to treat the matter as a matter of first-class importance and urge them to consider whether it would not be possible to create one single Department which could deal with all refugees of all the different kinds. I should myself like to see the international side of it dealt with under the League of Nations, because I think they have great experience in this matter and have dealt with many refugee questions quite admirably. I should like to see all the Evian Committee absorbed in the League of Nations system, which I think would deal with the matter far better than the Evian Committee has been able to deal with it. In any case I would urge the Government to treat the matter as one of first-rate importance, and to consider whether some drastic alteration of the present official method of dealing with the matter could not be adopted.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount in the matter of refugees further than to say that I entirely repudiate the notion that we have any special responsibility, or indeed beyond humanitarian grounds any responsibility for the refugees from Spain; and in any case the unhappy Jews, whether they be Jewish by race or by religion, ought to have priority over them. I am not going to speak about the question of the recognition of General Franco. I propose to go further, and to defend General Franco himself in his actions and policy from first to last. I am perfectly free to confess that I feel with some bitterness on this question on account of the outrages to religion which have occurred in Spain, but that is not the fundamental ground on which I base my case. I base my case on this, that the Government against which General Franco rose had forfeited all moral authority. I do not suppose that anyone in this House would argue that a legal

109
Government ought never to be resisted. I am sure all Liberals would approve of the two successful risings against our own Governments in the seventeenth century. I imagine they would also approve of the rising of the American Colonies against us—at least, the whole Apostolic succession of Whiggery down to Dr. Murray and Professor Trevelyan would so approve.
I take it a little later than that. In the year 1860 there was a very strong, and I think a predominant, legal opinion in America that any State in the Union had the right to secede if it chose. There was good legal ground for that, because actually when they began their first changes of the Constitution in the last decade of the eighteenth century several States did formally secede in order that the reconstruction might be easier. Anyhow, there was so strong a legal opinion that it deterred President Buchanan from any strong action. Well, what was to happen in that case? I suppose you could have got a decision from the Supreme Court in two or three years, but in the words of that eminent Liberal, Lord Bryce, "The swords of the soldiers cut the knots of the lawyers," and Lincoln was determined to take action, whether legal or not, because he could not see States of his own Union seceding in order that they might continue their social and economic system on the immoral basis of slavery.
Now I would come to something later still. In this case I do not appeal for a moment to noble Lords opposite, because they would not admit my premises, but it is an argument valid for any Conservative who may still be in doubt. In the years 1912 to 1914 the whole Conservative Party considered that it was a grave constitutional outrage to force on the people of Ulster, without an Election, without the consent of the whole people of the United Kingdom, a Government against their will. This was not from any special love of the Ulstermen. It is true that some supported them on religious grounds, but among a great many Conservatives there was no particular liking for the Ulstermen. They did not want to be too closely associated with them. In my own case, of course, it just happened—though it was quite an irrelevancy—that I was in actual theological agreement with their opponents, and so in fact was the Chief Whip
110
of the Conservative Party. But the point was not whether Ulstermen were a likeable or a tolerant set of people. The whole point was whether they ought to have a Government forced upon them without moral authority against their will. The whole Conservative Party without exception—I think absolutely without exception—were ready to back them in their resistance. If you take it as a question of pure legality, we were abetting an illegal conspiracy, though, of course, the Government dared not prosecute. If the late Lord Birkenhead was in it up to the neck, my noble friend Viscount Cecil was at least in it up to the diaphragm.
If Sir Edward Carson had a good case General Franco had a very much better case. Sir Edward Carson feared oppression as the result of what was thought to be the unwarranted act of the Imperial Government. In the case of General Franco it was not his fear of oppression; it was his knowledge of what was going on. Long before General Franco's rising there had been a series of events which showed that the then Government had lost all control and were letting it slip to others through their hands. There was arson in many cases, not only of churches but of political clubs, assumption of authority by illegal bodies, systematic tampering with and weakening of the Army, and they suspended their own Constitution so as to be unhampered in anything they did. And all this in peace time. Finally, when it came to the murder of the leader of the Opposition by policemen in a Black Maria, it really was time for somebody to do something. In a situation such as that, what are good citizens to do? Are they merely to sit quiet, allow outrage to go on, see their country going on towards the abyss and wait on the chance that on some future occasion they may still be alive and able to put a vote in the ballot box, or are they to strike to the best of their power? I am thinking of the line of Mr. Browning:
"While God's champion lives, wrong shall be resisted."
Because they were soldiers, were they not on that account to do what they could to save their country? They were the very people who could do it, and if they could do it they ought.
Of course, now we know very well that the Communist rising was preparing all the time. The Anglican Bishop of Liver-

111
pool is a witness of the fact that in the Canaries there was a whole list—and in many other places too—of people who were on the black list to be shot as soon as the Communists came into power. That list included not only clergy but professional men, and most of the doctors on the island. That stigma of outrage has gone on from first to last. If noble Lords have read carefully the occasionally contributed articles in The Times—The Times itself took a somewhat frigid, detached attitude—you will remember that those correspondents gave wonderful accounts of continued outrage right down to the late murder of hostages on the French frontier. This cannot be denied. This is the dilemma the Republican Government have been in: if they ordered or deliberately allowed these outrages, they were fiends; if they were unable to stop them, they were unfit to govern. I do not know which horn of the dilemma critics of General Franco would take.
It is no part of my case that the progress of the National army was wholly unblemished; it would, of course, be foolish to suppose it could be in a civil war. The stories of massacre at Badajos and Guernica have been disproved. But I am quite ready to believe that it would be really against human nature if it were not so. There was doubtless many a hasty drumhead court-martial and swift execution to follow. But what I do say is that there was nothing in the least comparable to the indictment that could be set up on the other side at any time during the war. And also at the beginning, do you suppose that the advancing armies were or could be in a judicial frame of mind? When they marched up through part of Andalusia and Estremadura, on every hand they had reports of the most appalling outrages. For example, could they be very cool in their minds when they heard that a number of honest women had been ordered by a Communist court to undergo the most horrible outrages? It is not in human nature that they could.
The cause of the Nationalists has been prejudiced, and was particularly prejudiced early, by various factors. For example, it was a military revolt, and ever since Cromwell's time that has not been liked in England. Then there were the Moors. Their number, of course, has been greatly exaggerated, and Moors were
112
equally employed by the Republican Government to quell the insurrection by General Sanjurjo. Then there was the Church: that again excited prejudice in some circles in England, partly owing to the extraordinary fallacy that the Church still enjoys her ancient privileges. As a matter of fact, I think it will be found that the Church, first and last, had very little to do with the struggle except to suffer. Then, of course, after the events of last autumn the cause of the Nationalists, with many others, was prejudiced by the mass hysteria and perverted thinking which arose after the settlement of Munich.
In this connection and in many others we have seen very strange phenomena. I might almost say, in the words of Mr. Burke, "I live in an inverted order." That charming hymn to St. Jingo which was the solace of my childhood is now sung on Socialist lips, except that they sing "We do want to fight" and not "We don't." Then, again, the Foreign Secretary said the other day that no statesman in this country would be in favour of a preventive war. If he puts the emphasis on the word "statesman," no doubt he is right; but, judging by the speeches which have been made, I can hardly doubt that many who think themselves statesmen are distinctly in favour of it, and were in favour of a preventive war by intervention in Spain. Then there are some remarkable phenomena connected with the clergy. It has sometimes been alleged—I do not know with what justice—against the Church of England that they are too subservient to the State and that they have seldom found a champion like Bishop Phillpotts of Exeter, to stand up to the Erastian lawyers. Now it appears that some of them, so far from adopting that attitude, are attempting to dictate the policy of the State.
Last July I saw an article, or a memorandum, or a petition, signed by a large number of Church dignitaries in which they said that for the sake of International Law we must protect the profiteering ships in Spanish harbours, although the Government had warned the country generally that that might lead to a general war. I have sometimes wondered what the definition of clericalism is, but I imagine that what it amounts to is the abuse of ecclesiastical influence in temporal affairs. If this urging of a

113
dangerous policy on the Government is not clericalism, I do not know what is; and it is clericalism of a peculiarly dangerous kind, exactly what brought Scotland to ruin at the battle of Dunbar when the Kirk forced poor General Leslie, against his will, to give battle to Cromwell in the plain. So I may say that we have the new Jingoes, the new Machiavellians, the new clericals and the new profiteers, and the Labour Party support them all. I do not think there is much more that I can say.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
OTHER NOBLE LORDS: Go on.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am really rather tempted by what I hear opposite to say a little more! Certainly we must say one thing: that though we have done, I think, our duty, and we could not, except in one particular, have done otherwise, we have not earned the gratitude of the new Government. The best we can say to them in the way of friendship is that we have been abused by their Republican opponents for having betrayed them. In that connection I rather think the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, will do a certain amount of good. One point, however, that I do want to make was made before by Lord Newton, and I hope some reply will be given to it: what was the real reason for not giving belligerent rights? It seemed the natural thing to do, according to precedent. The only defence I have so far heard is that circumstances were different because there was intervention by other Powers. Why was that not done? Why should it have made a difference? I cannot help thinking, as has already been said, that the real reason was that we could not get the French to agree and we did not like to go ahead without them. If there is another and a better reason, I shall be glad to hear it.
When I see accounts of military dangers of the future resulting from the present position in Spain, I cannot help thinking that some people have apparently forgotten that there is such a thing as a French fleet, let alone a British one, and that if French communications can be cut, so can Italian; that if Africa is to be the scene of possible operations in the future, Africa can be reached from the Atlantic as well as from the Mediterranean. I do not expect any such condition to arise, but it is purely futile to suppose that all the dangers are against us
114
or against France and none against anyone else. I should like to add that, if Portugal had been overrun and had become a Soviet State, our position in the Atlantic would have been very different from what it has always been. I do hope we shall cultivate good relations with the new Government. I do not object to what someone referred to as "harmless talks in private," but to adopt a hectoring or a pharisaical air towards them would utterly undo the purpose of our policy. They deserve the fruits of their victory. They have fought for all those things for which men fight best: for their faith, for their liberty, for the traditions of their nation, for the honour of their women, for the security of their possessions; and I thank the God of Battles that they have won.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships have been very fortunate this afternoon in being able to hear a number of different points of view about the Spanish situation. We have listened to some very interesting speeches in defence of General Franco and the present Spanish Government, of which I think your Lordships will agree that the last was the most logical, comprehensive and eloquent. It is always a pleasure to listen to a case that is well put, even when one disagrees with it. We have also heard a partisan of the refugees from Spain. I should like to make a few remarks as a partisan of British interests in Spain and the Mediterranean. I shall start from a proposition which I believe, miraculous as it may sound, will command the assent of every member of your Lordships' House. It is this: That the primary aim of British policy towards Spain for the last hundred years has been the maintenance of the independence and neutrality of that country and her Dependencies. We have done everything we could under Liberal, Conservative and Labour Governments to prevent Spain from becoming a pawn in the political game of any of her great and powerful neighbours. Ever since Wellington helped to drive Napoleon out of the Peninsula, excepting for one brief period of French dominion in the middle of the nineteenth century, we have succeeded in preserving a Government in Spain strong enough to stand on its own legs and to pursue a policy dictated by Spanish interests, and we were rewarded by the neutrality of Spain during the Great War.

115
At the present time a benevolent and Spanish Government in Spain is more essential to us than it has ever been before, because now that our fate is manifestly linked to that of France we are doubly vulnerable, and any threat to the security of our ally undermines British security as well. That is why the self-sufficiency and good will of those who rule in Spain is of paramount importance to us to-day. Looking back about three years, before the Civil War had broken out, there was in Madrid a friendly Parliamentary régime whose foreign policy was not dependent on the wishes and influence of any other Power. Now—and here I dare say the Government will not agree—we find ourselves, as I sincerely believe, confronted by a military dictatorship in Spain, whose political sympathies are naturally with Berlin and Rome and no longer with London and Paris, and whose foreign policy is likely in the future to be largely governed by dependence on the Axis Powers.
The new Spain—I hope I am wrong—looks like another satellite revolving round the twin authoritarian planets. This radical change of policy in Spain, which to my mind is most detrimental to British interests, is obviously due to the victory of General Franco on the field of battle, and nothing contributed more to decide the issue than the refusal of France and England to sell war supplies to the Republican Government; that is to say, the practice of non-intervention by the Democracies after it had been abandoned by the Dictatorships. The only possible justification for a policy so disastrous to our Mediterranean interests was that it averted a general war. But surely the risk that Italy would attack England and France for selling arms to Spain was much less than the risk of a similar calamity resulting from opposition to Italian colonial claims in Northern Africa. If the Government are prepared to take the greater risk of resisting Italian territorial demands at the expense of France, it should surely have faced the lesser risk of incurring Signor Mussolini's displeasure over Spain.
But the inevitable result of persisting in non-intervention, after others were openly intervening, was to give carte blanche to the Dictators in Spain. No wonder they regard the Spanish War, not as a domestic quarrel between Spaniards, but as another phase in the long struggle between
116
the rising Fascist Powers and the decadent plutocratic Democracies, and no wonder they hail General Franco's success as another triumph for the Rome-Berlin Axis over London and Paris. In their eyes, at least, we and our ally have lost the war. We must surely admit that our caution, whether justified or not, has lost us our position in Spain and the Western Mediterranean.
Does any one seriously believe that Signor Mussolini will evacuate Spain and its Dependencies the moment Franco's victory is complete and the last Republican stronghold has fallen? No country, including of course our own, honours its promises unless they happen to coincide with its national interest. What could be more contrary to the interest and prestige at home of Signor Mussolini than to sacrifice thousands of Italian lives, and squander millions of Italian lire, without being able to show any tangible benefit as the result of his long campaign? It may be said that, however much the Italians want to stay, Franco has promised that all foreigners will leave Spanish soil as soon as he has sovereign authority over the whole of Spain. There is, of course, no reason to doubt the sincerity of an assurance that expresses the heartfelt desire of every patriotic Spaniard, and every Spaniard I ever met has been patriotic. Unhappily, there is every reason to doubt that the Generalissimo will be master in his own house. We have not forgotten that Minorca was bombed against orders at the very moment that negotiations were in progress for the bloodless surrender of the island.
On this point there could be no more valuable evidence than that of General Sir Charles Harington, for many years Governor of Gibraltar. Referring in an address to the Royal Empire Society to the repercussions of the September crisis on Spain, he said:
"My information, for what it was worth, was that General Franco had wished to be neutral, and that Herr Hitler had told him that he could be, but that he would use his bombers from Spanish aerodromes"—
meaning, of course, the military aerodromes in Northern Spain, within easy striking of the ports and industrial centres of the South of France. No, I greatly fear that the new Spain will be used as a strategic outpost of Italy and Germany much in the way that Germany used Turkey in the years immediately preceding the Great War. There will certainly

117
be no open infringement of Spanish sovereignty, and no crude snatching of Spanish territory. There will probably be a spectacular withdrawal of the Italian divisions that won the war, with much of their equipment, but Majorca is likely to become the Pantelleria of the Western Mediterranean, the Canaries will be turned into another Heligoland, and Spanish airports in foreign hands will remain a devastating threat to the security of France. That is the approximate price we have paid for the luxury of non-intervention. Whether, as we believe, it is a price our country cannot in the long run afford, the future will show and the historians will decide.
I want in conclusion to ask His Majesty's Government to continue and if possible to increase the admirable humanitarian work which they have been doing for the victims of the Spanish War. That at any rate is something about which all Parties can agree. I am referring particularly to the imperative need of assistance for present and future refugees from Spain. Most of the refugees from Catalonia are in camps still in the South of France, and the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary told the House about a fortnight ago how anxious the Government are to help the French Government with their truly tremendous task of providing for 400,000 destitute people. May I ask the noble Viscount if the Government have yet received any reply from the French Government as to the kind of help that would be welcomed by our friends in France?
There is, besides, the no less urgent problem of potential future refugees from the large area in Central Spain at present controlled by the Republican Government, men whose lives and liberties would be in the greatest danger were they to fall into the hands of the present Spanish Government. Now it almost invariably happens at the end of a long and bitter war that the victor is animated by vengeance, and not by clemency, towards his broken foe. When we are referring disparagingly to foreign countries we ought to acknowledge our own sins and to remember our own conduct in the months immediately following the Armistice in 1918, and there is unfortunately every reason to anticipate that the victorious party in Spain will prove no exception to this uncharitable rule.
118
I was disturbed by a statement by the Prime Minister in another place to the effect that he was under the impression that people on the Government side would only be tried for criminal offences. I do not believe that that can be borne out by all the evidence—no doubt the Prime Minister had part of the evidence at his disposal—that we have at hand. In the middle of last month General Franco issued a decree, described by The Times newspaper as "the most important legislative achievement yet attempted by the Caudillo." This decree enumerates the purely political offences that will be punished by the Burgos Government, and it applies to "all persons who, from October 1, 1934, to July 18, 1936"—that is to say during a period of two years before the Civil War had begun—
"shall have contributed to create or aggravate the subversion of all kinds of which Spain has been victim, as well as all who since July 18, 1936, have opposed the National movement in fact or by grave passivity."
The last two words presumably mean that people will be punished, not merely for serving the Republican Government, but for refusing to take sides in the war. In view of this grave public declaration of the fate in store for political opponents of General Franco, it is obvious that thousands of trade union leaders, Government officials, officers of high rank in the Republican Army, as well as prominent adherents of the political Parties represented in the Cortes, will be anxious to leave the country.
I should like to ask the Government if they could give any assurance that they will do everything in their power to facilitate their departure from Central Spain, and give them temporary shelter in this country until they can find a new and permanent home in Mexico—where I believe arrangements are in fact being made at the moment—or elsewhere. I was very horrified to hear—I hope the report is not accurate—that in another place to-day there was a statement that no British ships would take refugees from the central area of Spain without consent of the Spanish Government. I should like to remind the Government that refugees, supporters of General Franco, were taken from Republican Spain without the consent of the Republican Government, so that it would clearly be discriminating unfairly between two classes of equally necessitous refugees if this were to hap-

119
pen. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to say that it will help these people to leave the country, and that it will help to give them temporary shelter here or in France until such time as they can find a new and permanent home in other parts of the world.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I would not care to deal in your Lordships' House to-night with controversial matters or military strategy. Those are academic points. I would confine myself to sympathy with Spain in her agony, and sympathy and admiration for the courage and self-sacrifice which have been shown by both sides. At the moment the situation is that the Franco Government has been recognised in Spain after a war whose duration probably has only been equalled by the American Civil War. What I have risen for is to remind your Lordships that under General Primo de Rivera the Spanish peseta reached a higher point than it has attained for many years past, and now that a National Government under General Franco has been recognised it seems natural that this House should consider the future rather than the past. It is for that reason that I venture to interpose in this debate to suggest that I hope the Foreign Secretary will be able to give the House some assurance that, now that the academic past has been sufficiently discussed, we shall apply ourselves to the practical future of trade with Spain.
I hope he will be able to inform us that when the new Ambassador to Spain has had time to investigate matters the actual amount outstanding in the clearing arrangement with Spain will be dealt with as a first matter. Fortunately, I understand that a joint committee of the Federation of British Industries and the Associated Chambers of Commerce has already been formed to secure a vehicle through which this can be practically examined, and the next step would presumably be to send some mission to Spain which would arrange practical means of developing trade with this country. It is for that reason I hope he will be able to give us some assurance that conscious direction to develop this trade to whatever extent is possible, within the limits of the situation as it then exists, will be given.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is an important subject introduced by my noble friend Lord Snell, and it is in the interests of Parliamentary debate that our side should be fairly presented. I therefore make no apology for trespassing on your Lordships' time for a few moments to deal with one or two points which have not been dealt with by my noble friend and the noble Earl who spoke from this side just now. This debate has had one pleasant feature, if I might suggest this to your Lordships. There has not been the exultation displayed that perhaps one might have expected, judging by our previous debates and the sentiments which noble Lords then expressed. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for the generous statement he made just now regarding the bravery of the combatants on both sides in Spain. I am sure none of your Lordships would wish to exult or gloat over the fact that democracy, as we believe it to be, in Spain has, for the moment, been defeated.
There is, of course, a confused situation in Central Spain, and it may be we can now only view the rebellion and its aftermath in retrospect. But looking again at the Resolution which my noble friend has presented to your Lordships, I cannot help being assailed by the fear that we are being too generous to the Government. We say that their policy has been a failure. I am not sure that that is quite the way to describe it. I am beginning to have the conviction borne in upon me, however reluctantly, that the whole of this policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Spain has been deliberate and with malice aforethought, and the results are what were desired from the beginning.
With regard to the Government that has been recognised—the Government of General Franco—perhaps I might be allowed to make one thing clear on behalf of my noble friends and the Party for which I speak. We do not for a moment hold that because a Government is dictatorial in its form, or totalitarian, that that is a reason why we should not be on good terms with it. That is not our case at all. I would cite three cases of Governments of that description with whom, I am glad to say, our relations are most friendly. There is the Government of Portugal, which is dictatorial; there is the Government of Greece, with whom our

121
relations are excellent, and I hope will remain so; and there is the Government of Turkey. These are three countries with Governments of a dictatorial nature with whom our relations are good, and I hope will continue to be good. I must mention another country with whom our relations have not been so good lately as they should have been, but I hope, from certain signs and symbols, they are going to be better in the future—that is Russia. One noble Lord said Russia was not a democracy. It has not the democratic forms as yet, and it might be described as a dictatorship, but the aim in Russia is to bring about democratic forms. I quite agree they have not reached that stage yet, but I hope, for the sake of this country and all we hold dear, that we are going to cultivate good relations with Russia. That is more than ever necessary in view of the recent events in Spain.
I only wish to make one other general observation in addition to those made by my noble friends already. I would suggest that in their whole policy in regard to Spain the Government have indulged in a desperate gamble. They are gambling on the Spanish régime that has now been recognised being able to throw off Fascist and Nazi influences. They appear to consider that this is likely to happen because the Italians are supposed to be unpopular in Spain, and I understand the Germans are also unpopular in Spain. That is a very slender reason on which to take this terrible risk—because it is a terrible risk—and the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, both of whom are present, would not deny that the strategic risks of a hostile Spain are serious in case of war. Your Lordships are aware of the immense sums we are spending on armaments, and we should not be spending these immense sums unless there was a danger of war. That is why we are arming.
The Germans are not popular in Italy at the present time, but the Rome-Berlin Axis seems to hold. I am afraid that the Falangists in Spain, who are now becoming the dominant Party, are bound to Nazi interests. It was the other Parties—the Requetes and the Carlists—who did most of the fighting on Franco's side. The Falangists are now the most numerous in consequence. They have been keeping order behind the lines while
122
the others were at the front. And they are bound hand and foot to the so-called ideology of Nazi-ism. If they attempt to change their direction of policy, I should not think that promises very great safety for the lives of their leaders or even of General Franco himself.
Might I reinforce what has been said by my noble friend Lord Listowel about the need to rescue refugees wherever we can? At the beginning of the Civil War in Spain the Royal Navy performed a great work of humanity in rescuing people who were in danger, without paying too much attention to what their political background was. Everyone has praised that work of humanity. Why is that now to stop? I should have thought there would have been more need of it now than ever, but in another place yesterday the Prime Minister declared that His Majesty's ships would only be allowed to assist fugitives with the assent of General Franco. At the beginning, as my noble friend Lord Listowel has pointed out, we asked nobody's consent to perform these acts of humanity. I should think this threatened change of policy would make the very worst impression in other countries. If we are ever involved in war, if we should have to face the great drama of war, I only hope that the United States and Russia will not establish a Non-Intervention Committee against us.
The other point I wish to raise—and this is of great importance—is the statement in all the newspapers last night and this morning about the declaration of a blockade by the Franco Government against the long coastline—300 miles or thereabouts—of Central Spain still in Republican hands, not an ordinary blockade apparently, but a "Sink at sight" blockade, with the warning that there are submarines prepared to carry out this ruthless policy. There are no submarines of the Spanish Navy at the disposal of General Franco and his Government. There were never any submarines on his side. The submarines that have taken service on behalf of General Franco are Italian submarines, and everyone knows it. I would like to know what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would say if this "Sink at sight" blockade is put into force. He is the guardian of law in this country, and we have all heard his great anxiety lest there should be any further breaches of International Law, any further breaches of the established law and

123
customs at sea. I wonder what he is going to say if this illegal blockade is attempted. More important, what is the Foreign Secretary going to say, as it is he who is going to reply?
For our own good reasons we have not granted belligerent rights to either side, but even if belligerent rights were granted to the Franco Party that would not entitle them to sink British merchant vessels, whether inside the three mile limit or outside. The established law of nations is that arrested vessels must be taken before a Prize Court and tried, and their owners given an opportunity of being heard; and there are further safeguards for mariners voyaging at sea on their lawful occasions. I suggest to your Lordships, and particularly the noble Viscount, that it will be intolerable if this new precedent of the illegal sinking of merchant ships is put into practice and condoned now, and it may be most dangerous for us in future and a great handicap for the Royal Navy in some future trouble to safeguard British commerce, which after all is one of its principal functions.
I have added my plea to that of my noble friend with regard to refugees, and I have only one other suggestion to make. I should have thought it possible to take some of these unfortunate fugitives over to Morocco by arrangement with the French. I suggest that the French should not be expected to bear the whole cost, but that we should bear some of the cost. In spite of what Lord Rankeillour said, I do think we have a moral responsibility. We certainly have a humanitarian responsibility, and I hope the plea of my noble friends will not fall on deaf ears on this occasion. As for the future, I think we have a greater need than ever for vigilance, great firmness, and, in view of the worsened strategical position that may result from these events, more need than ever to support our friends and potential allies.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, my first word must I think be one of thanks to the noble Lord opposite for his extremely courteous reference to myself at the outset of his speech. I can only say that if the common enemy who temporarily laid me low should ever attack him I hope it will treat him as generously as it treated me. I wish that I could speak in such appreciative terms
124
of the speech that the noble Lord proceeded to deliver. Along with every one of your Lordships I readily acknowledge the sincerity and the conviction with which the noble Lord spoke, but none the less I feel constrained to agree with the noble Marquess who followed him in the sense that I thought his speech was designed less to advance the cause for which he was speaking than to attempt to attack His Majesty's Government. No subject in the political experience of most of us has presented itself on which feeling has been running more strongly on both sides than Spain, and there has been, I venture to think, no subject on which it has been more difficult for most people to maintain, if not a dispassionate, at least a balanced judgment. Sides have been taken by many people on the basis of general principles which were by no means of universal application in the particular conditions of Spain, and all the arts of propaganda have been employed to reinforce the natural emotions of suspicion and fear to which, in the absence of full knowledge, the human mind is always apt to be subject.
I begin with the Motion itself, and upon the first section of it I would emphatically state at the outset of what I have to say that I do not conceive that any apology is required for the policy that His Majesty's Government have sought to adopt through the Spanish conflict. My noble friend Lord Newton indeed congratulates His Majesty's Government upon the complete success of that policy, and he says that because he remembers what has been the object to which that policy was directed. I pass by the charges that were made by the noble Lord who moved, and repeated in brief by the noble Lord who concluded, against His Majesty's Government of complicity in the events that have brought defeat to the Republican Government in Spain. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said of us, "They wished the end; they willed the means." I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Snell, really believes that, but if he does believe it I am quite sure no words of mine would make him alter his belief, and all I can do is to assure him that any such charge as that against His Majesty's Government is completely untrue. The most important aspect of the policy that His Majesty's Government have sought to pursue consisted in non-intervention, which the noble Lord described as

125
fraudulent non-intervention; and of that policy the elements are sufficiently well known to your Lordships to require no explanation. It is perhaps more important to examine for the moment what were the effects of that policy in fact.
I am not concerned here to argue the ethics of revolution; they were discussed by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and they were discussed also by Lord Rankeillour, who invited us to form a judgment as to where the respective balance of justification lay as between Sir Edward Carson and General Franco. But the essential object of non-intervention was, as we all know, to prevent the Spanish war from spreading beyond the borders of Spain. It is very easy now to forget how real at one moment, rightly or wrongly, that danger seemed to those who were charged with responsibility, and now that that danger has been averted it is, of course, quite easy to console ourselves with the reflection that those fears were always exaggerated. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, doubted whether that danger had ever been great. The best answer to that is that at the time the Spanish War started the general anxiety throughout Europe was great enough to bring all the countries of Europe together, and move them to agree, or try to agree, upon a common policy of non-intervention towards Spain. That, I think, is no small indication of the risks that Europe at that time thought she was running, and I am not ashamed to remember that His Majesty's Government were the first to adopt the suggestion of the then French Government, headed by M. Blum, which led to the common policy of non-intervention and to the attempt to isolate the germs of war.
No one will deny—I have never denied—that breaches of non-intervention have occurred, but I am not disposed on behalf of His Majesty's Government to accept blame for those breaches or to stand in a white sheet because of them. We have scrupulously honoured our own obligations under the Agreement; we have always regretted breaches by other Governments whether on one side or the other. But however much we may have regretted them, I have never been able to discover any way in which we could have stopped them except by recourse to force, to prevent which was the very object of the Non-Intervention Agreement. These breaches, as I say, undoubtedly occurred, and I remember my pre-
126
decessor, Mr. Eden, once saying in the House of Commons that the Non-Intervention Agreement was a leaky dam. Quite true. But there is all the difference in the world between a leaky dam and no dam at all, and the fact does remain that by that dam, leaky or not, a general conflagration in Europe has been prevented.
All that seems to me so clear that I cannot help thinking that much of the argument of the critics is, consciously or unconsciously, based upon premises quite different. In part, the criticism seems to me to arise from a perfectly natural resentment at the spectacle of General Franco receiving, and deriving evident benefit from, foreign aid. Secondly, I cannot help feeling that some of our critics wished intervention to achieve an object which it was never designed to achieve—namely, the victory of the Republican cause. As to the first, as I said just now, I know of no remedy that at any time has been possible for such breaches of non-intervention as have occurred, except that of trying to counter them by a more large-scale intervention on the other side, and your Lordships can judge for yourselves what would have been the inevitable conclusion of that process. The second ground, if it be a real one, is also one on which His Majesty's Government are bound to part company with those who advance it. From the very outset we have refused to take sides in this conflict, and we have always maintained that it was essentially one for Spaniards to settle for themselves. Those who desired a Republican victory have alleged that non-intervention—I think the noble Lord who moved said as much this afternoon—actively aided General Franco. But, as my noble friend Viscount Swinton said with perfect truth, the noble Lord conveniently forgot that breaches of intervention have not been all on one side, and it is historically true to say that intervention on the side of the former Spanish Government, especially in the earlier stages of the war, was at least as active—and a great many people would put it higher—as on the other side.
If the former Republican Government were in fact debarred by non-intervention from, for example, the purchase of armaments in this country or elesewhere, General Franco on the other hand was debarred by non-intervention from the exercise of belligerent rights, which—because

127
he had command of the sea—would have been of much greater value to him, and for denial of which those who sym-pathised with him here and in Spain have bitterly reproached His Majesty's Government. My noble friends Lord Newton and Lord Rankeillour asked me pointedly this afternoon what in fact was the explanation for the refusal of belligerent rights. Both were good enough to say that it was not because we were unduly frightened of noble Lords opposite, and that was true. The reason, as I think they will remember, was that that question was treated as part of a whole—not a basis completely logical, I admit—by the Non-Intervention Committee, and the grant of belligerent rights was made conditional upon the accomplishment of a certain process of action which in fact never became effective. Had the Civil War been an ordinary civil war, without the factor of foreign intervention, there is little doubt that belligerent rights would have been granted to both sides and General Franco would have secured the advantage of his superior sea power. The importance that has been attached to that question by critics of His Majesty's Government suggest that they were under no illusion as to what, from General Franco's point of view, was involved. The truth is that non-intervention has been shot at from both sides. It was no more popular in Burgos than it was in Madrid, and, therefore, I suggest that as applied by this country the policy of non-intervention was probably about fair in its effects on both the respective combatants.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me some questions in his speech as to the notice that was published this morning by the Spanish Government concerning the prohibitions against shipping. As I am advised, according to the only text at present available, that notice is a prohibition against shipping entering Spanish ports between certain limits on the coast of Spain, or approaching within three miles of that portion of the coast. There is in the text of the notice, of which His Majesty's Government have advised all British shipping, no indication of any action against shipping outside territorial waters, and His Majesty's Government assume that action outside territorial waters is not contemplated. I wish to make it plain that if action outside territorial waters were taken, His
128
Majesty's Government would be obliged to resist such action in the same manner as they have done in the past. I must also make it quite clear that His Majesty's Government would regard as a very serious matter the sinking of a British merchant vessel even within territorial waters, especially if due warning was not given and adequate steps taken for the safety of the crew. The instructions already given to His Majesty's ships direct them to give all necessary protection to British vessels which might be the object of such attack, and to retaliate even inside territorial waters against any submarine taking such indefensible action. I hope that that covers broadly the ground in regard to which the noble Lord addressed his inquiry.
But there is another element in all this which I think we have to bear in mind. It has been, of course, referred to in the course of this debate. So far as lay in our power without proceeding to intervention we have spared no effort to mitigate suffering on both sides. It is quite fair to say, and I was glad to hear the comment made on this matter that there is no Party difference between us, that through His Majesty's Government many hundreds of lives have been saved and many thousands have received relief. I do not occupy your Lordships' time by challenging the noble Lord's account of the episode of Minorca, because that was effectively done by my noble friend Viscount Swinton.
It only remains to say that I disagree with every word, I think, that the noble Lord opposite said. His Majesty's Government are entitled without fear of contradiction, and I think with some measure of pride, to say that there is no Spanish blood on the hands of any British soldier or sailor or airman, and not only that but there are many thousands of persons alive in Spain to-day who owe their lives to the efforts of His Majesty's Government. Perhaps I have said enough on the general non-intervention policy of His Majesty's Government, which I think is indeed adequately understood throughout the country. Let us make no mistake about what is, as it has been throughout, the real issue in this matter. I do not believe, in all the circumstances of the case, that anything less than recourse to force, which might well have come to involve all the resources of this country, would have

129
secured the victory of the former Spanish Government. At that point I am content to leave that side of His Majesy's Government's policy.
The second criticism of the Motion, which was developed, I think, by Lord Listowel, is that His Majesty's Government have allowed foreign Powers to establish themselves in Spain and so to prejudice the independence of Spain. It is not necessary for me to remind the House of the importance that we in all parts of the House have always attached to the maintenance of Spain's integrity and to the withdrawal of all foreign troops at the conclusion of hostilities from her territory. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by quoting at length the various assurances that have from time to time been given to His Majesty's Government and made public on that subject. I have them here, but I think they are generally familiar, and it is not necessary to remind your Lordships of them. It is, of course, quite possible to say that none of these assurances is worth anything; and I note that it is as a rule the people who say that who are often, in another breath, the very people who demand most loudly that explicit assurances should be asked for and secured. His Majesty's Government take a different view. They do not believe that those whose assurances have been received in good faith will fail to honour them in good faith; and I say quite clearly that if the contrary should ever prove to be the case, a very serious situation would at once arise. But they also believe, as has been put from more than one quarter in this debate, that the Spanish people are a proud race, who are of all peoples in the world the least likely to mortgage the independence or the integrity of their country to any foreign Power.
That brings me to the question of recognition, on which I must say a word or two. Whatever doubt there might have been a week or two ago, I cannot think that there can be any doubt now that the Government acted rightly in according recognition to General Franco. My noble friends Lord Glasgow and Lord Newton, indeed, think we ought to have done so long ago; but if it is true, as I think it is true and as Lord Swinton says, that the decision had to rest upon facts, His Majesty's Government were bound to wait until the facts were indisputably plain before doing so. What were the facts
130
when we took our decision? General Franco was obviously in control of by far the greater part of Spain. The issue of the struggle could no longer be in doubt. I could foretell, and I ventured to tell the Cabinet, exactly what the line of criticism of the noble Lord opposite and others would be, but my certainty of the imminence of that criticism did not seem to me justification for encouraging men to pursue a perfectly hopeless fight of which the only result could be untold further suffering of themselves and of all their dependants. Since then the Republican Government have been dissipated and replaced, and by no stress of the imagination is it possible, as I suppose, to conceive that any useful purpose can be served by refusal to face the facts that are so indisputably plain.
I say nothing at all about British interests, which might be held to support the case for the establishment of closer and more effective contacts with what has now clearly become the controlling authority in Spain. I recognise the force of what fell from Lord Barnby, but I do not propose to mention this subject, because I know that in some quarters it is held in these days almost discreditable to suggest that there are such things as British interests, or that, if there are, they are things of which any British Government may rightly take regard! I was quite refreshed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, sitting beside—as he is now—the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, express himself so freely upon the theme that British interests might in fact now be considered. But even those who take that view will hardly challenge the argument which I have developed and about which I must say another word or two in a moment—the humanitarian side.
His Majesty's Government have not acted alone. I think the noble Lord opposite spoke of our having taken some initiative. We have not acted alone, and we were by no means the first to act: I think some nineteen countries had already recognised General Franco, and of course the French Government, with whom we were in the closest contact and with whom we had never had, as far as I am aware, the shadow of a difference of opinion, shared the views of His Majesty's Government and took action at the same time. It has been suggested that our recognition should only have been granted on clear conditions, and that

131
General Franco should have given further assurances before recognition was accorded. We did not take that view. We thought, as I said just now, that recognition was a question to be decided on the facts, and we also felt that every purpose that His Majesty's Government are bound to have in mind was the better served by close contact with the ruling Government after recognition had been given than by endeavouring to make conditions before the action was taken.
There was, however, one aspect which has engaged attention this afternoon and to which we felt it was right to attach importance from the point of view of the effect it might have upon the prolongation of the war—namely, the fear on the Republican side that resort might be had to indiscriminate reprisals by General Franco. We did not feel justified in suggesting that a general amnesty should be granted. It might have entailed the liberation of persons guilty of criminal offences who ought rightly to be brought to justice. We did, however, feel justified, in order to remove a possible obstacle to the conclusion of hostilities, in asking for an assurance against the kind of general proscription of Republican supporters that the then Spanish Government believed themselves to have reason to fear. Although various assurances in that respect had already been received from Burgos, we did again request General Franco to restate categorically his intention in this matter. The reply, which has been made public, and which was read by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place a few days ago, seemed to us to go a long way to meeting our wishes in that respect. That reply stated that the Courts of Justice now functioning were confined to judging criminals in accordance with the established law and procedure as promulgated before July, 1936.
Since then, as we are all aware, there has been published the law of responsibilities setting up special tribunals to deal with those concerned in the Civil War, and I think the noble Lord opposite referred to this. In my view—and I think this view was shared by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe—it would be quite impossible and quite improper for any foreign Government outside Spain to claim to be in a position to judge the blameworthiness or otherwise of any individuals, or, as he
132
put it, to lecture the Spanish Government upon how they should carry on the task of government resting upon their shoulders. Whatever anyone may think of the new law, it is not without significance that it does not involve, as I read it, the sanction of the death penalty, which, for the reasons I have given, has always been the matter uppermost in our minds.
I have received during the last two days a number of inquiries on a subject to which the noble Lord addressed his remarks this afternoon, as to whether the Government can assist in the evacuation of officials and supporters of the late Republican Government. I can of course readily understand, and what I have said will I hope show I can easily share, the feeling of urgent desire in many quarters to save human life in these last days of a bitter fratricidal conflict, but I do not know whether those who make these proposals would propose that the British Navy, whatever the Spanish Government might or might not say, should force its way into Spanish ports and carry out this mission of mercy that they have in mind. It seems to me, with regard to this whole question of evacuation, that you are really faced with two alternatives. Either you must accept the assurances which we have received from the Spanish Government on the subject of reprisals—reprisals involving the death penalty—or you must assume such assurances to be valueless. If you accept the assurances the evacuation of thousands of Republican sympathisers obviously becomes unnecessary. If, on the other hand, there are those who do not accept the assurances given, they must, I suggest, quite apart from other considerations, be prepared to recognise that the immediate question raised by the suggested evacuation of some thousands of these Republican sympathisers from Madrid is only part—a part that naturally grips our imagination at the moment—of a very much larger question.
Lord Swinton was right, I think, when he said that he thought this country might have a very considerable part to play in exercising all the influence of which it is capable in the direction of allaying the bitterness and vindictive feeling that the events of the last three years, on one side or the other, have inevitably aroused. We have throughout sought to do what we can in this sense, and we are doing it now, but I would ask the noble Lord

133
opposite to consider with all seriousness, whether he does not think we should certainly wreck any chance of doing anything useful—even if it were administratively practicable, which I do not think it is, to do what he suggested—if we tried to take action of the kind which is proposed. Moreover there is this, of which we must not lose sight. These matters may well at this moment, while we are talking here, be the subject of a very delicate exchange of views in Spain, which may, if they are in fact proceeding, result in a pacific and orderly settlement, and I cannot doubt that action by this country, on the lines proposed by some at this moment, must Immediately prejudice any hope there may be of such pacific issue in fact being reached.
There is also this. In the absence of any agreement between the Republican authorities and the Spanish Government no means would in fact be available to this country to exercise any judgment whatever as to the classes of persons in favour of whom it might be suggested that these measures of evacuation should operate. Accordingly, although I recognise that the noble Viscount, whose speech unfortunately I was unable to hear, deplores this conclusion, His Majesty's Government have reached the conclusion that the consent of the Spanish Government is a pre-requisite of any action to be taken in this regard by His Majesty's Government, but if any agreement can be reached between the Spanish Government and the Republican authorities who still exist I do not doubt that His Majesty's Government will do everything within their power that may seem necessary to assist its execution.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very reluctant to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it seems to me to be a matter of such tremendous constitutional importance. I thought it was perfectly well established up to now that a political prisoner who in fact is able to reach a British ship of war has always been received. There are hundreds of instances, the most spectacular being that of the Emperor Napoleon I. There are hundreds and thousands of instances of it having happened. I personally am most anxious that there shall not be laid down a new principle in this case, which has never been laid down in the treatment of political prisoners before.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am extremely grateful for the noble Viscount's interruption. I was not seeking to lay down any new principle at all. All I am saying is that this new proposal that we should, under existing conditions, seek to evacuate, as it has been put to me, 5,000 to 10,000 and possibly more people, the culpability of whom in regard to crimes which might be alleged against them we have no means of judging, is not a proposal that we could in the present circumstances accept, and it is one which I do not believe we could carry out. We have in the past month, and only recently, said, and have given instructions I think to His Majesty's ships, that if there were political leaders and others whose lives were in danger they were fully authorised to carry on the traditional policy to which the noble Viscount referred, but that is an entirely different proposition to this proposed mass evacuation, which I think is not administratively feasible.
I think the record of this country on the humanitarian side in the main is one of which we have no need to be ashamed. We have been consistently concerned to assist, so far as we can in various ways, organisations which have been administering relief during the last two-and-a-half years in Spain. I need only remind your Lordships in a sentence of the help which the Navy has been able to give to the work of the International Commission for the assistance of child refugees in Spain, which has lately been undertaking wider work for a wider class of refugee. On the general question of refugees I will hold in mind what the noble Viscount said, and will certainly give it my attention. The British Red Cross Society and many other voluntary organisations have of course co-operated in the general work for the relief of human suffering. The Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir Philip Chetwode, although it has not been able to effect spectacular exchanges, has been able to play a not unimportant part in discouraging the passing of death sentences on large numbers of people on both sides, and in that way it has contributed to much saving of human life.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and perhaps another noble Lord referred to a problem that was raised a few days ago by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon—namely, the refugees of military age interned in camps in South-Eastern

135
France. I told the noble Lord on the occasion of that debate that the British Red Cross had sent a representative to investigate the position. This representative, Major-General Sir John Kennedy, who will be known to many of your Lordships, has now produced a full and extremely valuable report. That report makes no attempt to minimise the hardships that are involved, but does pay a warm tribute to the manner in which the French authorities and the French Red Cross have done their best to grapple with the extremely difficult conditions that there prevail. And it is right that we should remember that, in addition to the problem presented by refugees of military age, the French Government have also had to provide for some 300,000 Spanish women, children and old men, at a cost, so I am told, of not less than 6,000,000 to 9,000,000 francs a day. I have only within the last twelve hours received information from the French Government that the assistance of His Majesty's Government in helping to maintain refugees in the camps through the agency of the British Red Cross Society will be exceedingly welcome. His Majesty's Government accordingly have decided to make a substantial grant to the Society for that purpose. That work is now in hand, and I hope we shall see the effect of it within the next forty-eight hours in the camps on the spot.
I apologise for the length at which I have had to detain your Lordships, but the whole question has been so confused by partial information and by no means impartial judgment, that it seemed necessary to try to set out in some detail the considerations that have weighed with His Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that the line that we have sought to follow has been broadly right, and I cannot accept as well founded the criticisms that, made with due responsibility inside this House, are frequently made with complete irresponsibility outside it. And while I agree with the second part of the Motion that the noble Lord has moved and, within the limits that I have laid down, should be in agreement with those who wish to do whatever is possible to see the avoidance of vindictive measures for which no justification could be made, it is obviously impossible for His Majesty's Government
136
to take any other course than that of asking your Lordships to reject the Motion, of which the principal purpose is to invite this House to condemn in general terms a policy which I believe has in fact both deserved and secured your general approbation.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his characteristically courteous reply, and I thank him also for his statement about the position of British shipping in the Mediterranean. I will not reply to the admonitions that I have received from him and other noble Lords to-day, but I will ask your Lordships to remember that, with many disadvantages, relieved only by the unbroken general courtesy of your Lordships, we have a difficult duty to perform. Our duty is not to admire Mis Majesty's Government, but it is to try to interpret what we believe to be the feelings of masses of people outside, and our strong feelings sometimes lead to vehement expression. We take our leave of this question and your Lordships must be generous enough to give us the right on this occasion to get our emotion off our chests and to say what we think ought to be said. If you will give me leave I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PROVIN- CIAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1939. GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (INDIA- BURMA FINANCIAL SETTLE- MENT) ORDER, 1939. GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (SHAN STATES FEDERAL FUND) ORDER, 1939.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House yesterday.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR.
Petition of the Southampton Harbour Board under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to confer further powers on the Southampton Harbour Board and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; Read, and referred to the Examiners.
MUMBLES PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Macclesfield Corporation Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Mumbles Pier Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 2nd instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR- ANCE (INCREASE OF BENEFITS AND REDUCTION IN CONTRIBU- TIONS) (AGRICULTURE) ORDER, 1939.
Draft of an Order to be made by the Minister of Labour under Section 59 (4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.