Sitting of 10 March 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what aid has been given by the Vatican Secretariat on behalf of British prisoners of war; and whether he is in a position to state the approximate numbers of requests for news of British prisoners, of broadcasts of information about individual prisoners and of messages from prisoners of war to their families transmitted by air-mail from the Vatican or by the Vatican radio?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Vatican have given such material aid and moral comfort to British prisoners of war in Italy and in the Far East as it has been in their power to give. Their humanitarian efforts to assist our prisoners are much appreciated by His Majesty's Government. I regret that as the matters covered in the latter part of the Question are not dealt with through official channels, I am unable to give the figures which are asked for.
  Mr. Stokes: Would it not be true to say that very nearly 100,000 communications of one sort or another have been transmitted through the Vatican from prisoners of war to this country and elsewhere?
  Mr. Eden: I am afraid I could not say about the figures. It might very well be so.
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether our prisoners of war are still being held in chains or whether he now has any information as to whether they have been freed as the result of representations by the Protecting Power?
  Mr. Eden: I regret that I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 11th February.
  Mr. Granville: Has not very great patience been shown in this matter, and is there not very great anxiety in the country? Is it not time that the Foreign Office gave the House information? Has not the right hon. Gentleman information as to the number of prisoners in chains? Can he say whether he has any information whether they are in chains?
  Mr. Eden: I gave the House all the information I could on the date I gave it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as I believe it to be in the interests of the prisoners themselves, I will give further information. The Government must be the responsible judges in this matter.

  WAR CRIMINALS (PUNISHMENT)
  Mr. Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any discussions have taken place between the United Nations for the purpose of deciding under what law and in what courts of law persons of Axis nationality, who are accused of war crimes, will be tried?
  Mr. Eden: I understand that some preliminary discussion of these matters has taken place between some of the Governments concerned. I hope that it may shortly be possible for these matters to be further discussed, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  UNITED NATIONS (POST-WAR POLICY)
  Mr. Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received an official request from the Government of the United States of America to take part in discussions on post-war economic policy?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in reference to the United Nations' discussions on post-war policy, mentioned by Mr. Sumner Welles, the Soviet Government were consulted; and whether they expressed their readiness to participate in these discussions?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is apparently referring to a speech by Mr. Sumner Welles and to consultation between the United States Government and

  635
  the Soviet Government. This is a matter for the two Governments concerned on which it would be improper for me to give a reply.
  Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that conversations on post-war policy are likely to take place between the United States Government and the Soviet Government and we are not to participate in those discussions? If an approach has been made to Mr. Sumner Welles on behalf of the United States Government to engage in post-war discussion, where do we come in?
  Mr. Eden: I am in some involvement—as I think our American friends would call it—about my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question, which appears to apply to conversations between the American Government and the Soviet Government. On that matter I have no information. We are in conversation with both the American Government and the Soviet Government ourselves; I can answer for His Majesty's Government but not for foreign Governments.
  Mr. Shinwell: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman being bewildered, perhaps because of the form of my question. Perhaps I can put it in the form of another question. Are we to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that discussions are taking place between the United States Government and the Soviet Union upon matters affecting post-war policy and that on those matters we are not now being consulted?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. My hon. Friend should not understand anything of the kind. I say that, as to what is passing between the Soviet Government and the United States Government, it is for one of those two Governments to express views about, and not for me.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is to say that, although we are engaged in this struggle as the United Nations, discussions of a bilateral character are taking place and we are not being consulted?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. My hon. Friend really must not put those words into my mouth. It is perfectly legitimate diplomatic practice for two Governments who are our Allies to have conversations with each other. They will no doubt, in due
  636
  course, keep us informed. I am quite confident that nothing is going on of which I am not aware, but it is for those Governments and not for me to give an account of their conversations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of this reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and particularly because of the jeers from the other side of the House—I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment. We will see then what the answer is.
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the speech made by Mr. Sumner Welles, United States Under-Secretary of State, at Toronto on 26th February, to the effect that the United States would at once undertake discussions with other members of the United Nations for examination of the international economic field; whether similar action is contemplated or is already in process in this country; and whether he will state the nature of the organisation created by His Majesty's Government to prosecute research and enter upon such negotiations as will arise?
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have considered the concrete proposal of responsible United States Government spokesmen that the United Nations should forthwith set up an organisation to study post-war reconstruction problems; and with what result?
  Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government warmly welcome Mr. Sumner Welles's proposal for discussions with members of the United Nations on economic matters. His Majesty's Government for their part have been in touch for the past six months or so with the Dominions and India on various post-war financial questions of common interest and have also had a number of informal meetings with the Allied Governments in London. These consultations will be continued. In addition to the work undertaken by many of the Government Departments in their individual spheres there are a number of Interdepartmental Committees, under the general guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, engaged in studying these problems and preparing

  637
  the ground for negotiations with the United Nations.
  Sir P. Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity from time to time to inform the House of the progress made in these negotiations?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. They are, of course, at present in an informal stage.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it intended at some near future date to set up an authoritative body from among the United Nations to deal with the problem more effectively than can be done, as now suggested, dispersed among several Government Departments?
  Mr. Eden: When that course is thought useful I have no doubt it will be examined. My own view is that bodies can sometimes be set up without proper preparation for their work. I do not think that is very good.
  Mr. Price: When are the informal negotiations likely to become formal?
  Mr. Eden: It depends upon the progress of the informality.
  Mr. Stokes: In his original reply the right hon. Gentleman referred to financial policy. Can he assure the House that the Government will not enter into any arrangement with any foreign Power with regard to a new monetary system without first consulting this House?
  Mr. Eden: The ordinary practice will be followed. The Government will assume their responsibility, and it is open to the hon. Gentleman to assume his usual attitude.
  Mr. Stokes: Can we be assured that the Government will not commit the country?
  Mr. De la Bère: Can we have an assurance that the whole matter will not be cut and dried before the House has had an opportunity of dealing with it?

  RUMANIA AND HUNGARY
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government is in no way bound by the Vienna Award of 30th August, 1940, fixing a new boundary between Rumania and Hungary and will take steps to undo it at the earliest opportunity?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 5th September, 1940, when he said, with particular reference to the Vienna Award, that we did not propose to recognise any territorial changes which took place during the war unless they took place with the consent and good-will of the parties concerned. This remains the attitude of His Majesty's Government.

  NAZI MASSACRES AND PERSECUTIONS
  Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent his information coincides with the reports recently received by the World Jewish Congress that the Nazi massacres of Jewish men, women and children in Poland and elsewhere are continuing on a vast scale, and those received from other sources that great numbers of Poles and Yugoslavs, other than Jews, are also being massacred?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is very difficult to obtain reliable direct evidence. But I regret to say that the information available to me certainly points to the conclusion that the massacre of Jews in Poland is continuing and that considerable numbers of Polish and Yugoslav nationals other than Jews, in addition to members of the other oppressed peoples of Europe, are also being massacred.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been or will be made to the recently published proposal by the Secretary of State at Washington that representatives of the British and United States Governments should meet at Ottawa for a preliminary exploration of ways and means of rescuing refugees from Nazi persecution whether, in view of the delay this procedure envisages and of the urgency of the problem, he will consider proposing that the meeting in question should be held in London at the earliest possible date and not be merely exploratory; and whether in the meantime His Majesty's Government will proceed with whatever measures of rescue lie within its own competence?
  Mr. Eden: I have replied that His Majesty's Government welcome the suggestion

  639
  for a preliminary informal discussion of the refugee problem between United States and United Kingdom representatives, and as regards the meeting place, we shall be ready to meet the United States representatives at any mutually convenient place. This, as well as the selection of the respective representatives, is under discussion. No time will be lost, and I can give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will in the meantime proceed with whatever measures they have already initiated.
  Colonel Cazalet: Will this conference cover every aspect of the refugee problem and not be confined merely to somewhat narrow issues, as was the Evian Conference?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I should hope it would be wide in its scope.
  Mr. Graham White: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that it will be necessary for representatives from this country to proceed to the other side of the ocean, and, having regard to the fact that this matter has been under the most urgent consideration since before Christmas last, will he bear in mind that there is all the difference between time and eternity?
  Mr. Eden: Somebody has to cross the Atlantic Ocean. Which it will be, I do not know.
  Mr. Silverman: Are we to understand that the proposed conference in Ottawa will deal with the wide and ultimate refugee questions and not merely with immediate and urgent questions?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir, it is to deal with the immediate problems. It is an exploratory meeting between ourselves and the United States.
  Mr. Denman: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon our Allies the extreme urgency of this matter?
  Miss Rathbone: Is it not worthy of consideration that most of the exiled Governments mostly concerned are resident in London and not in Ottawa?
  Mr. de Rothschild: Is it not possible that the proposed Ottawa conference will lead to delay and that the problem will not be dealt with in the meantime?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I tried to make that plain in my answer. That is the position.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the full text of the British Aide Memoire of 20th January to the United States Government concerning the problem of refugees from Nazi persecution and that Government's reply of 25th February, hitherto published only in abbreviated forms, can be published as a White Paper?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to publish as a White Paper documents dealing with proposals which are still under active discussion.
  Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that the American public have already had the privilege of reading the American Note in full? Is he not aware that the British public should have the opportunity of reading the British Note, especially as our people would mark with satisfaction that the British Note shows at least some sense of urgency in the matter, whereas the American Note shows no such sense?
  Mr. Eden: I hope that the hon. Lady will not enter into comparisons which I do not think will help us to get on.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Officers' Private Residences (Domestic Help)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the conditions of an allowance for civilian domestic help in the private residences of Royal Air Force officers;
    (2) the conditions in which a member of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force can be ordered by her commanding officer to carry out the duties of a domestic servant in the private residence of the commanding officer?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Prior to 1936 an officer was allowed the services of a batman or batmen according to his rank, if he was living in an official residence or official quarters. At many of the Royal Air Force stations built since then, official residences have not been provided for the Commanding

    641
    Officer and because of this and of the difficulty in many areas of obtaining domestic help, Commanding Officers of Stations or of Groups have been allowed the services of batmen at their private houses if the circumstances were held to justify it. In 1941 in pursuance of the general policy of substituting women for men wherever possible, the employment of W.A.A.F.'s as batwomen was authorised subject to certain provisos of which the main were that definite hours of duty would be laid down and that the working conditions satisfied the responsible W.A.A.F. officer.
    The scale of batmen and batwomen to which R.A.F. officers are entitled has recently been under review and a new regulation is shortly to be issued. This new regulation will include a provision that only women who volunteer may be employed as batwomen in married quarters or private residences and the authority of the Air Officer Commanding Will be required in each case. Women who do volunteer may withdraw from such employment at will. When batmen or batwomen are not provided, servant allowance at the rate of 2s. a day per batman or batwoman allowed is issuable to R.A.F. officers in aid of the cost of civilian personal servants.
    Mr. Edwards: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that very reassuring statement, would he answer that portion of the Question which deals with an allowance for civilian domestic help in the case of commanding officers of R.A.F. stations?
    Captain Balfour: There is no specific allowance for civilian help as such, but when batmen or batwomen are not provided a Service allowance at the rate of 2S. a day is available in aid of the cost of civilian servants.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the National Service Acts were not passed by this House to enable private individuals to be mobilised to serve in a domestic capacity in the private homes of officers?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that in the cases that have been mentioned, as no official quarters have been provided for the officers, their private home in fact becomes their official quarters?
    Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, that is so.
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely we do not expect this Government to abolish the class system?
    Mr. Cluse: Is it not a fact that men batmen go out on errands for the officers' wives?
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether an officer's wife who is childless and available for domestic work can use the services of a W.A.A.F.?

    W.A.A.F., British Embassy, Washington
    Mr. R. Morganasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the refusal of British Women's Auxiliary Air Force personnel attached to the British Embassy in Washington to obey local black-out orders; and what action he proposes to take in the case?
    Captain Balfour: I have made inquiries into this incident, and these show that there was a technical breach of local regulations by two members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force stationed in Washington. It appears that this breach was entirely unintentional, but in the meantime strict instructions have been issued to all members of the Delegation concerned emphasising the necessity for rigid observance of all local black-out regulations.

    Commissions (Home Service)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of Slate for Air (1) whether there are vacancies for home service commissions in the Royal Air Force, and, if so, in which branches;
    (2) how many members of the Royal Air Force who have been recommended for home service commissions are now waiting for appointments?
    Captain Balfour: Normally commissions are granted only to those fit for service overseas. Occasionally candidates with special qualifications are accepted for the Technical Branch and in certain categories of the Administrative and Special Duties Branch, even though they are fit for home service only. No vacancies are specially reserved for them. Seven airmen are awaiting appointment to commissions for home service only in the Technical Branch and a like number

    643
    in the Administrative and Special Duties Branch. The numbers may vary from day to day.
    Mr. Lipson: Do these seven airmen know that they have been recommended and are still awaiting an opportunity to be posted?
    Captain Balfour: I would like notice as to how soon the airmen are told that they have passed for recommendation.

    POST-WAR AIR TRANSPORT
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether when creating an air transport command to take over the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the operation of British air routes throughout the world, he will ensure that full use is made of the experience of British Overseas Airways executives and personnel, and that the whole of this organisation will not be relegated to the command of a retired air marshal?
    Captain Balfour: Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to await the Debate on Air Estimates on the next Sitting Day when my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that the personnel of British Overseas Airways, who, as he knows, have considerable experience in British civil aviation, are given their proper place in any future Government set-up?
    Captain Balfour: I am sure that the statement which is to be made on the next Sitting Day will take account of that particular fact.

    AIRCRAFT FACTORIES (WORKERS' COMPLAINTS)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether, in view of the time occupied by Ministry officials in investigating complaints of bad management made by individual workers direct to his Department, he will state why the usual channels for receiving complaints are ignored?
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is not the practice or
    644
    policy of my Department to ignore the usual channels for dealing with complaints of the kind mentioned. On the contrary, whenever matters of complaint are raised which are appropriate for investigation by a works joint production committee or by the recognised trade union machinery, it is the practice of my Department to refer the complainant to those bodies and to point out to him or her the importance of utilising the proper machinery of negotiation. I am most anxious that these bodies which operate by agreement between the trade unions and the employers should be used in every possible case to resolve domestic difficulties between managements and workers; it is for this reason that I do my utmost to encourage the work of the joint production committees.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Great Britain and United States (Broadcasts)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Information how many British subjects are engaged under the auspices of his Ministry in broadcasting to and within the United States of America on the political and social conditions existing in Britain and the Empire, imperial and Colonial; and whether he will ascertain how many United States citizens are similarly employed under the United States Ministry of Information in transmitting information about the United States of America to Britain?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): The work that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind is done by the B.B.C. and the American broadcasting corporations. Certainly much time is devoted to it but I am afraid that I cannot possibly give an estimate of the number of British and American citizens who take part.
    Sir T. Moore: While I thank my right hon. Friend, will he bear in mind that mutual knowledge of each other is the best guarantee of permanent understanding?
    Mr. Bracken: I certainly think in the case of England and America that it is.

    North Africa (Information to United Kingdom)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Information whether he will consider

    645
    appointing suitable British officials in North Africa to be responsible for disseminating information to the people of this country in regard to the political and military events in that area?
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. The political and military events of the war have always been reported to the public by correspondents in the service of the newspapers themselves. I am sure that the House needs no recital from me of the deplorable consequences which would result from placing this work in the hands of Government officials.
    Sir T. Moore: While I agree with my right hon. Friend's statement, does he not realise that there is a considerable amount of ignorance in this country as to the events in North Africa and that ignorance promotes suspicion, whereas knowledge promotes confidence?
    Mr. Bracken: My hon. and gallant Friend's worthy platitudes are, of course, most acceptable to us, but I cannot cure ignorance.
    Mr. Shinwell: When information is being disseminated, will that include information about the number of political prisoners in North Africa and the treatment meted out to them?
    Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend has had the fullest possible information on those matters.
    Mr. Astor: Apart from war correspondents dealing with purely military matters, why were the British Press not allowed to send correspondents to cover the general course of events in North Africa?
    Mr. Bracken: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The British Press do not normally maintain correspondents in North Africa. I daresay that every newspaper should have a correspondent in every part of the world where anything is likely to happen, but the British Government did nothing to prevent the British Press from sending correspondents to North Africa.
    Mr. William Brown: Is the Minister aware that among Government officers there is great concern about the appalling consequences of entrusting affairs to some of His Majesty's Ministers?
    Mr. Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that no paper has been
    646
    refused permission to send a correspondent to North Africa?
    Mr. Bracken: No complaint has come to me, and the Lord knows the Minister of Information is in receipt of every sort of complaint.

    International Miners' Conference (Film)
    Mr. Henry Whiteasked the Minister of Information whether he has any information to give as to a film taken of an international miners' conference held in May, 1942, and of the progress made, with a view to it being exhibited in this country and those countries it was produced for?
    Mr. Bracken: Unfortunately, the technical quality of the film to which my hon. Friend refers proved to be so poor that it could not be publicly exhibited. This was nobody's fault in particular; it was one of the hazards of film-making.

    Cables (Censorship)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Information what censorship regulation prohibits cable companies from advising the sender of a cable whether or not the cable reached the addressee safely; and for what reason such a regulation is necessary?
    Mr. Bracken: This prohibition is an essential security measure, and 1s contained in the Regulations for Censorship. It would greatly assist the evasion of wartime currency and trade regulations if senders of cables could count on knowing whether or not these are delivered safely to the addressees.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend tell me why a cable which I sent seeking confirmation of a statement made by Mr. Montagu Norman has never been received, and why I cannot get information from the cable company or from anywhere else as to what has happened to the cable? It is perfectly obvious.
    Mr. Bracken: In view of the eminence of the sender and of the gentleman mentioned in the cable, I will try to get the Chief Censor to make an exception in this case.

    Churchill Tanks
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Information what instructions were sent by or through his Department to the Press

    647
    in this country and to the war correspondents in North Africa suggesting that the performance of the A 22 tanks in the recent operations had been satisfactory?
    Mr. Bracken: None, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it pure coincidence that immediately following the Army Debate there was an absolute spate of reference to this matter all over the Press?
    Mr. Bracken: That was entirely due to the brilliant speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Granville: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman on these matters has as much power as Dr. Goebbels has in Germany?
    Mr. Bracken: It certainly is not a fact; and it never will be.

    Indian Affairs (Broadcasts)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Information whether he will consult with the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to arranging, once a month or more frequently, for the information of the British public, a commentary on Indian political, economic and cultural affairs, aspects of the lives of the people and current happenings of general interest?
    Mr. Bracken: I will certainly bring this suggestion to the attention of the Governors of the B.B.C. They are aware of the importance of maintaining a good output of broadcasts dealing with Indian affairs.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that there is widespread ignorance in this country about conditions in India, and indeed about the geography of India? Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to see that more factual information on this subject is spread in this country?
    Mr. Bracken: That is more a job for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. There is no doubt a great deal of ignorance in this country about India, and there is a great deal of ignorance in this country about many other subjects; but I do not see what I can do other than by encouraging the B.B.C. Governors to give as many broadcasts as possible and by encouraging my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to induce people to read history. That is a great corrective.

    British War Effort (Broadcasts, Russia)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Information how many Russian-speaking Britons are employed in Russia in broadcasting to the Russian people information as to the political and social conditions in Britain and the British Empire, and also in regard to the achievements of the British Armed Forces and Merchant Navy?
    Mr. Bracken: No Russian-speaking Britons are employed by the Soviet broadcasting authorities, nor are English-speaking Soviet citizens employed by the B.B.C. And so I can only express the hope that both broadcasting authorities will give up a satisfactory amount of time to informing their respective listeners about one another's war effort.
    Sir T. Moore: While I am willing to incur the risk of uttering further platitudes, might I ask whether my right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the statement of Admiral Standley the other day, in which he made reference to this case vis-à-vis America? Does he not consider it urgently necessary for some steps to be taken to make our efforts known to the Russian people?
    Mr. Bracken: I, of course, would in no circumstances make any comments on the statement attributed to Admiral Standley. Furthermore, our experience—that is, the experience of our Mission in Russia—is that we have had the fullest co-operation from the Russian Government. Our paper is increasing its sale every day, and we have to make no complaint of any kind.

    SCRAP METAL (TRAM RAILS)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works how many yards of old tramway-lines have been taken up for melting; what has been the cost per yard of taking these rails up and resurfacing the road; what proportion of the work is done by contract or local labour; and the name of the contractors, the rate of pay the men received per hour or day, and the number of hours worked per day?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): The work of recovering tram-rails is being carried out by various highway authorities in collaboration with the Ministry of

    649
    War Transport. The information asked for, in respect of the many jobs, is not available, and could not be obtained without a considerable expenditure of time and labour. I am, however, pleased to inform the hon. Member that over 50,000 tons of valuable material have been recovered from this source, and this is less than half the total amount which tram-rails can yield.

  TRINIDAD

    Sugar Industry
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to safeguard the sugar industry in Trinidad owing to export and shipping difficulties; and whether land formerly used for sugar growing will be utilised for the cultivation of other crops?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Arrangements have been made in Trinidad, as elsewhere in the West Indies, whereby His Majesty's Government will take over and pay for all sugar produced, even if it cannot immediately be shipped, and will hold it in store locally. The Trinidad Government is endeavouring to secure the maximum possible extension of acreage under food crops for local consumption, but its efforts are seriously hampered by the shortage of labour, which is the primary cause of such diminution in the sugar crop as is taking place in that Colony.
    Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand that the shortage in this crop is due not to land going out of cultivation but to labour difficulties only?
    Colonel Stanley: The chief difficulty in Trinidad at the moment is whether there will be enough labour to reap the crop.
    Mr. Riley: Is there not available labour in some of the other islands—for instance, Barbados?
    Colonel Stanley: That is another question. The hon. Gentleman will realise the very great difficulty of communication between these islands at present.

    Commodity Prices
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps are being taken to control food prices in
    650
    Trinidad; and whether there is any policy adopted to control at the point of origin the prices of food and other essential commodities imported by British Colonies?
    Colonel Stanley: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Colonies are able to share the benefits of many of the co-ordinated purchase schemes of foodstuffs, etc., which have been the result of work of such agencies as the Combined Food Board in Washington. No generalisation is possible, since everything depends on the commodities concerned and the sources from which they must be drawn. I am, however, considering what action can be taken in regard to this problem as a whole.
    Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise the iniquity' of subsidising prices only to allow the benefit to be taken away from the people in the island by those who are able to put up the price?
    Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that many of the sources from which these commodities have to be drawn are outside the control of this country.

  BAHAMAS

    Economic Situation
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of reference upon which Professor Richardson's inquiry into the economic situation in the Bahamas will be made; and when it is anticipated the recently made Report on the Bahamas will be published?
    Colonel Stanley: Professor J. H. Richardson, who is at present Chairman of the Economic Advisory Committee in Bermuda, has been invited to visit the Bahamas when he has finished his work in Bermuda, in order to advise on the economic situation there. I am not aware that any specific terms of reference have been laid down. It as anticipated that he will remain in the Bahamas for about two months. As regards the second part of the Question, perhaps the hon. Member would await my answer to Question No. 35, by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams).

    Riots Inquiry (Report)
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the date for the publication in this country of the Report upon the Bahama riots published some time ago in the Bahamas?
    Colonel Stanley: I am placing a copy of the Report in the Library of the House, together with a copy of a statement which indicates the action which the Governor proposes to take upon the main recommendations in the Report.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the Report be available to the public of this country?
    Mr. Adams: Will it be available shortly?
    Colonel Stanley: I shall be placing it to-day. With regard to the availability of the Report, the difficulty is that it has been printed in the Bahamas. At present I have only one copy, and I am placing it in the Library. I expect some more copies shortly, and, although I do not think that it will be possible to make it available for public issue, there will be copies available for those who are interested in it.

    JAMAICA (MR. DOMINGO'S RELEASE)
    Mr. D. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. H. Domingo has now been released from detention in Jamaica; and what are the conditions of his release and the reasons for his detention for this lengthy period?
    Colonel Stanley: Mr. Domingo has been released without restriction. He was detained under Jamaica Defence Regulations, because the Governor was satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and defence.
    Mr. Adams: Does the Minister not consider it a remarkable thing for a person to be charged with an offence which he has not committed but which he might commit, and to be interned for a long period?
    Colonel Stanley: He was not charged with an offence. This is a similar procedure to the procedure here under 18B. He was detained to prevent him from
    652
    acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety.
    Mr. Silverman: What information has the Governor had to induce him to change his mind? He was satisfied at one moment that the detention was necessary, and satisfied very much later that the detention was not necessary.
    Colonel Stanley: Like my right hon. Friend when he is dealing with I8B cases, I cannot go into details. The Governor was satisfied that the detention was no longer necessary.
    Mr. Riley: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that Mr. Domingo was released without restriction, does that mean that he will be allowed to remain in Jamaica and do the work of the National People's Party?
    Colonel Stanley: The answer is that he was released without restriction.
    Dr. Morgan: Was Mr. Domingo's release made on the recommendation of the local advisory committee, or was it the Governor's decision, by himself?
    Colonel Stanley: I would like to confirm this, but I understand that it was the Governor's decision, by himself.

  WEST INDIES

    Food Supplies
    Mr. D. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of food shortages in the West Indies, to what extent food rationing has been introduced; and what further plans are in hand for the equitable distribution of food in these Colonies?
    Colonel Stanley: Although shortages of particular foodstuffs will no doubt continue to occur in the West Indies, as elsewhere, the general food supply position is considerably better than it was some months ago, and efforts are continually being made to improve both the organisation of imports and the methods of local distribution and to increase local food production. Hitherto food rationing has not been introduced to any large extent, as more use has been made of the method of price control to ensure equitable distribution. I will send my hon. Friend a summary of what has been done on these lines.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that there is very great perturbation in most of the islands on account of the present situation and that the local Press emphasises the necessity of rationing?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, the situation has been very difficult, and although, as I say, it has improved, it still gives rise to anxiety, but the hon. Member will realise the difficulty of applying our methods of rationing to countries where the administrative machine is perhaps not so complicated as it is here.

    Welfare and Development (Stockdale Report)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to arrange for a day for the discussion of the Stockdale Report on Schemes of Welfare and Development in the West Indies, the Report on the Proposed Changes in the Jamaica Constitution and the Report on the Administration of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. A request has already been made for time for such discussion, and the Government hope to make the necessary arrangements.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent of unemployment in Jamaica and the principal West Indian Colonies; the recent steps which have been put into operation to deal with unemployment; and how many persons are now employed on public relief works?
    Colonel Stanley: As regards Jamaica, it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the total number of unemployed persons, but approximately 12,000 persons are at present employed on Government relief works. When the census has been completed more precise figures will, of course, be available. A loan of £1,000,000 has been authorised, of which it is proposed to raise £500,000 as a first instalment, for relief works, which include schemes for swamp reclamation, road construction, anti-malarial measures, food storage and rural water supplies. No figures of persons employed on public relief works are available for the remaining West Indian Colonies. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of relief works in certain other West Indian Colonies.
    Following are the details referred to:
    Trinidad.
    The latest information indicates that there is no appreciable unemployment in Trinidad, but lists of work have been ordered to be prepared by the various departments to be used if the necessity arises.
    Barbados.
    The necessity is not acute, but funds have been made available for a relief scheme in case of necessity.
    British Honduras.
    The position has been seriously affected by the recent hurricane, and various relief measures are in operation for which a total sum of approximately £31,016 has already been provided.
    British Guiana.
    The position has been recently aggravated by prolonged rains and flood. One major and seven minor drainage schemes, estimated to cost £118,584, have been sanctioned in the last few weeks and these are expected to provide work for the majority of the unemployed in the Colony.

    PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRA TION)
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give particulars of the arrival of Jewish children and adults in Palestine from Iraq; and in what circumstances and by what means they were enabled to reach their destination?
    Colonel Stanley: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the recent arrival in Palestine of Polish Jewish refugee children and adults from Persia who had been granted immigration certificates for Palestine, 858 children, 100 men and 269 women arrived in Palestine on 18th February, having travelled from Persia to Egypt by sea, and thence overland to Palestine.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Would it not be true to say that they reached their destination by the good will and efforts of the British Government, and under the protection of the Royal Navy?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.
    Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any news as to the arrival in Palestine of any of the 4,000

    655
    children and of the 500 adults from Bulgaria whose transmission was promised to us? Are they on their way?
    Colonel Stanley: That is quite another question.
    Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister tell us whether there is any disposition on the part of the Government to increase the number of Jews who will be allowed to go to Palestine?
    Colonel Stanley: I made a very full statement on that the other day. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the number amounts to over 30,000.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous persecution of the Jews; and does he not realise that that figure is quite inadequate?
    Colonel Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman realises the difficulty there was to get in even these 1,200, he will also realise the difficulty there is to get in 30,000.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether they travelled in British ships or not?
    Colonel Stanley: This was arranged by the Ministry of War Transport, and I am afraid I am not certain of the nationality of the ships.

    COLONIAL AFFAIRS (JOINT STAND ING COMMITTEE)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet come to a decision regarding the setting-up of a Joint Standing Advisory Colonial Committee consisting of representatives of both Houses of Parliament; and whether he is aware of the strong support given to the setting-up of such a Committee by Sir Hubert Young, ex-Governor of Trim-dad and Tobago, recently?
    Colonel Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement made on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Minister Resident in North Africa in the Debate on 26th November last, to which at present I have nothing to add. I am aware of the views expressed by Sir Hubert Young.
    Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the repeated requests that were made in this
    656
    House regarding the setting-up of a Committee, and also the pre-eminence and urgency which Colonial problems will occupy in post-war times, and will he consider the matter from that angle?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I am very cognisant of that, but this is really not a matter you can deal with by question and answer. It was fully dealt with in this Debate, but I would point out that, although the hon. Gentleman asked for an Advisory Colonial Committee, Sir Hubert Young asked for a Joint Standing Committee, which would have full responsibility for formulating all plans and leave no responsibility either to the Secretary of State or to the House of Commons as a whole,

    ROAD TRANSPORT
    Mr. Burdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what controls as to direction and employment are now exercised over road transport undertakings by his Department?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): A general control is exercised over road transport through the system of carriers' defence permits and the issue of motor fuel rations. In addition, the new Road Haulage Organisation now coming into operation will take over the direct control of long-distance traffic and of the vehicles by which that traffic was previously carried.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Minister consider the possibility of issuing a statement which will describe the scope, conditions and terms of the existing road control?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Several statements have already been issued, but I will certainly consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is this the same Controller who authorises the use of vehicles to convey flowers, which actually means petrol, oil and labour? Does this actually mean one and the same person and that he is the person responsible for the authorities which were given in recent weeks?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir; I am answering another Question on that subject a little later.
    Mr. Burdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (1) how many road vehicles have been licensed in the separate categories of A, B and C;
    (2) how many persons now separately own road vehicles with either A or B licences?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The latest available figures which show separately the numbers of A, B and C licences, and the numbers of vehicles authorised under these licences, relate to the year 1938. If it would be of use to him, I will furnish my hon. Friend privately with the total number of goods vehicles now in use and with some general information about the classes of work on which they are engaged.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, what further steps are being taken to organise road transport so that it will play a more effective part in the war effort; and whether the necessity for doing this is being considered, especially in relation to the heavy call which is expected will be made on transport undertakings in the course of the current year?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend announced last November his intention to control long-distance road transport in order to ensure economy in the consumption of motor fuel and tyres, while at the same time maintaining a supply of transport immediately available to meet any increased demand or any emergency that may arise. The necessary organisation is now being set up. Some haulage firms have, by agreement, already become controlled undertakings and many others have made known their intention to do so. These controlled undertakings will provide the necessary facilities for the operating units, which will form the basis of the organisation. Already some nucleus units are in existence, and it will shortly be possible to proceed with arrangements for the hiring of the vehicles of other hauliers, provided these vehicles have been previously engaged wholly or mainly in the conveyance of the traffic which is to come under control.
    Mr. Ridley: Does either my hon. Friend or his Noble Friend take the view that when these rearrangements are completed we shall have reached a satisfactory position in road transport organisation?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I must remind my hon. Friend that we are working under difficult conditions, because our major objective now is to save petrol and rubber.
    Mr. David Grenfell: In view of my hon. Friend's statement that the over-riding consideration is economy in the use of fuel and tyres, will he see that his Department does not encourage any diversion of transport facilities from the electric railways to road transport?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That consideration is constantly in our minds.
    Major Lyons: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say, broadly, whether the proposals of this scheme have met with general welcome or general hostility from the road transport organisations?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The road haulage industry is not well organised, and it is difficult to say what meets with their general approval, but a large number of the undertakings which have been invited to become controlled undertakings are accepting that invitation.
    Captain Strickland: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the road transport undertakings have come into the scheme?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that Question down. I can say, however, that it is a high proportion.

    POST-WAR TRANSPORT (REORGANISATION)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the broad outline of the proposals formulated by his Department for the post-war reorganisation of transport; and to whom have they been submitted?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: When my Noble Friend has formulated definite proposals for the post-war reorganisation of transport, he will submit them to his colleagues in the Government for their consideration, but that stage has not been reached.
    Mr. Ridley: Will they be laid before the House?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, in due course they will have to be laid before the House.
    Captain Strickland: Am I to take it that there is under contemplation the State organisation of transport after the war?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should make any assumptions.

    WAR CABINET (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider separating the Ministry of Labour from the Ministry of National Service and the Home Office from the Ministry of Home Security and placing them under separate Ministers in order that the present War Cabinet Ministers may be free from heavy departmental responsibilities and enabled to give more time to their duties as members of the War Cabinet and to War Cabinet Committees?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir. No such changes are in contemplation.
    Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether some of the bottlenecks in these Departments are due to the fact that Ministers have to spend much of their time at War Cabinet meetings; and does he think that Ministers can administer their Departments and at the same time give their full time to the War Cabinet Committee?
    Mr. Eden: I am afraid that I do not know to what bottlenecks my hon. Friend refers, but it is certainly true, in the judgment of the Prime Minister, that this arrangement is the best that we can contrive.
    Mr. Hannah: Do we really need more Ministers?

    FORESTRY COMMISSION (SCOTTISH QUESTIONS)
    Major McCallumasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that the Forestry Commission controls 603,000 acres of ground in Scotland, as against 459,000 in England, he will consider arranging for all Questions in this House concerning forestry matters in Scotland to be addressed to, and answered by, the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Eden: As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member
    660
    for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 2nd February last, the future of forestry in this country is one of the many subjects already engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to make the change proposed in the present arrangements.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would it not meet the position suggested in the Question if the functions of the Forestry Commission, as applied to Scotland, were vested in the Scottish Department of Agriculture?

    ELECTORAL MACHINERY (REFORM)
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Prime Minister whether following' the precedent of the great war, it is proposed to set up a committee, at a reasonably early date, to enquire into the working of the electoral system?
    Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend is aware, the question of electoral machinery has been the subject of a recent inquiry. The recommendations of the Committee are under the immediate consideration of the Government. To set up another Committee to consider the wider question of electoral reform would not seem to be an appropriate course in present circumstances,
    Mr. Cocks: Does not the Minister feel that it is a very dangerous thing at the present time that all young people under the ages of 24–25 have no vote and therefore feel detached from Parliamentary institutions, and cannot something be done to rectify the matter?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. However that may be, it is not a question for electoral reform; it is a problem for the new Register.
    Mr. Harvey: Will not my right hon. Friend re-consider the promise that has three times been made on behalf of the Government that there would be an opportunity in this Parliament for the consideration of this matter?
    Mr. Eden: This Report has been received—a voluminous Report, as my hon. Friend knows—and there may be an opportunity for a discussion at a later date. It is presently being examined by the Government.
    Sir Percy Harris: Has not this to deal with a possible emergency? What is demanded is that there should be an inquiry into the whole system, as was the case in the last war.
    Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that in the election of 1918 as many votes were cast against the Government as for them?
    Mr. Eden: I do not know how to interpret that.

    POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION
    Mr. Denmanasked the Prime Minister what Minister will be in charge of legislation, foreshadowed in February, 1942, for dispersal of industries and population from congested areas and for encouragement of a reasonable balance of industrial development; when such legislation may be expected; and is he aware that great local authorities are having their plans for after-war building held up because the will of Parliament in such major problems of reconstruction is not yet fully expressed?
    Mr. Eden: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio informed the House on 1st December, 1942, the consideration of general future policy in reconstruction matters is proceeding under the supervision of a Committee of Ministers over which he presides. It will be for that Committee to consider what legislation is necessary for these purposes. Bills which relate to the control and use of land will be in charge of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The decision as to which Minister will be in charge of any other necessary Bills will depend upon their nature. The Government recognise the importance to local authorities of Government decisions on major problems of reconstruction, and such decisions will be reached as soon as the investigations now proceeding and the exigencies of the war allow.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity for an early decision with regard to planning if private builders and local authorities are to be in a position to start building houses when hostilities terminate?
    Mr. Eden: I agree. I tried to cover that in the last part of my reply.
    Mr. Denman: Does that mean that the Government have to come to a decision and that Parliament is not to have a say?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the constitutional practice will, of course, be followed.

    POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether he will move to set up a Select Committee to consider the problem of maintaining full employment after the war, and to make recommendations?
    Mr. Eden: I do not consider that the appointment of a Select Committee would be appropriate in this case.
    Mr. Thomas: My Question has been rewritten, no doubt in conformity with the practice of the House, but may I ask whether the Government have this question under consideration? It is no use waiting until the end of hostilities.
    Mr. Eden: The point I had in mind was that this matter could not be dissociated from the general Government economic policy over the whole field. As the hon. Member will know from my earlier answers as Foreign Secretary, certain events are moving there.

    TREES, TRENTHAM AREA
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the concern expressed by the City of Stoke-on-Trent at the instructions given for the cutting down of practically the whole of the trees in the Trentham area; why this area was selected before the big estates and woods throughout the country, which are many miles from industrial centres, while Trentham is the main one left in North Staffordshire and was to be developed for the benefit of the industrial population; and whether he will give further consideration to this?
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): No instructions have been issued for the cutting down of trees in the Trentham area. Consideration is, however, being given, in consultation with the local authority, to the possibility of felling a certain number of trees in the area.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister take the views of local authorities into consideration?
    Sir A. Duncan: Certainly, we are having a meeting with local authorities next week.
    Mr. Lawson: Have the Government any policy with regard to replanting trees for amenity purposes in various parts of the country where, in industrial areas, trees break the effect of the harshness of industry?
    Sir A. Duncan: That Question will have to be directed to another Department.

    COTTON TYRES
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Supply whether he can give any information in connection with cotton bicycle tyres; whether he has received a report from the scientists of his Ministry about them; and whether the cotton tyres will be suitable for motor-cars?
    Sir A. Duncan: Tests of cotton bicycle tyres under road conditions are not yet complete. Motor car tyres made of cotton are also being investigated, but results so far are not promising.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Canning, Bottling and Freezing of Vegetables Order
    Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is proposed to publish the terms of the licence referred to in paragraph 10 (1) of the Food (Canning, Bottling and Freezing of Vegetables) Order (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1943, No. 236), having regard to the fact that the breach of the terms of such a licence is a punishable offence?
    Mr. Mabane: It is the practice of my Department to publish all licences and directions which are of general application but not to publish licences and directions issued to individual traders. No licence in the former category has been issued in accordance with the provision of the Order to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

    Fish Distribution, Keighley
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
    664
    whether he is aware that fish supplies to Keighley in January under the zoning scheme averaged two ounces per head of the population; and whether, as large catches are being landed at the ports, he will arrange for a more equitable distribution?
    Mr. Mabane: I am advised that the supplies available in Keighley in January, while smaller than they should have been, were nevertheless substantially greater than is suggested by my hon. Friend. I regret that in the short time available I have not been able to collect the full information necessary to enable me to say what steps have been taken to rectify any deficiency.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that supplies of fish amounting to 483 stones, divided among 56,000 people, come to exactly what I said in my Question? Further, is he aware that this in no way corresponds with the large catches for this country and that a black market of huge dimensions is developing in fish?
    Mr. Mabane: As regards my hon. Friend's first point, I could not make out whether he was referring to weekly or monthly figures.
    Mr. Thomas: Two ounces a month.
    Mr. Mabane: That is wrong.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Assuming that the figure is accurate, or nearly so, can the hon. Gentleman say how it compares on a per capita basis with the fish distributed throughout the rest of the country?
    Mr. Mabane: It is about 8/11ths.

  RAILWAYS

    Revenue
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is now able to state the revenue of the controlled railway undertakings for 1942?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Estimates of the pooled revenue receipts and expenses and of the resultant net revenue of the controlled railway undertakings for the year 1942 will, I hope, be published in a White Paper before the end of this month.
    Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the many rumours in circulation that in view of the expected high yield the

    665
    existing rental agreement should be revised? Has he in contemplation any such revision?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No such rumour has reached me.
    Mr. Ridley: But has my hon. Friend in contemplation any revision of the agreement?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I have not in contemplation any such revision.

    Flowers (Transport)
    Mr. Liddallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of, War Transport whether he can now furnish an estimate of the weight of traffic which has been discontinued by the prohibition of the conveyance of flowers by train?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In the last season in which there were no restrictions on the carriage of flowers by rail, approximately 10,000 tons of flowers were carried by rail from the principal growing areas to the principal markets. My hon. Friend will realise that flowers occupy a great deal of space in proportion to their weight; a load of 25 hundredweight of flowers fills a railway van weighing 25 tons. Thus the weight of the flowers themselves is not a reliable guide to the loss of transport capacity involved.
    Mr. Logan: Is there any prohibition with regard to the weight of passengers?
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: In the case of the Great Western Railway, is not the amount of traffic that has been prohibited counter-balanced by the use of road transport from Penzance to London to bring flowers, thus using petrol and rubber, as is evidenced every day at Covent Garden Market?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the hon. Member is wrong in that assumption. If he will give me some evidence, I will look into it.
    Mr. Walkden: Will not the hon. Gentleman send his inspectors to Covent Garden to find out for themselves?
    Sir H. Williams: Is not the prohibition to transport flowers rather silly?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The transport position is not at all easy, and my hon. Friend will recognise that a very considerable economy in transport has been made.
    Commander King-Hallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether it is intended that under Statutory Rules and Orders, 1943, No. 232, paragraph I, Section 2, servants of the railway Company should search passengers' luggage?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If a railway servant has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a passenger's luggage contains flowers, he is expected to take steps to prevent a breach of the Order, though he would only be entitled to exercise the right of search, if he were authorised to do so under Defence Regulation 88A. AS I explained in my replies of 3rd March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) powers of search depend on Defence Regulation 88A, and it is not intended that passengers should be put to any unnecessary inconvenience.
    Major Lyons: Does my hon. Friend consider that Regulation 88A gives power to search outside the vehicle?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, without any doubt, it gives power to search on railway premises.
    Commander Agnew: Who will be present to give the authorisation under Regulation 88A to the servants of the company?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If there were no special authorisation in advance, it would have to be given by someone not lower than the superintendents' grade in the police force.
    Commander King-Hallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why trees, shrubs and bushes with persistent hard woody stems, but not a rose or delphinium plant, may be consigned by rail?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The Government have decided that it is desirable, on grounds of general policy, that we should continue to transport fruit trees and bushes required for afforestation. It would not be practicable to expect the railway personnel to distinguish such trees and bushes from shrubs and other bushes with persistent woody stems. Such shrubs and bushes, including rose bushes, are, therefore, allowed. These trees, shrubs and bushes

    667
    are less perishable than cut flowers and herbaceous plants, and therefore require less expeditious transit and handling.
    Commander King-Halt: Does my hon. Friend realise that the space occupied by these is very much greater than that which would be occupied by flowers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. Herbaceous plants cannot be put on top of each other, but these bushes and trees can, and so occupy less space.
    Miss Rathbone: Does not my hon. Friend think that the morale of the people of this country must indeed be in a poor way if they need cut flowers to keep it up?
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what instructions have been given to employees of railway companies and to police officers to search passengers' luggage in order to ascertain whether such luggage contains flowers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No special instructions have been given. Police officers enforce the law in the normal course of their duty.
    Sir H. Williams: Do police officers go on to railway trains in performance of their duties under the law?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If necessary, they do so.
    Sir H. Williams: Without the sanction of a superintendent, does a police officer go on to a railway train and say, "I want to look at your luggage"?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If he has an authorisation, he can do so.
    Sir H. Williams: Who gives it?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: It can be given by the competent authority.
    Sir H. Williams: Is not the authority of a Minister of the Crown needed?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will look at the Defence Regulations, he will see.
    Mr. Levy: Is it not impossible without a complete search of the various passengers' luggage to ascertain whether flowers are contained in the luggage or
    668
    not, and is it not highly improper to use these Gestapo methods to examine people's luggage?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will make inquiries, he will find that only a small number of passengers' luggage has been examined and that no passenger has refused to open his bag when asked to do so. I think there is a general desire that this Order shall be upheld, and the present arrangements are working extremely well.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Why is there this great interest in flowers at the present time? Is it because the hon. Members desire to have wreaths for the burial of the Beveridge Report?

TUBE SHELTER ACCIDENT (INQUIRY)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the disastrous accident which occurred last week on the staircase leading from the street to one of London's tube station shelters, which I, in common with all the members of the Government, and I am sure the House, profoundly regret.
While a number of people were moving quickly down these stairs to the shelter a woman fell and this caused the fall of a number of those behind her, thus causing a stoppage which, through the unintentional pressure of the crowd from above, quickly grew into a tangled mass of people who could not release themselves or be extricated for some time. As a result, 173 persons lost their lives and 61 were injured and removed to hospital. The Government are determined to do whatever is possible to throw light upon the circumstances attending this sad event. Without in any way assuming that there was negligence in any quarter, the Government wish to be assured, and wish the public to be assured, that any avoidable defect either in the structure and equipment of the shelter, or in the arrangements for its staffing, or for the supervision of those within the shelter, is brought to light so that steps can be taken both in this shelter and elsewhere to minimise the risk of any repetition.
For this purpose the Government have decided that an independent inquiry

669
should be held, and I have appointed Mr. Laurence Dunne, one of the Metropolitan Magistrates, to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of the disaster. Mr. Dunne will begin work to-morrow. As many aspects of the incident concern Civil Defence arrangements related to acts of war, on which it is undesirable that information should be given to the enemy, the Government have decided in the national interest that the inquiry shorn be held in private; but the conclusions will, subject to security considerations, be published. All communications relating to the inquiry should be addressed to the Secretary of the Tube Shelter Inquiry at the Home Office, S.W.I.
Mr. Thorne: May I take it that one of the questions that will be inquired into is whether that shelter and other shelters are properly lighted?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.
Sir P. Harris: Will special facilities be given for the relatives of those who suffered in this appalling disaster to give evidence, and will counsel be employed, or what is the procedure likely to be?
Mr. Morrison: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the determination as to procedure and witnesses must rest with Mr. Dunne, who is conducting the inquiry. I should doubt whether this matter is of a nature in which counsel could assist in the inquiry. With regard to witnesses, that matter will be within the discretion of Mr. Dunne, but I should have thought the material witnesses would be the persons who are concerned with the administration of the shelter and persons who were present. However, it is, of course, a matter for Mr. Dunne to determine whom he should hear and whom he should not hear.
Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: In view of the fact that there are rumours that certain persons shouted that they saw bombs falling, and encouraged a stampede, has the right hon. Gentleman sufficient power to deal with such scoundrels at present?
Mr. Morrison: If these were malicious statements, we certainly should have powers to deal with them.
Mr. Frankel: Would it not be possible for part of the inquiry to be held in public, even if some of the things alleged
670
in the public part were repressed in order not to allow the enemy to hear anything which, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, he should not be allowed to hear?
Mr. Morrison: I have considered that point. Naturally it is exceedingly difficult to draw an arbitrary line as to what is security and what is not, and there is also the point that you cannot be sure of what a witness is going to say when he is in the middle of saying it.
Mr. Maxton: Whose is the responsibility of seeing that tragic accidents of this kind do not occur? Does it rest with the local authorities, the Regional Commissioner, the Metropolitan Police or the Home Secretary?
Mr. Morrison: The Parliamentary responsibility is undoubtedly fully mine, and I accept it. The local responsibility is primarily that of the local authority, in association with the Regional Commissioner.
Sir Irving Albery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even under peace-time conditions, many of the stairways leading into the tubes are definitely dangerous, if they have to be used owing to failure of the lifts, unless there is adequate control, and will this also be inquired into?
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I have not enough knowledge of all tube stairways to answer that Question, but this is not a point that would be inquired into. Only the accident at this shelter will be inquired into. But, if anything comes out which would be applicable to other Tube stations, no doubt the Minister of War Transport would consider any general steps which might be desirable. I do not think it would be wise for any of us to presume at this stage what conclusions Mr. Dunne might have on the point.
Sir H. Williams: As the inquiry is to be conducted by one person and held in secret, will arrangements be made for some representatives of the local authority to be present throughout the proceedings? Of course, I am not making any reflection on Mr. Dunne.
Mr. Morrison: I should not like to give a firm answer. It is a matter within the discretion of Mr. Dunne. If he wishes to have the local authority people present all the time, he can do so. The local authorities, the Regional Commissioners and myself are potential subjects of criticism, and that point must be kept in mind.
Sir H. Williams: Is it desirable that a secret inquiry should be conducted with no one present except the person conducting the inquiry and those whose evidence is being heard?
Mr. Morrison: There is no difficulty whatever in Mr. Dunne having any assistance he wishes, and I have no doubt he will require assistance of various sorts, and that point will be in his mind.
Mr. Chater: I should like to be assured that this inquiry in private, in view of the very wild statements and the blame that has been laid in the locality on persons likely to be proved not blameworthy, will give a full opportunity for those persons to be exculpated from all blame.
Mr. Morrison: The point my hon. Friend is putting is whether it is fair to the authorities who are normally responsible for the administration of the shelter, and there is point in that. I have given the matter very careful consideration, and, while in peace-time I would not hesitate at all that this inquiry should be public, we are at war, and there are lessons not only for ourselves but for the enemy in the tactics he uses against us. I am sure that in the public interest this inquiry must be held in private, although, as I have said, the conclusions, subject to security considerations, will be published.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to vary the powers of charge of the Liverpool Hydraulic Power Company, to modify existing agreements, and for other purposes."—[Liverpool Hydraulic Power Bill [Lords].
LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER, BILL [Lords],
Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Ordered, That the Lords' Message [9th March] be now considered.
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

DEATH OF MR. SPEAKER FITZROY
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
"That this House places on record its sense of the great loss which it has sustained by the death of Captain the Right Honourable Edward Algernon FitzRoy, Speaker of this House, who during a period of more than fourteen years, of which the last three and a half years have been charged with unprecedented dangers to this Realm, fulfilled the duties of his high office both in peace and war with ability, authority and impartiality; that this House recognises that, by his judgment, firmness and unremitting attention to the business of Parliament and to the manifold duties of his office, he maintained in full degree the dignity and privileges of this House; and that this House desires to convey to Mrs. FitzRoy and to the members of the family an expression of the very deep sympathy which this House feels for them in their grievous loss."
There are many Members still in the House who will recall the day of the election of the late Captain FitzRoy to the Speakership of this House. It was, as these ceremonies always are, an impressive and momentous occasion. What stands out in my mind about that day above all else is the speech made by Captain FitzRoy himself. It revealed the man in a new light, even to those of us who had known him for many years both in the House and outside it, and I do not feel that any words of mine can epitomise the man so well as a sentence or two from that speech in which, as it were, he revealed himself, and I would, with the permission of the House, quote from what he said:
"There are, I agree, certain drawbacks to those who are called upon to fill the Chair as Speaker in this House. To my mind the chief one is the isolation that is enforced upon the occupant of the Chair. My best friends tell me—I think sometimes that they are wrong—that I am not effusive. Be that as it may, I have a great love for my fellow Members of this House, and we must remember that a warm heart is often concealed beneath a frigid exterior."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1928; col. 1724, Vol. 218.]
How true those words are of our late Speaker. It is because he had that great love for his fellow Members that each of us; felt instinctively, respect and sympathy for him. This, his humour and his unswerving
694
sense of duty combined to make of him a great Speaker. He presided over this House for nearly 15 years during an eventful period in our history. He saw those momentous and distressful years between the two wars. He saw the outbreak of this war. He saw the House over which he presided destroyed by enemy action in conditions described, I remember well, on the anniversary occasion of his golden wedding in a speech which stands out in my memory among all the Parliamentary performances of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). All those things the Speaker saw, and he might indeed, if he had wished, and normally would, I suppose, have laid down his office some time ago. But the war, he considered, obliged him to stay at his post. He died, as I think he would have wished, in the service of his country. Indeed, it may be said of him, as perhaps of no other Speaker in the history of this House, that he died in action, for he often presided over our proceedings when he was in the Chair under the fire of the enemy. I feel sure that the unique circumstance was most agreeable to him whose soldierly instincts were so strong. The House will miss his firm and faithful guidance. We express our sorrow at his death, and we extend our sympathy to Mrs. FitzRoy and her family in their grievous loss.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The Motion which you, Mr. Speaker, have just read from the Chair and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House admirably express the feelings of all of us, in all quarters of the House, and during the early proceedings yesterday, when we were hoping that you, Sir, would be persuaded to preside over our future deliberations, tributes were paid to the late Speaker. There is therefore little more to be said. We mourn the passing of a friend. We mourn the passing of one whose close relationship with this House and its proceedings over such a long period had endeared him to us all. I am one of those who in earlier days, when the late Captain FitzRoy was Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, fell foul of him—or rather he fell foul of me. That, I have no doubt, was good for my political education. I always regarded the late Speaker as a man of whimsical humour, a man of great integrity, a man of public spirit. On an occasion like this, mere words of sympathy to those who miss him most are

695
almost meaningless, but I am sure that the House does feel the deepest sympathy for Mrs. FitzRoy and the late Captain FitzRoy's family, and although his loss to them is irreparable, they can live in the knowledge that he was a great gentleman, a great public servant, and a man who endeared himself to his fellow Members in the institution which he most loved.
Sir Percy Harris: May I be allowed to add a few words to the eloquent and deserved tributes to the late Speaker which have just been paid by the Leader of the House and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)? This is no mere formality. We have lost a fine Speaker, and each one of us has lost a good friend, because the late Captain FitzRoy was the friend of all of us. I can claim to have sat under three Speakers, and I think I am expressing the feeling of the House when I say that the special characteristic of the late Speaker was his modesty and his quiet dignity. In the fateful years during which we in this House sat under his Speakership I never saw him ruffled or put out of temper, even under the most trying circumstances, and when he had, as he had on occasion, to reprove an individual Member, his reproof always had extra weight, because one felt that it was given without temper or personal feeling. The late Speaker was a Conservative—a conservative, if I may say so, in the best and broadest sense. He was conservative in his outlook on most problems, but he never allowed his political opinions, his predilections or prejudices to influence his exercise of the duties of the Speakership or prevent him giving every individual Member however humble, and however few that Member might represent, fair play and justice. I do not think this is an occasion for mourning. The late Speaker lived to a ripe age—over three score years and ten. Had he chosen, he could have retired to the quietude of the country life which he so much loved, but he was inspired by a sense of duty, and he set us all a great example of service in war-time by continuing in his office. Our sympathy goes out to his family, but we all feel inspired by his fine example of public work, and public service, the memory of which we shall always cherish.
Dr. Burgin: Noble words have fallen from those who have preceded me.
696
We salute the memory of one who was every inch a Speaker, and, shining through the gloom of our present proceedings, I think the predominant sentiment is one of gratitude—gratitude to the late Speaker for the way in which all connected with the British House of Commons and with Parliamentary Government was so well maintained in the reputation of the world during his Speakership. We are his debtors, not only we ourselves, not only our own country, but the world as a whole, and not only this generation, but posterity. To the average Briton a sense of duty comes naturally, and it is something of which we can be very proud. Praise the average Britisher for some act of self-sacrificing heroism or for a life nobly led, and he will reply, "I only did my duty." The spirit of Captain FitzRoy will be saying in answer to our tributes to-day, "I only did my duty," and there is no finer epitaph. We must remember that the late Speaker was the finest and the stoutest champion of the liberties and Privileges of this House. The ship of Parliament is the poorer for the loss of his sure touch upon its helm. We mourn the passing of a great British gentleman, a great Speaker, a great officer of Parliament, and we place upon our records our acknowledgment of the gifts, the services rendered and the confidence that were inherent in his career.
Mr. Maxton: I would not like to let this occasion pass without adding my words to those already spoken about the late Speaker. I have never known the House of Commons without Captain FitzRoy, either in the Chair at the Table or in the Speaker's Chair. My own relations with him passed through the stages of hostility—which I think was mutual—toleration, respect, friendship and, finally, at least on my side, affection. I liked the man as I knew him finally. I liked the way he swung along the Lobbies of this House to take his place in the Chair, with a swing of his shoulders, a twirl of his cocked hat. It was almost a swagger, but was the expression of a man's pride in his office. The great thing, Mr. Speaker, about the office which you now hold is this fact—that the man who occupies your position sits there, not maintained by force of bayonets, with no powerful bodyguard, no powerful statutes. The man who occupies that position occupies it because he has the Confidence and respect of his fellow Members. He has the same

697
qualifications as the rest of us—membership of this House—and he has no security of tenure beyond the fact that he is able to maintain the confidence and respect of his fellow Members. The office cannot last a day if the confidence goes. I think that I can say for all of us that so far from our confidence in Mr. Speaker FitzRoy diminishing with the years, it was stronger on the day he left us than on the day he assumed office. I associate myself with the message that is being conveyed to Mrs. FitzRoy and to her family. I only on one or two occasions penetrated right into their home and there received the hospitality of the gracious lady who presided over Mr. Speaker's home. A somewhat angular person in these social circumstances, carried away from her a feeling of great kindness and hospitality.
Mr. Cocks: It may not be unfitting for a Back Bencher to add a few words. The Front Benchers are in a sense in a privileged position. We who are Back Benchers appreciated as much as, anyone the fairness and impartiality of our late Speaker. We admired his spirit of justice, his unfailing sense of humour and that peculiarly English habit of understatement which so often in his Rulings turned the edge of what might have developed into an unseemly incident. It seems only a week ago when we presented to our late Speaker a little gift to mark his golden wedding to that dear wife with whom we so deeply sympathise and in whose loss we share. Now he has passed from us for ever. We remember the words of a great Parliamentarian, Edmund Burke:
"What shadows we are, what shadows we pursue."
Question put, and agreed to:
Resolved, nemine contradicente:
"That this House places on record its sense of the great loss which it has sustained by the death of Captain the Right Honourable Edward Algernon FitzRoy, Speaker of this House, who during a period of more than fourteen years, of which the last three and a half years have been charged with unprecedented dangers to this Realm, fulfilled the duties of his high office both in peace and war with ability, authority and impartiality; that this House recognises that, by his judgment, firmness and unremitting attention to the business of Parliament and to the manifold duties of his office, he maintained in full degree the dignity and privileges of this House; and that this House desires to convey to Mrs. FitzRoy and to the members of the family an expression of the very deep sympathy
698
which this House feels for them in their grievous loss."
Mr. Speaker: I feel sure that the House would like me to direct that it be entered on the records of this House that the Motion was carried nemine contradicente.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Resolved, nemine contradicente:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty that He will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of. His Royal Favour upon the family of Captain the Right Honourable Edward Algernon FitzRoy, late Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he presided with such ability and dignity in the Chair of this House."—[Mr. Eden.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that a Message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
"The Lords have come to the following Resolution nemine dissentiente, namely, 'That a Message, be sent to the Commons to express to that House the profound sympathy of the House of Lords on the loss which the House of Commons has sustained by the death of a Speaker who will long be remembered with affection and regard for the distinction with which he discharged the duties of his office.'"
Earl Winterton: May I raise a point about the Lords Message? As far as I know, it is quite unprecedented and a most graceful and grateful action on the part of another place to pass a Resolution of that kind. May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is intended to take any notice of it?
Mr. Eden: I was about to rise on that point. I beg to move, "That the Lords Message be considered forthwith."
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Mr. Eden: I beg to move,
"That this House desires to express its sense of grateful appreciation to the House of Peers for their Message conveying their profound sympathy on the loss which this House has sustained by the death of Mr. Speaker FitzRoy."
I think that it would be the wish of the House that I should convey on behalf of all hon. Members our gratitude to the other place for this step, which, as the

699
noble Lord has just said, is a most unusual one, but which hon. Members will feel is another indication of the sympathy and understanding between the two Houses. I think that I shall be speaking for the whole House if I ask that our thanks should be conveyed to the other place.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente:
"That this House desires to express its sense of grateful appreciation to the House of Peers for their Message conveying their profound sympathy on the loss which this House has sustained by the death of Mr. Speaker FitzRoy."
To be communicated to the Lords.

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Mr. Eden: I beg to move,
"That Major James Milner be the Chairman of Ways and Means, and that Mr. Charles Williams be the Deputy-Chairman."
I do not think many words are needed in connection with either of these offices. Major Milner was recently appointed Deputy-Chairman with the support of the House. Mr. Charles Williams first entered this House as long as 25 years ago. He has served on the Chairmen's Panel for some time, and he will, I feel sure, prove acceptable in every respect in all parts of the House.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1943
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]
    Lieut.-Commander Brabner: Perhaps I shall be in Order as the Member who was interrupted by the sad occurrence which took place last week if I congratulate you, Sir, on your promotion in the interval. I will not try to pick up the thread which was so sadly cut. I will start with a clean slate, and I hope that my remarks will be regarded as acceptable by the First Lord. I was pleased to hear the high place which the
    700
    First Lord, in presenting the Estimates, gave to the activities of the Fleet Air Arm. My particular branch of the Service has been under the fierce fire of criticism for many months past, and while I want to be critical of some aspects of it, I would point out that there is one thing conspicuously absent from all these criticisms; no recognition has been given to that small band of naval officers who have built up this Service, which was only relinquished to them shortly before the outbreak of war, into the remarkably fine Air Arm it is to-day. I feel that the House will want to recognise the activities of those men. They did not have an easy job. Probably they did not have sufficient power in their own Service. The Navy is not particularly, air-minded, even to-day; and, furthermore, I consider that the public wrangles continually going on as to who should own us cannot help the relations between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry which these men are charged to keep on a reasonable and friendly level. I would ask the First Lord to do everything he can to pull down the curtain on these rather undignified squabbles as to who is to run a purely Naval Air Service.
    Now I wish to speak briefly upon one or two technical matters. More inaccurate statements are made about this very technical service than about any other. Since the retirement of my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), I think I am the only active participant in the Service who is in the House, and perhaps I shall be forgiven if I do remark upon the types of aircraft which we have to use. Lord Brabazon wrote to "The Times" the other day to say that sea-borne aircraft must always be inferior to land-based aircraft. Lord Brabazon is a great expert, or was a great expert, and I think it is a pity when men of his eminence take up a rather defeatist view as far as we are concerned. I say quite definitely, having had some considerable experience of flying at sea, that there is no reason at all why ship-borne aircraft should not complete on very advantageous terms with land-based aircraft. There is no reason at all, except the assumption by many experts that it cannot be done. In can be done, and it is being done at the moment.
    Our difficulty in the Naval Air Service has always been to get priority for aircraft. I speak from some experience. I

    701
    want to give this only as an example, because to-day things are getting very much better, but when I was given a fighter squadron one of the aircraft which was given to me had already been shot down three times in the Battle of Britain and only then had it been adapted for naval use. That seems to me an indication of the sort of priority which we got in the past. I must underline that I am not complaining too ferociously about the position to-day, because it is getting better, but lest there should be any slipping back, lest there should be any idea that we can "make do" with second best, I hope the First Lord will remember my remarks on this subject. I cannot believe that inter-Service rivalry is such that in wartime one Service would deliberately try to do another down. I believe that our relations with the Air Ministry and with the Royal Air Force generally are extremely good, and I know that in the field anyway we get on remarkably well. We have our terms of reference, of course. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Naval Air Service is an integral part of the Navy. We have control over Coastal Command, and I do not think there is anyone inside either of the two Services who would want the position altered to-day, but what we do want is equal priority with the R.A.F. We do not want priority over the R.A.F.—that is definite—but we want priority, with a certain amount of give-and-take according to our special needs and their special needs, but this equality we must have.
    If the one example I have given—and I could multiply it 100 times—is any indication, we have not had that priority in the past. I believe that we are getting it to-day, and I hope that the First Lord will see that there is no slipping back in this matter. I do not want him to appeal to the nation to give us better aircraft, I want him to give us the aircraft himself, always of a more modern type. When the R.A.F. were finished with Hurricane I's which fought in the Battle for Britain the Navy got Hurricane I's. When the R.A.F. had all the Spitfires they required, then we started to get some Spitfires. We have been asking for them for something like three years, and now we are getting them. I do not want the First Lord to think that we are in any way ungrateful, because we are tremendously pleased to get them, but now we want something even better than the Spitfires
    702
    of two years ago. We want the newest ones. That is why I say that while we do not ask for priority over the R.A.F., we want parity with them.
    This leads me to a point about the Ministry of Aircraft Production. In the past I believe that possibly we have not been adequately represented there, for no other reason than the question of numbers. I believe that our representatives were of the highest quality, the best the Service could produce, but the plain matter of fact was that for every one naval officer there were ten from other Services, and it was a physical impossibility that we should be represented in all the various ramifications of that great Ministry, which was built up largely from people owning allegiance to the R.A.F. In asking for this priority in aircraft, I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty and his colleague the new Minister of Aircraft Production will see that we do not get a paper priority but a real priority, a priority to include all the things which go with an aircraft, like wireless sets, guns and so on. Although it might be said that exquisite fairness has been shown all along I rather suspect that from time to time there has crept into the relations of the Ministry of Aircraft Production attitude towards our Service the tendency to treat us as a poor relation. I should be glad to be contradicted on that, but we in the Service sometimes suspect that that is the case.
    Before I leave types of aircraft, the First Lord in his speech talked a little about the Barracudas. I would not dream of adding anything to his remarks to-day, because I do not want to come under Defence Regulation 18B, but I should like the First Lord to say more about the progress of this aircraft, because it is very difficult for pilots flying aircraft like the Swordfish to maintain their morale year after year if they do not get modern and better aircraft. I ask him to give, from his great position, a message of encouragement to those men. He himself has said that they have produced a remarkable result with the old slow but sound aircraft which they have been flying, and I am sure that he will be able to give them such a message and that later on in the Debate he will send it out.
    I would now like to diverge for a moment, because it might well be asked, What is the necessity for the Navy always to have the most up-to-date machines?

    703
    The necessity is that the largest part of the Navy's effort, by far the largest part, is spent in convoying ships across the seas. It is a very great part indeed of the Navy's effort. If he wants to strike at the root of our strength, the enemy has to come to those convoys to hit us. We have concentrated far too much, in my opinion, upon getting the convoy through. We have concentrated upon defence without making an offensive defence. The enemy has to come to the convoy; that is where you can hit him and where you are bound to meet him. In protecting those convoys we should concentrate upon hitting him hard and strongly, so that he does not get back. Consider the convoys to Russia. The Hun has to get across 200 miles of extremely cold sea. Nobody likes getting shot down into the Arctic Ocean. He is 200 miles from land. Everybody's hand is against him. If he is shot down, there are no destroyers to pick him up; yet many of those aircraft get home, for no other reason than that we have not enough fighters or they are not fast enough or may not have the right armament. That is why I think we ought to have equal priority with the R.A.F. for aircraft, so that we can hit the enemy where it hurts him most, namely, at the point where he comes to make an attack upon us. The same goes for the submarine.
    After those points, technical perhaps, about aircraft, I want to speak briefly about publicity. In his speech, the First Lord mentioned many things that have been done by the Fleet Air Arm. He mentioned activities in the Desert and the landing in North Africa. It is difficult for the public to know or to appreciate what this Service is doing, and for young men to know whether they want to go into the Navy, and particularly the Naval Air Service, unless they know what the Service is doing. I think it is a pity that these bits of news—and they are of some news value—are saved up for the First Lord's annual review of the Navy's activities. For instance, there was the landing in North Africa, when Seafires were used. It was a very good news story about the activities of the naval pilots in protecting those landings, and it was well worth recording. Cursory references were made to the matter in the Press. I was so angry about it when I
    704
    got home that I asked permission to go round the factories which are making aircraft for the Navy to tell the worker what has been happening to the aircraft they made. I wanted to tell the people who are doing drab jobs day after day in many parts of the country that their aircraft are being well employed and being used in a new way by new men, and so on. I hope that we will have the same sort of idea, to help people both to join our service and to take pleasure in making aircraft for us. I want people to be as proud to be building aircraft for the Navy as for the R.A.F. If you do not tell them what the naval aircraft are doing, they will not be proud.
    Out of this point of publicity a few other points arise. By the way, "publicity" is a shocking word. I do not mean line-shooting or any breakaway from the traditions of our silent Service. I merely mean telling an honest story reasonably well, in an interesting way and at the right time. Let it be left at that. The First Lord mentioned many submarine commanders by name, but there are many torpedo pilots who have just as great a merchant tonnage to their credit as many submarine commanders, although they have done this with Swordfish by themselves at night very often. These men are entitled to some public recognition of their work, and they should not be allowed to recline in complete darkness.
    My final point arises out of publicity. I do not want to detain the House long. I want to talk quite seriously, and I hope with responsibility, about conditions of service of the Fleet Air Arm. The first Lord, I hope, will take these remarks in the way they are meant. I am not trying to cause any trouble, and I am merely trying to explain things that have to be put right. In the Naval Air Service, we are inextricably mixed up with the R.A.F. We do the same jobs as the Royal Air Force. We fly in the same air, we use the same aircraft, if we are lucky, and we talk the same shop. We are mixed up with the Royal Air Force, and we are continually mingling with them, but there are very severe discrepancies as to conditions of pay and promotion between the two Services. Those discrepancies can react only badly on the Naval Air Service unless they are rapidly put right. May I give one or two examples? About three weeks ago, I think it was, the First Lord answered a Question in this House about the rank of

    705
    officers commanding squadrons in the Naval Air Service. The Air Minister answered Questions about the rank of officers commanding squadrons in the Royal Air Force. The First Lord told us that 99 per cent. of naval squadrons are commanded by lieutenants. There are no flight lieutenants commanding squadrons in the R.A.F., many of whose squadrons are commanded by wing commanders. I expect the House will appreciate that point.
    Now let hon. Members compare that position with the following. There had been inquiries in this House about the comparative pay between the two Services. It was then pointed out that, when the sub-lieutenants' flying pay was reduced, the reduction was made to bring them into line with the comparable rank of the R.A.F. That was given as the reason for reducing the flying pay—not the total pay—of one particular rank of the Naval Air Service. So it happened that, rank for rank, the Naval Air Service is paid the same as in the R.A.F., but the responsibility and work, rank for rank, are very different. As is shown in the First Lord's answer, 99 per cent. of our squadrons are commanded by lieutenants. I hope I have made that point clear. If the reason for reducing the pay of officers in the Naval Air Service is that it puts them on a level with officers in the R.A.F., in all fairness we should give them the same rank for doing the same job. Otherwise, there is no equality at all.
    Most of our squadrons are commanded by lieutenants, but no squadrons in the R.A.F. are commanded by flight lieutenants, although they get paid the same. Squadrons are commanded by wing commanders and squadron leaders, and I understand that normally these are a great deal younger than the lieutenants in the Navy. That is another point to be borne in mind. The reason for this is that the R.A.F. has established the rank of squadron leader, but the Navy has not done that. I hope that the First Lord will see that some steps are taken to make the various posts in the Navy in some degree comparable with those in the R.A.F. I say this because this Service is manned almost entirely by amateurs. The Naval Air Service is far nearer 100 per cent. R.N.V.R. than 90 per cent. After the war, a large number of these men will have to be invited to accept permanent
    706
    commissions in the Navy. In order that the very best should volunteer for these commissions we should offer them at least as attractive a career as they can get elsewhere. Unless we give them something like full pay and an equal chance of promotion with the R.A.F., with which we are so closely mixed up, we shall not get the best into the Navy where we want the very best.
    Perhaps I might emphasise my point a little by giving some figures connected with those meaningless symbols of pounds, shillings and pence about which we hear. Flying pay in the Naval Air Service is 6s. a day. In order to make the reduction about which I have spoken, flying pay for acting sub-lieutenants was reduced from 6s. to 4s. a day in order to bring if into line with the R.A.F. At the same time, and quite rightly, the submarine money of those who go under the sea was not reduced at all. When you ask for a naval lieutenant to be given an acting rank to command squadrons, or to do this or that, it is always put up as an argument that he cannot be promoted without the rest of the Navy being promoted with him. The airman is therefore in an awful spot. He cannot have his pay put up because of the R.A.F., and he cannot be promoted for the reason I have just given. It is a difficulty, and I am not unmindful of it, but it should be handled, and handled quickly.
    So much for officers' pay and conditions of service. I would like to speak briefly about the other ranks. The discrepancies there are even greater. Upon leaving a flying training school the R.A.F. entrant becomes a sergeant. After six months he becomes a flight sergeant and after six months again can become a warrant officer or get a commission. In the Navy the entrant after training becomes a petty officer, a rank which is equal to sergeant, but does not go any farther. There are a number of these pilots, many with extensive war service, but I do not know of one who has become chief petty officer, which is the comparable rank of flight sergeant. So much for the pilots, who do extremely responsible work in old aircraft like the Swordfish. When they leave training, instead of being sergeants they are acting leading airmen, and it takes a good man about 18 months with hard work to attain the rank of petty officer, which is equal to the rank of sergeant.

    707
    I wish the First Lord would look into these things. He above all must appreciate, and I am sure he does appreciate the importance of the Air Arm to the Navy to-day. I do not know whether it would be in the national interest to give the proportion of the total of the Navy which is now occupied by the Fleet Air Arm. Perhaps the First Lord can do so. I think the House would be utterly astonished. This service is going on after the war, as in my humble view there is no end to the things which we can do with aircraft borne in ships and can inflict upon the enemy. In considering the few points that I have put forward for the type of aircraft that we require and which I hope will be the best—and to ask for the best is not asking for too much—I hope that the First Lord will see that we get it. To ask for a reasonable statement of our affairs is only, in my opinion, to improve the standard and to increase the desire of young men to enter this Service and to give them the right conditions of service is to make them not only clamour to come in, but clamour to stay in, the Service. This leads me up to my final point, that however you look at it to-day, the carrier has taken the place of the battleship; the aeroplane, wherever you go, in any Service, has taken the place of the gun. Whatever the protagonists of heavy ships may say, I do not believe there can be any doubt about it, and I hope that the First Lord will agree with me, that the future of the British Navy must lie in the air.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has preceded me any further than to say he can rest assured that the men I represent in this House, the engineers, have every desire to see that he gets the finest aircraft the world can produce. It is because of them that I rise at this moment, because the Admiralty is responsible to this House for the shipbuilding of this country, not only the building of ships for the Navy but for the mercantile fleet. That is a new situation which has arisen since the war. I want to begin by intimating to the House and the country at large that in the shipyards the men are not giving of their best. It is a very serious statement for me to make, and the reason I am making that statement deliberately—I have made it in the House before, a year ago, warning the
    708
    Admiralty and warning the Government of what was going on. It is that the engineers consider they are getting a raw deal. The Government have always pushed me off. I have done what I could to keep the men at their work and will continue to do that, because there can be no justification for the men stopping work to-day.
    The first thing that is essential for the winning of the war to-day is ships. You are not getting the ships as fast as you might, and the reason is because the engineers for over nine months have been agitating for an increase in their wages. They put in, just over nine months ago, for £1 a week increase, and anybody who has worked as an engineer, as I have, and who has tried to rear a decent, respectable family on an engineer's wage knows the terrible struggle it is. So there was no idle or revolutionary idea in their mind when they put in for £1 a week nine months ago. Then, after discussion with one and another, it was decided to modify that demand. At first it was a request, but in my opinion the day for them putting it forward as a request is past. It is a demand now. It was modified, and then on 5th November, 1942, after all the preliminaries of the trade union movement machinery had been gone through, they met at York, and the employers offered them 5s. It was refused. At any rate our Executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers went back and reported, and considered it, and again met the employers at York on 5th January, 1943. You have to remember that all this time every shipyard in Britain was seething with discontent. In my own constituency the yards have had about 50 strikes since the war began. I know they have not been of long duration, but it is this spirit which is abroad that is causing them to stop work. Fifth January—nothing doing!
    Again, three weeks ago, I raised it on the Floor of the House, when again the employers met our Executive here in London and offered another shilling. Now it has been placed before the Minister of Labour by our Executive with a view that the matter should go to arbitration. What do you think is to go to arbitration? What do you think are the wages of engineers? What do you think the employers of labour, the shipbuilders, who die millionaires, consider the men are value for, the men who build you your aeroplanes, or battleships or

    709
    "Queen Marys" or "Queen Elizabeths," who build the finest ships that sail the seven seas? What do the employers reckon is their value? It is 11¾d. an hour. That is the basic wage of the engineer. It is perfectly true that they have had bonuses granted to them. All the increases given to every other workman in Britain are given on the basic wage but not in the case of the engineers. You have to remember that this is an engineers' war, and that is how you treat the engineers. What does the bonus amount to? They give them a bonus that has mounted up to 93/16d. No other workman in Britain is treated in that fashion, paid one-sixteenth of a penny. What is the rate including the bonus, what is called the national bonus? It is 1s. 813/16d.
    That is how Britain treats these engineers, the men you are depending on. As a result the whole place is seething with discontent. You are not getting the best out of them. I can go and appeal to them as I like, and as I do, as I stop them coming out on strike, as I shall continue to do, but it is well nigh becoming impossible. The right hon. Gentleman as First Lord of the Admiralty is the boss of the shipbuilders of to-day, and if he is going to be the First Lord of the Admiralty and have all the honour that that brings, his is the responsibility. He ought to be able to tell the employers of labour that they are not going to play with these men in that fashion. Do you mean to tell me that if this was a gun and there was a question of price raised, the production of the gun would cease? No fear, the gun would be produced, but this is only our own fellows, not the Germans, who I am talking about. There are no truer and more faithful workers for Britain than the British engineers, and this is how they are treated. Why are they being treated in that way? Why do not their increases in wages and what they are hammering at now go to the basic rate? Because of the employers, the shipbuilders. I know them. The First Lord knows I know them. I am eternally dealing with them. They have their eye more on what is going to happen after the war than on winning the war.
    Mr. Gallacher: They make it clear as daylight.
    Mr. Kirkwood: And the terrible thing about it is that that is what the men think, and I think the men are right to
    710
    think that. I have told Sir James Lithgow, I have told Lord Aberconway, I have told Sir Maurice Denny and Sir Charles Craven—I have told them all—tried to get them to face up to the position. But no. Why? Because of what I have said already. They fear that the engineers will demand a decent standard of life after the war which they have never had up to date. They have had starvation wages. Even supposing now the employers had offered 8s. at the last meeting instead of 6s., what would it have brought the engineer up to in the shipbuilding yard? It would only have brought him in line with the other craftsmen in the yard, plumbers, electricians, ships' joiners, etc. If they had got 8s., they would only have been in line. We have felt for years that we were scabs on the industry, always working below the rest. That is as far as the wages are concerned, and I want the First Lord of the Admiralty to face up to this business, because no longer can it be pushed to one side. We had a deputation down last week from Aberdeen, Dundee, the Firth of Forth, the Clyde and the Ailsa Works, Troon. No body of nicer looking or more well set-up men ever came into that outer Lobby. These are men just like I was when I was in the workshop. Nothing could have kept me out of it. I was born and bred an engineer, and proud to be an engineer. These men are of the same material, anxious to give of their best if they get a dog's chance, if they feel that they are being treated like men. They are treated as if they were enemies of the country, not friends.
    Here is further evidence of that. I have here over 100 pay lines. When I put a Question to the Minister of Labour two months ago, he replied that he did not accept the first part of my Question. That shows that he does not know everything. The first part of the Question was whether he was aware that the engineer's rate of wages was 1s. 813/16d. Just think of that. What has worried and humiliated the men is the idea of being paid in terms of one-fourth of a farthing. Here is a gold watch which I got from the engineers 28 years ago, when I got them a full penny. Now they are being dealt with in terms of one-fourth of a farthing. Those are the rates for the Clyde, the Tyne, Birkenhead, and Barrow—where the big ships come from. They are all on the time rate of 1s. 813/16d. This affects

    711
    my country more than it does England, because the Midlands and all around London are on jobs of mass production. In shipbuilding up to date we have not yet evolved a system whereby we can have mass production. Engineers working on aeroplanes, guns, and tanks are earning double the money that engineers in the shipbuilding industry are getting—and shipbuilding is priority No. 1. At Dundee the rate is 1s. 89/16d.; at Aberdeen the basic rate, plus bonus, is 1s. 81/16d. The nation should be proud of this.
    Another source of annoyance to the men is the question of Income Tax. Income Tax is levied on the summer-time earnings, when the men are working overtime and on Sundays; it is extracted from them when overtime has ceased and the bar is up against Sunday work. They have to pay out of the miserable wages they earn then, Income Tax on the decent wages they had previously earned. Here is the case of a man who works 76 hours in a week in a shipyard. At 1s. 813/16d. an hour, he earns £6 12s. 3d. Deductions for National Health Insurance, hospital, and war fund total 2s. 10d. Income Tax amounts to £4 12s. 3d. That leaves him £1 17s. 2d. Is it possible to expect men to continue under conditions like that, and to give of their best? How can I go to them and ask them to work overtime? Some smug friends of mine tell me: "Before I took on a Government job I had £15,000 a year; and I took on a Government job which brought in just under £2,000 a year. I never said anything. I accepted that reduction because the country was at war. When Income Tax came upon me I just had this £2,000 a year, and I am not grumbling." Surely they do not expect the workers to be kidded like that. If I had £15,000 a year I should have £15,000 laid by, on which I could draw; but in the case of the worker there is no reservoir; he has only enough to keep him going for a week or so at best.
    The British people seem to forget that for years the shipbuilders of this country were unemployed. They shut down the shipyards and did not care a button for the workers, but threw them on the streets, threw them on the scrapheap. That broke the hearts of thousands of men, because they knew when they went out then that they would never get a job
    712
    again. Now these people are expected to save against a rainy day. It is said that they should have been able to put by the money they were earning in the summertime. Can I say that to them—I who told them to spend the money? I told them that they needed to buy clothes; their wives and weans had neither clothes nor food, their houses were devoid of furniture. It had to be seen to be believed, what the folk of Clydebank and Dumbarton were like when poverty was standing there, brooding like a skeleton over them. Never would it be believed that they were the same folk. In the streets they were walking proud and erect; clean, although they were poor; but in the homes everything had gone. All the niceties of civilisation Had been used up, because they were dependent upon what the merest breath of adversity may in a moment dispel. I remember it being said to me by the Prime Minister of that time, "There is the labour exchange". That was Ramsay MacDonald's reply to me When I appealed to him on behalf of the shipbuilders and engineers. This question will have to be faced.
    Here is the next point which aggravates the situation of the folk whom I have had the honour to represent for over 20 years continuously in this House—and I have been a member of my trade union for 50 years. I do not think I am getting the help that I should get from the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet this difficulty. Here is the case of a charge-hand engineer in one of the principal shipbuilding yards of the world. He was never out of Clydebank, he was bred in it, but he was blown out of the place. When the Blitz came the Government were good enough, when we appealed to them, to allow my folk to travel from wherever they were, scattered all over Scotland, by means of vouchers for 3s. a week, but that was stopped over a year ago. There were no homes for them, they rebelled against the idea of being driven into the slums of Glasgow—Glasgow, which has an overcrowding problem of its own, while Clydebank always excelled in healthy children. I am supporting them in their refusal. I have here the name and address and all particulars of this charge-hand. Engineers will know that he must be a very good charge-hand, because he has 3d. per hour above the rate. I thought I was a great chap even

    713
    before my time was out, but in our days 1d. an hour above the rate was considered marvellous. This man has £1 a week for travelling expenses; he has a wife and child, and he goes home to Alva. He takes home £1 19s. 1d. for a week's work at John Brown's, of Clydebank. That is the last place I want to say anything against, for I have boosted it to the best of my ability; but the time has come when the Government must intervene in these negotiations, which have been going on for at least five months—officially five months, but unofficially over nine. It is time the Government took a hand here. It is no use saying, as the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said in reply to me before, that they have no complaints. I say publicly and before the world that the output is too low. The workers are not working. That is a serious business.
    How can we and the Government expect the British worker to emulate the Russian worker? The atmosphere in Russia is the opposite of the atmosphere in the shipyards of Britain. The Russians believe, and rightly, that when the war is over Russia will be theirs. When the war is finished the worker in this country, having due regard to all the palliatives and the rise in wages for agricultural workers and dock labourers, and the provision of canteens for the shipyards on the Clyde, which I appreciate—apart from all that, the worker in this country will have nothing but his labour-power Incorporated in his body, which he will require to sell in order to live, as he did before the war. In Russia everything will be for the Russians. I would be delighted if I were able to say that Britain, and particularly Scotland, were ours, but I cannot. Scotland is not ours. At the finish of the war it will belong to the ruling class as it does now. I do not want to do anything that will hinder production, and my last word is that I want the Government to appeal to the managements in the engineering and shipbuilding industry of this country, as I have done not only privately, but three times in broadcasts, to pool their resources, mentally and physically, and to treat the men as equals. I have never met any one of them who is more than my equal. I was just an engineer and never wanted to be anything else. They ought to pull together as a team.
    714
    After all I have said about Russia and everything else, it is essential, if we are to win this war, that we must work as a team, but we must not expect all this team work and self-sacrifice to come only from the workers. It has to come from the managements as well. They have to recognise the men. I have been with different production committees from Coventry right up to Glasgow and have seen the employers look upon the production committee as a body sitting to deal with an individual who is an absentee and not with a view to collaboration to see whether there is something that they can do for the benefit of the country. May there not be some latent power in the mind of the workers? Cannot ideas be produced that will benefit us at a time when we require all the power that is possible in order to win the war? That is all I am concerned about at the moment. The surest way of winning it, as I see it from the shipbuilding and engineering point of view, is that the Government interfere now and tell the employers that they must shut out of their minds the idea of what is going to happen after the war. They have to get down to it now and try and meet the engineers and grant their just request.
    Commander Galbraith: We have just listened to a very eloquent plea on behalf of the shipyard engineers, and after listening to it I only wish that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) were with us and was one of our advocates when we pressed for higher pay for the men in the Services. I am certain that his help would have been invaluable.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am with you all the way. My own son and daughter are in this business, fighting and serving at Tripoli.
    Commander Galbraith: I am very gratified to learn from the hon. Member that he is with us all the time in that respect, and I hope that we may have some success in that direction before very long. I naturally do not wish to follow the hon. Member but to come back to the very able speech which we had from the First Lord a week ago, when he told us of the very great achievements of the Navy during the past 12 months—achievements which reflect the greatest credit on everyone concerned, on the Board of Admiralty, on the commanders-in-chief both at

    715
    sea and ashore, and on officers and men of the Service and also on all the Departments which are responsible for equipment and supply. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the manner in which he made that statement to the House, but if I had one criticism to offer, it would be that while he told us of all the achievements of the Navy and rightly so, because the nation should know what a debt of gratitude it owes to the Service, he said very little about the very great difficulties which confront the Navy in these days. He left me with an impression that all was well at sea. I hope the House will forgive me if I go back and refer to various matters which were referred to by hon. Members who took part in the Debate a week ago, but I do not think that any apology is called for if I refer to the offensive against the U-boat. The First Lord, in speaking of that, used these words. He said it was
    "the greatest threat we have ever experienced to our sea lines."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1943, col. 567, Vol. 387.)
    And nothing is more true than that.
    The United Nations have gained supremacy in production. We can say that we have gained the mastery of the air, and to-day we have evidence before us which proves that our troops, as now equipped, have got the upper hand of the enemy. As far as I can see, the only weapon remaining to the Germans from which they can hope for success is the submarine, and that we can expect them to exploit to the full. Once let us lose control of the lines of sea communication and everything comes to a standstill. Your Air Force will be grounded from lack of petrol, your Army will be immobilised, you will not be able to get to it even the most vital necessities, and this country will be faced with starvation from two directions—starvation of our industries through lack of raw materials and starvation of our people through lack of foodstuffs. Therefore, it is essential that the lines of sea communication should be maintained at all costs.
    Just how grave is this menace which confronts us? Hon. Members will remember that the Prime Minister, when he spoke last in this House, spoke for some time on this very subject, but I doubt whether even the majority of the Members of the House, far less the public, realised or appreciated the gravity of the words which
    716
    he then used. He told us that the margin between ships building and ships being sunk, that is, the excess of building over sinkings, amounted in the last six months to 1,250,000 tons. The world knows—it is common knowledge everywhere—that last year in the United States they launched 8,000,000 tons of shipping and that the larger proportion came forward in the last six months. It would not be unreasonable, I suggest, if we assumed in these six months an output of 4,250,000 tons. When you add to that the estimate of the output of this country and Canada, which let me assume at 1,000,000 tons, you have shipping launched during that period of six months of 5,250,000 tons. The Prime Minister told us that the excess was only 1,250,000 tons, and therefore we are faced with the fact that during that period our losses amounted to something in the region of 4,000,000 tons. That is a very serious situation. The Prime Minister said that it was not only a matter of the loss in valuable lives, which could never be replaced; it was a question of the loss of ships, of raw materials, finished products and foodstuffs on the production of which an incalculable number of man-hours had been spent. It was a loss of materials urgently required in our factories and by the Fighting Services. It is a loss which can postpone victory more than anything else possibly can. It is a loss which may have a greater effect on our war effort than all the bombing of Germany is having on theirs. It is a drain on the resources of the United Nations which must be checked and brought under control.
    It is not that the Navy does not know the answer to this problem. The answer lies on convoying and in sufficient escort vessels, sufficient hunting craft and aircraft, and in the closest possible co-operation between the ships and carrier-borne and land-based aircraft. I would like to know whether there are sufficient shore-based aircraft of the right type being devoted to this purpose. The First Lord told us in his speech a week ago that we had an insufficient number of escort vessels but that the production of these ships had now been given the highest priority. I do not think it is fair to blame the Admiralty for that shortage. It is due to a great variety of different factors, one of the most important of which was the fall of France,

    717
    which, together with the overrunning of Norway, gave our enemy direct access to the ocean. Also we know and should appreciate, that the Admiralty have had their misfortunes in connection with the building of these ships. They placed large orders in the United States, with the full consent of the United States Navy, who at that time did not think they would require this type of vessel, but when they came into the war found that they were essential to enable them to deal with their own submarine problem. So it comes about that the Admiralty has not been receiving these vessels in the numbers which, under different circumstances, they had every reason to expect. I have not doubt that steps are being taken to make good that loss, but we must be patient, because you cannot produce ships overnight. I would like to ask, however, whether sufficient aircraft to make good that deficiency are being made available. Coastal Command is now under the operational control of the Admiralty, and I hear on every side that the co-operation which exists between it and the Navy could not possibly be better. But we have to remember this: Coastal Command is the step-child of the Royal Air Force, and I have grave cause to doubt whether it is being supplied with sufficient aircraft of the right type for use against submarines.
    We have been told by the First Lord of the great value of aircraft carriers in the defence of convoys and that submarines are operating to-day in mid-Atlantic, removed as far as possible from shore-based aircraft. While there is no doubt that carrier-borne aircraft are of the greatest possible value, it is no secret that we have not got them in anything like sufficient numbers to-day. Under weather conditions such as exist for days at a time in the North Atlantic it is often impossible to launch aircraft from ships. But under those conditions shore-based aircraft can still operate and, therefore, both types are required if we are to overcome the submarine. I would like an assurance that Coastal Command is actually receiving a sufficient number of long-range shore-based aircraft to enable them to perform their function against the submarine. It is well known that the type required is similar to those being used for the bombing of Germany, and it seems to me that more importance is still being paid to that than to the destruction of the submarine. I say that because, although
    718
    we were told by the Prime Minister—and it was reiterated by the First Lord last Wednesday—that the anti-submarine campaign was to receive first priority, my information is that Bomber Command still comes before all others where it is a case of long-range shore-based aircraft. I would ask the First Lord whether that is correct and whether the priority of which the Prime Minister spoke is being given in relation to these long-range shore-based aircraft for anti-submarine purposes in order to bring the submarine under a proper measure of control.
    Now let me turn to another subject—the Fleet Air Arm—a subject which was very ably dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieut.-Commander Brabner), who spoke a short while ago. We are constantly being told, both in the Press and with great vehemence by a very distinguished Member of another place, that the Admiralty is not air-minded and that senior naval officers have no idea how to use aircraft or, indeed, how valuable they are in naval warfare. Well, I do not know how this can possibly be maintained when one thinks back to the days of the Royal Naval Air Service, which was brought into being in the early days of flying, at the same time, indeed, as the Royal Frying Corps came into being. I do not know how this can be maintained when one remembers the struggle which the Admiralty put up year after year in order to obtain control of their own air service. How many care to remember that the Admiralty, together with the Norwegian Admiralty, were the only two bodies in the whole world to maintain through thick and thin that the torpedo from aircraft was the correct and primary weapon to be used against ships? If only the Air Ministry had been converted to that view, there would have been no need for the campaign in Lybia, because Rommel's communications would have been so shattered that he could not have gone on. It seems that it is convenient for some people to forget these things.
    Since 1939 the Admiralty have been pressing to be supplied with an efficient torpedo-bomber. All that the First Lord can now tell us is that Barracudas are coming from the factories in increasing numbers. That conveys nothing to us at all. He tells us, and he has justification for doing so, that the Admiralty put the greater needs of other Services first. I

    719
    am quite sure that this House and, indeed, the country appreciate the broad view which the Admiralty took, but have not the Admiralty allowed the interests of other Services to predominate too long over the equally, if not more vital, interests involved in the control of sea communications? I cannot believe that if the Admiralty had really pressed their claims as strongly as they should in the last 18 months they would not have got the aircraft which the Fleet Air Arm so urgently requires to-day. The First Lord knows as well as we do that neither the Fleet Air Arm nor the Navy are satisfied with the situation as it exists to-day. Exactly the same thing applies to the supply to the Fleet Air Arm of an efficient fighter. Since 1940 the Admiralty have been pressing for the supply of Seafires. Again, all the First Lord can say is that they are coming forward in increasing numbers. Well, increasing numbers from nothing at all does not mean very much. I know, and the First Lord knows, that the Fleet Air Arm are extremely short of efficient machines, and I would press him to see that they are made forthcoming. No matter what the needs of the Royal Air Force are, they are nothing to-day compared in importance with the supply of the machines required to control the seas. I say, therefore, that not only the Navy but the nation looks to the First Lord and to his colleagues to see that these lanes are kept open.
    I know the First Lord's difficulties; I know that the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production are closely connected and stand much in the same relationship to each other as the War Office does to the Ministry of Supply. From my own personal experience I know what that means, because I happened to be in America before the Admiralty had a Supply Mission in that country and had to rely on the British Purchasing Commission which was the Ministry of Supply's Mission in the U.S.A. to meet all their requirements. Those requirements received very little consideration. The reason was that the requirements of the Army were so much heavier and so much more numerous than those of the Navy that their requirements were completely snowed under. I have a suspicion that a like situation exists between the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, but I hope that with the
    720
    advent of the new Minister of Aircraft Production, who, I believe, understands the heed for the Navy's requirements being met, there will be a very decided change. The Admiralty can help there too by pressing their claims more strongly and by seeing that there is a reasonable representation of naval officers in the Ministry of Aircraft Production.
    I thought the First Lord in his speech skated very lightly over the question of the technical and scientific advance made by the Navy in the period which he reviewed. I have already alluded to the broad-minded policy of the Admiralty in standing aside when other Services were in much more need than the Navy. During that period the other Services have obtained a great start on the Navy. They have collected unto themselves most of the scientific brains of this country, and I would ask the First Lord to look into that matter and ascertain how many scientists are to-day working on research in connection with most vital naval matters as compared with those employed by the other Services. I hope the other Services will act in the same broad-minded way as the Navy acted and, now that the Navy's interests are so much greater, see that it is treated in the same way as the Navy treated them at other times.
    I would like to turn for one moment to the question of pay. In the Debate on the Army Estimates recently reference was made by a number of speakers to the pay of the Army. All stated that Army pay was far too low when considered in relation to what can be earned elsewhere. Exactly the same thing applies to the Navy. There are any number of anomalies, and I would like to refer to one. The pay of merchant seamen to-day is £24 a month. That places them in a better position than many naval officers, particularly so because £10 of that is an allowance—called "danger money," I believe—which is not subject to Income Tax. They are at least twice as well off as their opposite numbers in the Navy. At this moment merchant seamen are serving with the Navy alongside naval ratings who are receiving half that amount in pay. You have naval gun crews serving in merchant ships alongside these merchant seamen receiving this higher pay. That is something which leads neither to harmony nor content. Do not let it be supposed that I am saying that the Merchant Service is overpaid. No, I would

    721
    like to pay my tribute to the Merchant Service, whose men at this time are facing difficulties, dangers and discomforts of which this country has no idea whatsoever. I have had the opportunity of crossing the ocean in a convoy during this war, and I cannot understand how these men keep on coming forward time and time again, after having been sunk, to face all these dangers so cheerfully and with such courage. It is not that the pay of the Merchant Service is too high; but that the pay of the Navy is too low; As was pointed out in the Debate on the Army Estimates, the men are not complaining about their own position, but they are apprehensive about the position of their wives and families. It is particularly the case that men who have been abroad for any length of time fail to understand how their families can get on when they have so little compared with what is being received by other people around them. I had intended to refer to the question of command, but that has been ably dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe. I will therefore content myself with expressing the hope that my right hon. Friend the First Lord will give that matter his consideration.
    In conclusion, I say to my right hon. Friend that the Navy and the nation are looking to him and to his colleagues on the Board of Admiralty to see that the Navy gets those weapons which are necessary to ensure the command of the seas and victory. May I also say to him that the officers and men of the Navy look to him particularly and personally to see that they are treated in all respects with justice.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: It is unfortunate that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the very interesting survey of the work of the Navy which he gave last week, was prevented, for obvious reasons, from giving to the House and the country many most interesting details of that Service. Of course, such details would not only have been interesting to us but would have been of the greatest use to our enemies. Therefore, the First Lord is in no way to blame in this respect. My right hon. Friend devoted a considerable part of his survey to the question of the submarine campaign and the question of the Fleet Air Arm, and it is to those two subjects that I wish to devote my remarks.
    722
    I would like, first of all, however, to pay my tribute to the officers and men of the two great sister sea Services for the incomparable services they have rendered to the country and to the Allied nations from the beginning of the war. They have not only faced their tasks but have carried them out under immense difficulties, and in spite of almost insuperable obstacles, in a manner worthy of the best traditions of the Service. Their courage, their devotion to duty, their loyalty and their self-sacrifice have been an inspiration to us all.
    I want now to speak about what is so often called the Battle of the Atlantic, in my opinion a misnomer, because the so-called Battle of the Atlantic is really a ceaseless struggle over the oceans of the world. On the one side it is, as far as we are concerned, a struggle to give security to our merchant ships, and on the other side, for the enemy, an attempt to interfere as much as possible with the ebb and flow of transport across the oceans of the world, on which we depend entirely not only for the prosecution of the war but for our very existence. I think the question of submarine warfare is viewed very generally from an entirely wrong angle. One commonly hears references to the total tonnage of ships that have been sunk and, on the other hand, the total tonnage of new construction that has been brought into being to replace the ships that have been sunk, and if those two columns more or less balance, if we are up on the sinkings, a false sense of security is engendered in the minds of the people. That is an entirely wrong point of view. It is obvious that we must build ships as fast as ever we can, not only to replace the ships that have been sunk, but to make up the immense leeway with which we started the war, when we had not sufficient merchant ships. Surely, the primary factor in submarine warfare, from our point of view, should not be the replacement of ships that have been sunk, but the prevention of the sinking of those ships.
    In order to do that we have to carry out not merely the defensive operations of escorting convoys, which are most necessary, but offensive operations as well. Therefore, I wish to put certain points to my right hon. Friend the First Lord. There is, in the first place, the question of the speed of the merchant ships in new construction. We all know that convoys are extremely slow, having five knots or seven and a half knots—less than the speed

    723
    which the submarines that are at present working in groups in the Atlantic and elsewhere travel when they are submerged, and they have a great speed on the surface. The result is that the convoy as such, by itself, can never shake off the enemy's submarines which are shadowing it. They can shadow it for hundreds of miles, for 1,000 miles if necessary, and never be shaken off. If a convoy had a speed of 14 or 15 knots, at night time it would be able to take evasive action by an alteration of course and have a good possibility of shaking off the shadowing submarines. It is impossible for a slow convoy to do that; at present it is a waste of time for these slow-moving convoys to take any evasive action. There would be great advantages in increased speed for the merchant ships in new construction; we also know that there would be disadvantages; but I maintain that the advantages would far outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Admiralty will insist upon a much higher proportion of really fast merchant ships being constructed. It is no good saying that we have ships building at 11 knots. What does that mean? Is that the speed at which the ships will steam when in convoy fully laden? The only practical interpretation of the speed of a ship is when it is steaming in convoy fully laden. It is no good a ship being built for 11 knots which, when it gets in convoy, can go only at seven and a half knots or eight knots. The same thing applies with regard to a speed of 14 knots or 15 knots; the ships want to be able to make that speed when they are in convoy at sea. There is a pressing need to increase the speed of the convoys.
    But speed alone, of course, is not nearly enough. As everybody knows, a convoy is liable to attack by submarine, by surface craft, or from the air, and in order that it may be protected it has to have an escort. At the beginning of the war the escort was very small or non-existent, but gradually it has been increased, as we have got a greater number of ships; but still the escort is not sufficient to deal with the problem of attacks from submarines, surface craft and the air. However powerful the actual escort may be, it can only ward off the attack of the submarine. If submarines are operating in a group, the escort may ward them off completely, or it may sink a certain
    724
    number of the submarines and leave the remainder behind. The escorting force cannot dissociate itself from the convoy, it cannot break its connection and remain in the area where the submarines are operating to harass them, to search them out and destroy them. The convoy cannot go on without its escort. It is the duty of the escort to maintain the security of the convoy from the time it leaves one harbour to the time it reaches the next harbour or is relieved by another escort. Therefore, the escort is in reality a defensive force. If we are to win the Battle of the Atlantic we must have, in addition to that defensive force, an offensive force attached to every convoy. When a convoy is being attacked by a single submarine or by a group of submarines the escort takes part in warding off the attack and in the destruction of the submarines, but after a certain time the escort itself must go on with the convoy. Therefore, there should be attached to every convoy an offensive force of one or two ships, or whatever number might be necessary, a force detached from the escort and not forming a part of it, whose special duty it would be to hunt and harass the submarines and go on doing so until it had destroyed the submarines which had attacked the convoy. In that way, and in no other way, shall we win the Battle of the Atlantic.
    I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) in his suggestion that at the head of the Committee which is responsible for the anti-U-boat warfare measures there should be a Flag officer having expert knowledge and experience of the operation of submarines. I think that is absolutely essential. I welcome the fact that a very distinguished submarine officer, Admiral Sir Max Horton, is in charge of the Western Approaches. That is a great advance, but it is only a part of what is necessary. As I understand it, he does not lay down what is necessary, but can only utilise what is given to him in order to defeat the U-boats. We want at the centre a Committee at the head of which is an officer of Flag rank, with expert knowledge, to direct these operations. I repeat that in my opinion, in order to win the battle, there must be a special squadron of craft detailed for offensive action against the

    725
    submarines, allotted to that job only and to no other.
    In connection with this, I do hope that this country is not expending its energy and time in the construction of what I have always thought to be an anachronism, the 40,000 tons battleship. That is not what we want. We have enough battleships. How much better if we devoted our energies to constructing these small craft which are necessary to safeguard our sea communications upon which for the operations of war in which we are engaged we absolutely depend. It is only by keeping those communications intact that the other operations of war are possible. If the line of communications is broken, we cannot conduct the war. If it is interfered with, it makes our other operations much more difficult, so we should concentrate on offensive action against the attacking craft. Then we have to attack also from the air. Air Marshal Viscount Trenchard has taken a prominent part in acrimonious discussions creating dissension between the great Services—he has rendered great service to the country and to the Air Force, but none to the Fleet Air Arm—discussions which are doing so much harm, and which are interfering with our war effort. There are other elements besides that of the sky which we must make full use of and we can only attain victory by getting the greatest possible co-operation between the Services working on all three elements. In no other way can we get victory. I hope that stupid, senseless, mischievous discussion will now come to an end.
    With regard to attacks on convoys from the air, the First Lord said that these submarines are now operating in groups in areas removed from the radius of action of shore-based fighters, and as it is the co-operation of submarines and the aircraft which accounts for by far the greater proportion of the sinkings, it is equally important while carrying out the offensive against the U-boats that we should also be able to carry out an offensive against the aircraft which attack our convoys. It may be—I do not know—that we are constructing a great many aircraft carriers, but, if we are to win this Battle of the Atlantic, in which aircraft play such an important part, we must provide the escort with the aeroplanes necessary for meeting attack by enemy aircraft. The aircraft which are
    726
    built for fleet purposes are, in my opinion, too big. They are very vulnerable, and they require a great deal of protection. Therefore, we should build special aircraft to Work with the escort of the convoys and provided with such machines as experience has shown necessary to utilise every opportunity of attacking enemy aircraft. Here also you would have to have an officer on the Committee of high rank, fully conversant with the operations of aircraft.
    The only other point I want to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice is the pay and allowances of naval officers, and I know that it has his sympathy. I intend to continue raising this matter on every possible occasion. I only wish to raise one point now, and that is the marriage allowance, which I have always looked upon as a shabby, cheese-paring piece of legislation, brought in in February, 1939. When it was brought in the basic rate of pay of officers above the age of 30 was reduced by 2s. a day to pay for it except in the case of the commissioned warrant officer, whose pay was only reduced by 1s. It did not matter whether officers were married or not, or whether they would benefit from the scheme or not, because you do not benefit from it unless you live apart from your wife; all had their pay reduced. The consequence of the reduction of pay was this. In the old scheme, a commodore, second class, a captain of a ship and a colonel of Marines, because they were married, received a net sum of 24s. 6d. a week. Commanders and below received 17s. 6d. A warrant officer received 14s. a week. But an able seaman serving in the same ship as the captain, commander, lieut.-commander and lieutenant received 18s. a week. Therefore an officer had to be above the rank of commander before he received more than an able seaman on the lower deck. How can such a scheme be justified?
    Mr. Walter Edwards: Did that apply in February, 1939?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Yes. But a new scheme was brought in in December, 1941. One would imagine that this was to make the position better for the married naval officer, but not at all. The whole scheme was altered. Still every officer in the Service had his pay reduced by 2s. a day, and the commissioned

    727
    warrant officer by 1s. a day, for this miserable pittance that is called a married allowance. After they had had a month to digest the new scheme if they could—I found it very difficult to understand—those in the old scheme could turn over to the new scheme, but if they liked to remain under the old scheme they could. The new scheme was that all officers from commodore, second class down, received a gross flat rate of 4s. a day, if they were married, from which must be deducted the 2s. reduction from the basic rate to obtain the net gain. Therefore, officers from commodore, second class, downwards—captain, commander, lieut.-commander and lieutenant—are receiving net 14s. a week because they are married, while an able seaman is receiving 18s. How can such an iniquitous scheme be justified? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, I know, is sympathetic, to remove this blot. After all, the naval officer looks to the Lords of the Admiralty and to the First Lord to give him a fair deal. He has nowhere else to look. If you ask naval officers what they are entitled to in pay not one in 100 can tell you. The Admiralty juggle with the amount of pay and allowances for officers from one to the other and take this away and put it on to something else. Let us have a straight deal. Let us once and for all put this marriage allowance on a proper and decent footing and not continue this iniquitous, cheese-paring arrangement.
    Mr. Muff: When the Debate started, speaking as a layman representing a seaport, I was beginning to think the silent Service was all too silent, but after hearing the three hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken, I assure them that the House listens with respectful attention, especially when they bring grievances before us on a day like this, when since 1688 it has been our custom to refuse to grant supplies until we have tried to remedy abuses. Eighteen shillings a week for the wife of an able-bodied seaman is not too much, and I am certain that 14s. a week is far too little for a married lady, whether she be the wife of an officer or the wife of a man who does not serve on the quarterdeck. I hope that the Admiralty will take serious notice of what has been said about priorities. I have been living in a land of illusion, for I always thought that
    728
    the Admiralty could cock a snook with impunity at the Treasury. It would appear that, if we are not careful, the Navy will become the Cinderella Service. That would be intolerable. I do not ask for what I call smash-and-grab priorities. We had a game of smash-and-grab for a certain period of the war with aeroplanes and tanks.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieut.-Commander Brabner) made a reasonable request for equal priorities. If such priorities are not given, I hope that we shall have a session of Parliament when we can be given some clear idea with regard, for instance, to the protection of convoys from the air and the provision of aeroplanes. I do not know whether it is true that the Navy is getting second-best, as it were, from a secondhand clothing store, and receiving the cast-offs of the Royal Air Force. If it is, I hope that it will be altered with that celerity of action which is the policy at the Admiralty, because people in the country, and especially those who live on the coast, realise the great service which has been given to the world and to this nation by the Navy.
    I want to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the fact that since last week there has been a change of policy in Germany. The German chief admirals have been sacked, and I look upon that as significant. There is a new admiral in command in the Mediterranean, and I hope that the Minister of Information will take note that the policy of the German Admiralty, like Rommel's policy of fighting to the last Italian, is evidently to tight to the last Italian sailor.
    I would like to draw attention to what I call the little ships. Prior to September, 1939, there was an armada of little ships, 300 or thereabouts in number, which sailed from Humberside to the White Sea and the Faroes—gallant little vessels manned by stout hearts. I believe they were called trawlers. Almost overnight that armada was reduced by 90 per cent. because the Admiralty and the country had great need of those trawlers, the finest of their kind in the world. They were needed because they were best for winning the first battle which was fought against the enemy. They won a victory over the magnetic mine. Since then the men upon them have given great and invaluable service. Again I want to use the word "priority" in this

    729
    connection. I want to remind the Admiralty that the Humberside, denuded of its trawlers, was denuded of its livelihood. I am glad that the Minister of Food and the Minister of War Transport prevented Hull being further hit by refusing to allow another fishing port to sell its soul for a mess of Icelandic pottage. I ask that when peace comes the Humberside will have the right to the first priority in the replacement of its trawlers, so that the men can go back to their normal avocation. There have been grievous losses, but they have been taken on the chin. I went with the Deputy Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia round the shelters of the port, where we saw the wives and children of these minesweepers, these fishermen of England. They had to be in the shelters when the raids came, as they did for two years. There we found the women and children dancing and singing. When the Deputy Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia saw them he wondered and pondered, and when they sang to him his country's national hymn, he said, "Thank you. In my land the children cannot sing their own national hymn."
    I am asking for a priority in the replacement of trawlers. I am asking for something else. I remember in the last war two little ships, one called the "Iris" and the other the "Daffodil," which came from a port as great as my own—Liverpool. They went on an expedition and received a great accolade of true knighthood. They came back the "Royal Iris" and the "Royal Daffodil.", If my right hon. Friend would pay a visit to the Humberside and see the devastation and the destroyed homes to which these men come back when on leave, and the cheerful spirits of their families, and if he would see St. Andrew's Dock, I think that he would be moved to say, "This country shall pay honour to the Humberside. These trawlers, whether they be 'Daffodils,' 'Hyacinths' or 'Irises' are in their spirit truly royal." I would like His Majesty to say, "On St. Andrew's Dock you shall receive a replica of the George Medal." I do not ask for the George Cross—I am too modest—but I would like some recognition of the unparalleled services which these fishermen have proudly given to the country. I plead for a recognition of the little ships.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: I rise to pay a tribute to the
    730
    courage and endurance of the men and officers of the Royal Navy. They have been fighting for their lives, and, indeed, for ours, ever since 3rd September, 1939, although some people more fortunately situated on dry land were unable to take an interest in the war before May, 1940, and still others before June, 1941. The First Lord's speech was noteworthy for one curious omission. He did not speak, except for a passing reference, of the work of the Battle Fleet. He said that the Home Fleet, under Admiral Sir John Tovey, had two principal tasks—to preserve these Islands from invasion and to prevent the German navy breaking out on to our sea-communications on the Atlantic. A great deal is said in these days about the air, and I would plead with the House for a greater sense of proportion than has been shown by a great many people. The fact remains—and this is a view which is shared by many distinguished sailors—that but for the Battle Fleet based in Scottish waters, the "Tirpitz," of 40,000 tons, the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau," of 26,000 tons each, and the two pocket battleships, of 10,000 tons each, accompanied by 6-inch and 8-inch gun cruisers, would force their way into the Atlantic and might well in three months do such damage to our merchant shipping as to bring us virtually to our knees. Therefore, in spite of the spate of air propaganda by extremists we must bear in mind that the capital ships which are at present in Scottish waters, even if they never fire a shot, are preserving us at this moment from defeat.
    I listened with great interest and appreciation to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieut. Commander Brabner). I would have listened with more appreciation, however, if he had not ridden his own hobby horse quite as much as he did. We all know that he has played a gallant part in the war, and I agree with almost everything he said, but just because he has taken a gallant part in the Fleet Air Arm I had hoped that he would take the view that had he served in the great ships of the Home Fleet he would have also found some use for and merit in them.
    Lieut.-Commander Brabner: I had no intention of disparaging the efforts of the Home Fleet. I merely wanted to impress on the House the necessity for improving

    731
    the Fleet Air Arm to enable it to play its part with the heavy ships in any offensive action.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: I am sorry if I misrepresented my hon. and gallant Friend, but I gathered the impression from his speech that in his opinion the future of the Service rested with the air alone, and I want to persuade him and the House that there is another point of view and that we should maintain a sense of proportion. The rival claims for air and sea remind me of the undergraduate rivalry between Oxford and Cambridge when some found it impossible to praise their own university without decrying the other. I remember that when I was an Oxford undergraduate I found a guidebook—it may have been Baedeker—which said:
    "Oxford and Cambridge should be seen, but if time presses Cambridge may be omitted."
    However much that might appeal to one in adolescent days we reach an age when we realise that both universities have their functions, and that, similarly, air and sea have their complementary functions. We cannot dispense with either.
    I deplore the propaganda which that distinguished airman Lord Trenchard has recently indulged in, particularly in view of the fact that the three Services are working harmoniously together, and I think there would be some advantage if pre-war, pre-war officers realise that they are hardly in a position to-day to lay down a final judgment as to the exact relationship which exists at this moment between air and sea. I very much doubt whether anyone who has not served with the Royal Navy in the narrow waters of the Mediterranean during the last two years and who does not know precisely from personal experience what ships, great and small, can do in narrow waters in the face of enemy air forces possesses the intimate knowledge to allow him to lay down the law and to give a final judgment on the subject. After three and a half years of war we have lost only five capital ships, one new and four old, and that after continuous operational work is not a great deal, but because we have suffered these losses there are people who say the battleship is no longer of use. In a single raid on Berlin, due to icing and other conditions, 37 bombers were lost, but those of us who take an interest in
    732
    the Royal Navy do not immediately jump to the conclusion that the heavy bomber is no good. On the contrary, I believe that the experience of this war has been that given proper air protection our ships can operate even in narrow waters. That seems to have been the experience of the Mediterranean Fleet, and it was certainly the experience of "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau," about which I spoke in the Navy Estimates a year ago, when I took the view that because they had been given air protection it had been possible, and should not have been a matter of surprise to this House or to the country for those great ships to be able to get through the Channel.
    The First Lord said in his speech that it was unfortunate that so many people had taken the view that the Admiralty were not sufficiently air-minded. I should like in that connection to draw the attention of the House to a very remarkable fact, and that is that our building programme of aircraft carriers in 1938 was double that of any other country, with the possible exception of Japan, as to which accurate figures were not available. In 1939 we had, I believe, at least an equal number of aircraft carriers actually in service to the number possessed by any other country. How in the face of those facts it can be said that the Admiralty is not sufficiently air-minded it is difficult to know.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) made a very interesting speech and offered some observations in connection with the U-Boat Committee. What he had to say about that was I thought extremely disquieting, and I do hope that the First Lord or whoever will wind up this Debate will give us some assurance and will tell the House that the submarine expert will be attached to that Committee. There was only one point on which my hon. and gallant Friend took a rather more pessimistic view than I can share with him. He said he thought it was wishful thinking to believe that Germany would run short of trained submarine crews. I do not believe that to be the case. I am told by experienced officers in the Navy that when America first entered the war and before the convoys could be organised in the Western Atlantic; a great many merchant ships were lost and that the operational training and experience gained by the

    733
    German submarine crews during those unfortunate months made them much more efficient than they would otherwise have been, but that once we have worked through that number of trained German submarine crews then we can look forward to less efficient German crews, and certainly to crews with less operational experience.
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I think there will be a large number of Nazi officers, all keen men, perfectly ready to man their submarines, because they will do anything they can to try to bring this country to its knees. I do not think the Germans will run short of U-boat crews.
    Squadron-Leader Dormer: I would not dissent from that view at all. All I would say is that the operational experience that the German officers gained at that time must have been of the utmost value to them. There are a great many other points which I wish to make, but I promised the Chair that I would speak for rot more than ten minutes, and so I will finish.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am fully conscious of the fact that my hon. and gallant Friends opposite, who are much more expert on the subjects under review than I can ever hope to be, are anxious to take part in the Debate, and therefore I shall condense my remarks into the most abbreviated space and time. Strange as it may seem, we are discussing, stripped of the irrelevances and the excrescences and the asides, the most vital question before this country. The question of promotion, to which an hon. and gallant Gentleman referred in an admirable speech, the question of pay and conditions in the Service, the rates of pay awarded to engineers, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke so eloquently, are all important, but none is so vital, so far reaching, so urgent as the question—I pose it simply: "How are we going to encounter and destroy the submarine menace?" If I have any qualification to speak on this subject, it is not that I am an expert—very much of a layman—but I can at least say that for three years now, in this House, in public and in private Session, I have persistently directed attention to this subject. I ventured to direct attention to it when hardly anybody would listen, apart from a few hon. and gallant Members opposite and
    734
    a few hon. Members on this side. The House as a whole is not interested, largely because of the kind of speech that we have just had from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner)—not the whole of the speech but a part of it—in which he seemed to indicate that the Germans were not able to produce this or that. That is precisely the type of talk we had three years ago—that the submarine menace was of no significance.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: I have never said that. I said——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. and gallant Member must not get up unless the hon. Member who is speaking gives way.
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, my hon. Friend did not say that to-day. I am simply referring to the kind of note in his speech disparaging the capacity and the efficiency of the enemy.
    Squadron-Leader Donner Squadron-Leader Donner rose——
    Mr. Shinwell: Do not let us waste any time about a thing like that. I merely mentioned it in order to show that that was precisely the atmosphere in this House three years ago, two and a half years ago, two years ago.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: On a point of Order. Is it in Order and in accordance with the traditions of this House for an hon. Member to criticise another and not to allow him to make any kind of reply?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman in possession of the House does not choose to give way it is not possible for an hon. Member to interrupt, but I may add that very often it does happen that the hon. Member in possession of the House does give way.
    Mr. Shinwell: I feel that the point is really of no significance. All that I was doing was to furnish an illustration, a quite apposite illustration, with no reflection on my hon. and gallant Friend at all, apart from this note that I detected of complacency and a belief in ourselves irrespective of all the circumstances and conditions. That is the worst way to try to achieve victory. A year ago we had the same kind of complacency, the same belief that all was going well. If hon. Members challenge me, I will produce the evidence from the recorded speeches of those times.

    735
    I have them before me, and they are well known to hon. Members of this House. Members of the Government, including the First Lord of the Admiralty, and even the Prime Minister, made optimistic utterances. All was going well. I can understand that kind of utterance if it is intended to deceive the enemy, but sometimes in deceiving the enemy you deceive yourselves, and that is the worst thing that can happen.
    The first thing I want to say in relation to the Debate proper is this: My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the concluding sentence of his speech, paid a magnificent tribute to the men of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service. It was quite a proper tribute. He assured the men in the Services that they would always retain the confidence of this House. Of course they will. Not a single utterance in this House by myself or any other Member has ever appeared to indicate any distrust in the ability, the courage and the capacity of the men of the Navy or the Merchant Service. We have the utmost admiration for them, we have the utmost confidence in them. We had admiration for them and confidence in them at a time when they were ill-equipped. All the more so have we confidence in them as equipment gathers strength.
    But that is not the issue at all; the issue is whether we have confidence in the political direction of the Admiralty. I say quite frankly that I have never had confidence in the political direction of the Admiralty, and particularly because of that attitude of—"complacency" is not the word, rather, the assumption that the barest breath of criticism to which they were subjected was all wrong and was harmful—not to them, for they would not matter in the least—but to the national interest. I venture the opinion that the only thing harmful to the national interest has been the attitude adopted by the political direction of the Admiralty. Why should we be mealy-mouthed? They are not mealy-mouthed in the United States. They speak quite openly and frankly about the submarine menace. They direct attention to the facts and the figures. They are not afraid to speak of losses when they occur, and when they discover new devices for dealing with this menace everybody is informed. Why should not
    736
    we be as open as they are in the United States? It is suggested that outspokenness in this House and in the country is helpful to the enemy. I put it bluntly; that is what is said. But it may well be that outspokenness in Debates in this House and outspokenness on a public platform may be the corrective to spurious optimism. But if you want to convince the people of this country of the nature of the ordeal that confronts us, of its grim character, if you really believe the submarine menace is a menace and that unless we overcome it we may lose the war in spite of all our successes on land, you must speak of it frankly and inform the people of the facts; but the only answer we get from the Treasury Bench, and I am sorry to say very frequently from the back benches, is that we are providing comfort for the enemy. It is all nonsense. It is time that sort of thing stopped.
    I must say that there has been a marked change in the language of the Admiralty chiefs in recent months. They are much more temperate and guarded in their references to the possibilities that are latent in submarine warfare. That is all to the good. Moreover, there is more frankness and candour in the publication of shipping losses—mark this, not of merchant shipping losses; of naval losses. Not that we have had a statement in this House; a statement was made in another place quite recently, and not in Secret Session. It was followed by a corrected statement emphasising the losses sustained. We were told, and nobody can complain if I now use the figures, because they have been used by members of the Government and on behalf of the Government in another place, and they have been paraded in the Press, that we actually lost 435 war vessels. If we can be told with such candour what our losses are in war vessels, why should we be precluded from knowing what the losses are in merchant vessels? Are we to understand that to convey information to the enemy that we have lost 435 war vessels is not harmful but to convey information to the enemy that we have lost several million tons of merchant vessels is injurious? The whole thing is illogical and absurd, unless it is intended to conceal the facts in order to cover up the deficiencies of the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty and of the convoy system. I believe that is the reason, and if there were time—there is not time in a

    737
    Debate of this character—I should be willing to furnish all the facts, as has been done occasionally in this House.
    What is the substance of this matter? As I see it, it is a question of how we can counter the menace of the U-boat; but not by operating the Fleet Air Arm, because that is only one means of approach. It is no more than that. It is not only by raising the speed of merchant vessels, which is very desirable but is only another approach, or by adding further protection, defensive and offensive, to the merchant vessels, again, another approach; or by reorganising the convoy system, again just another approach. It is a question of how, by combination of all those methods, we can secure the necessary efficient organisation in order to deal with the situation. There are a good many theorists who indulge themselves in this matter. They have their programmes to submit to the country on the matter. For example, lately there has been a new school of thought maintaining that the only way to deal with the submarine is to bomb the hide-outs, the Lorients and the St. Nazaires. They are talking about it, and writing about it in the newspapers, but that is all nonsense. You can obviously delay the activities of the U-boats and interfere with the morale of the U-boat crews by that method; you can delay and impede their operation, but no more than that. Therefore we must find a new means of organisation.
    I believe that the two central points are, first to increase the speed of merchant ships, and second to add to their armament. I recognise that when one speaks of speed of vessels we are immediately met by the argument that it might mean a complete reorganisation of the shipbuilding policy of the Government, which takes time, and we might not have the ships or the equipment capable of responding to the needs of fast vessels. The Government were warned long ago about this matter. They cannot come along and say, "This is a new proposal. We have only just heard about it. Give us time to consider it, because it requires examination." They heard about it months ago, and they used the same argument then as now. The First Lord has told us that the Government are going to produce some fast ships, in spite of the fact that the Government have tried to prove to us that slow ships are as good as fast ships. If the Government have
    738
    now arrived at the conclusion that some faster ships are necessary, they must agree that fast ships are useful. The fact is that fast ships are always better than slow ships.
    The trouble I see is that we rely on the fact—and it is a fact—that in the last war we discovered the convoy system, which was of great value. Why was it of great value? First, because it was new, and secondly, because we then had a far larger number of escort vessels than we have now. I am not blaming the Admiralty for not having a sufficient supply of escort vessels. Some of us bear responsibility for that condition of things, but primarily, Governments of the past, and the Government immediately preceding this one. Probably we all bear responsibility, and I am not attaching blame to the Admiralty for not having 700 destroyers instead of only a few hundreds—or less than that. The fact is that conditions are different from those which obtained in the last war, and we must adapt ourselves to the new situation. The convoy system in this war is not as efficient as it was in the last war because the conditions which made it efficient are to some extent lacking. We have to adopt new methods. I say that speed is essential, and armament.
    Now it is alleged, by many people who take the contrary view to that held by myself and other Members of this House, that you may have fast vessels but never-the less may lose them. In fact, that is what the Admiralty say. I anticipate that the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will say that we have lost as many fast vessels as slow vessels; but surely, in order to test the accuracy and content of that statement, we must know the conditions in which those vessels were lost. I can tell the House of the conditions in which certain fast vessels were lost. I am not intending to give information to the enemy, and therefore I shall not name the vessels. They were three very fast vessels of round about 20,000 tons. I am trying to be as evasive as possible. They were on their way home, possibly in the South Atlantic, and they were torpedoed. They were sailing singly. I have always maintained that these vessels could sail singly and elude submarines. The Admiralty evidently believe that, because these vessels were sailing singly. They were three of our finest vessels, but I shall not mention

    739
    the names of the companies. They were all lost. Why? They were all torpedoed within seven days, because the Admiralty ordered those vessels not to sail at their normal speed but to reduce speed to 15 knots in order to save oil fuel.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty can get up now and say whether it is not occasionally the policy of the Admiralty to economise in oil fuel, and whether instructions are not issued occasionally to that effect. There is no doubt about these ships being lost, unfortunately. Here I would like to make an observation. I know that my right hon. Friend does not care very much for the things I say or for my method of saying them. In the last war we lost 14,000 merchant seamen. That was a great tribute to their readiness to sacrifice themselves. Could my right hon. Friend say how far we have exceeded that number in this war? No, but I know it. All right, I do not ask him to tell the House; I know. It concerns me, as I am sure it concerns every hon. and right hon. Member. Not for one moment do I deny that my right hon. Friend possesses the humanitarian instincts that prompt other hon. Members; that is not my case against him. I hear all these things occasionally, although I am not officially connected with seamen. Information comes to me of the terrible exposure to which these men are subjected. I read a document quite recently, reports which were horrifying. I admire the bravery, courage and endurance of these men who have to undergo a horrifying ordeal.
    I must speak deliberately. Let the House understand, whatever the consequences may be. I know it is unpopular to speak in this fashion, but I say that if we are not adopting the right organisation, if there is the slightest inefficiency in the organisation, if there is any unwillingness to respond to modern methods because of vested interests or because of the hidebound attitude of certain people who are running the show, the responsibility for sending men to their death lies heavily on the shoulders of the Admiralty. That is strong language, but it is right to use it. When men are being sent to their death, it is because we have not adopted the right methods. Even the Admiralty will admit that they have discovered new methods in the last two or three years which, if they had employed them earlier, might have
    740
    saved men from a horrible death or horrible exposure. It disturbs me very much when I hear statements made by the First Lord. I must admit that the speech last year was very non-committal, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said, in his extremely able speech, it was full of generalisations. I quite understand that you cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman—to use his own language—to be too specific; but, when the Prime Minister comes to that Box—I would rather say this before the Prime Minister than when he is not here—and tells us—I have the quotation here—that we conveyed 3,000,000 soldiers and only lost 1,400 men, what is one to say about that?
    That only 1,400 British soldiers have been drowned? Is that what it means, for the language is very carefully drawn? Just look at it. It simply is not true, and nobody deplores that more than I do. To say that no more than 1,400 British soldiers have been drowned while being transported overseas—the Government know that is not true. What is the good of talking like that? That is deceiving the House, that is deceiving the country, that is deceiving yourselves. At any rate, I am willing to be corrected by the Minister. Again, I plead with the House to try and understand me and not be constantly misunderstanding me when I talk about these matters. It is not with any desire to assist the enemy that I do so. I want to see this war won. I know we are up against one of the most formidable tasks that has ever faced us. That is why I say these things.
    I want to come very briefly to the question of faster ships. Do not believe what I say. Anyhow I am only a layman, no expert. I have to rely on information furnished by others. Take the information conveyed by someone who knows all about it, Admiral Land, head of the United States Maritime Commission. Will he do? He is an expert. He is expert enough to be employed by the United States Government to take command of shipbuilding production. He said that the fast ship was now being produced. What is more, my shipowning friends, if I may call them friends, not politically or industrially, but with some of whom I occasionally associate and who furnish me with information, are now almost unanimous that the fast ship must be built.

    741
    Read "Fair Play," read the "Shipbuilding Record," read any shipbuilding journal, read the reports of the Chamber of Shipping. There was a time when they did not agree, but they are now unanimous that fast ships are necessary. We can produce them. What is the argument against them? It is that we have not the capacity for engine production. I do not want to go into that too fully at the moment. I want to put it in this way. My right hon. Friend will probably understand what I mean.
    Proposals have been submitted to him by an expert who has designed a cargo warship. I do not say that I am entirely in agreement with the cargo warship. Proposals have been submitted to him. He knows all about it. He knows also, through information conveyed to him, that it is possible to produce the engines, that in fact aircraft engines can be utilised for the purpose. It is well known in the industry that in fact it is not marine engineering which is the bottleneck now. Anyhow the United States are able to overcome the difficulty, if there is any difficulty. So we must get the fast ship, but we must get more than the fast ship. We must see that the ships are properly protected. I indulged in only one interjection during the First Lord's speech last week, so he cannot complain. When he was speaking about defensive equipment on merchant vessels I asked, "Fore and aft?" He said that many of them are equipped fore and aft. I made inquiries. What did he mean? Did he mean that if you erect two machine guns on the bridge, that is the forward part of the vessel?
    Will he tell us how many British merchant vessels built in this country are provided with a gun in the forward part? I asked some shipowners. I said, "The First Lord now says that you have got them." None of them can find any. There may be some. They know of the machine guns on the bridges, but not of guns forward. Why? Is it because of international conventions? I am told that if one of our ships found its way into a neutral port it would be interned because it would be an offensive vessel if it had a gun on the forward part. What nonsense it is. I would like information about that. I believe, and I have said it for three years, that if you get a fast vessel and arm that vessel to do as the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington
    742
    (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said, you can not merely defend yourself in convoy against submarine attacks, but go for the submarines. You can do that if you have got the vessels properly armed. I want that tackled.
    Because I am very anxious to hear my hon. and gallant and hon. Friends I forbear to deal with other matters which I think very important, but I want to touch on one of them before I sit down. What is the moral of all this? We are now constantly praising the virtues of our Russian Ally, and rightly so. They have had glorious successes on land against great odds, persistently maintained against the enemy. That is very fine, very heartening, very inspiring. But while we praise those virtues, let us not underrate the virtues of our own men. That, I have never done. At many large meetings in the country I have always praised the virtues of our men. We have got it all. I would add that the Navy and the Merchant Service, with all the difficulties confronting them, are rendering as magnificent a contribution to victory as even our Russian Ally. I do not underrate their achievements, but we have a superhuman task facing us. It is right to tell us what we have achieved, but anybody who imagines this war is almost over because of successes on the Eastern front, or because of a moderate advance in Tunisia, or because we have destroyed some U-boats, or because of air bombing—all effective, I willingly agree—is making the gravest mistake that can be made in this war.
    Before this war is over desperate things will happen. I do not rely on internal collapse or any other kind of collapse on the part of the enemy. The only one collapse possible is to destroy the menace which confronts us, and we shall in the main destroy it on the oceans. That is the big achievement expected of us, and to the extent to which we can destroy the submarine menace we shall have rendered a greater service to our Russian Ally even than we could by the immediate adoption of the second front, though I believe something like a second front may be necessary before long. Therefore I urge my right hon. Friend not to be so incensed when I refer to these matters. Let him not imagine that I am a disgruntled person. I am trying to help, if not him—I do not say I am trying to help him—

    743
    the country, by propounding what I believe is the solution, or at any rate a partial or incomplete solution, to this problem of U-boat warfare.
    If, finally, we discover we have not got the escort vessels and the submarine menace is overwhelming, or almost overwhelming, there is one thing we must do. We must put the public in possession of sufficient facts—I do not go beyond that—so as to prepare them for another ordeal, namely, the need, because of the need for the conservation of our food resources, to accept less than they have been accustomed to in the past three years. Again, I am saying nothing new so far as I am concerned. I have said it over and over again, and others have said it. [Interruption.]My right hon. Friend said he started it, but unfortunately he forgot all about it. [Interruption.] He has not had much influence in the Government. You can have it anyway you like. I agree that he believed in rationing. We discussed it in the early days of the war, but his preoccupation is looking after the Admiralty. The Prime Minister the other week told us we were dipping into our food reserves. I questioned him on the subject. I want to say this—the Government can correct me if I am wrong—that we are now below the danger point. There, I leave it. We are below the irreducible minimum, and when you are below the irreducible minimum it is time to face up to it, share and share alike, putting everybody on the same level, no nonsense about it, nobody cockahoop, because we have turned the corner, but facing up to it, a little less of the society functions and a little less of the hotel and restaurant manoeuvres, with fair play for everybody, and no pretence on the part of Lord Woolton or the Prime Minister or anyone else, if that is the position. If the Government are prepared to say to me that the food position is not at all serious, that we are still importing food and the rest of it, let them do so. If they cannot, then I say the problem has got to be solved in the long run, if you cannot deal with it by destroying the U-boats, though I think to some extent you can, and I have advised a certain course. But if you cannot solve it in that way, clearly we must be prepared to put our backs against the wall and tighten our belts and say that we shall go on, each prepared to
    744
    sacrifice ourselves, to accept even privation so long as it is understood that we are doing it in the national interest. And why should we complain? What right have we to ask men to go and fight and that we should remain at home in comparative comfort, doing nothing or comparatively nothing? There are only two things we are called upon to do. One is to accept sacrifices not dissimilar from those imposed on the men who are fighting, and the other is to ensure that when those men come back they have a fair and square deal.
    The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I deal with some of the many questions which have been raised in the course of the Debate. This does not necessarily mean the closing of the Debate, but it does mean that there is an interesting Amendment on the W.R.N.S. which is to be moved shortly, and which will be replied to by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. I would like to acknowledge, on behalf of the First Lord and those of us of the Admiralty, the fine spirit in which the House has received the record of work of all branches of the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine. This appreciation is a reflection of the nation's feeling for all who are associated with the Service in their gigantic task. At no time in history has the Royal Navy meant more to the nation and to the Allied Governments than it does at present. Its work is followed with the greatest interest, as was the story of great achievement which my right hon. Friend the First Lord gave the House, in his very fine speech.
    Many very important questions have been raised during the Debate. A number of my hon. Friends expressed much concern as to whether the steps taken to combat the U-boat menace are adequate; and the other main questions concerned the strength of the Fleet Air Arm, the speed of merchant ships, and the disclosure of shipping losses. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) stressed each of those four points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned the last two. The policy of the Government regarding disclosure of shipping losses was laid down as recently as nth February by the Prime Minister. We still think, as does my hon. and gallant Friend the

    745
    Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), that while details of much of the work of the Service is of very great interest to the people of this country, it is of greater interest to the enemy; and, in the opinion of the Government, it is very much better for the enemy to deceive himself with his own lies as far as merchant shipping losses are concerned than that the figures should be disclosed. [Interruption.] I am simply stating the position on which the conclusions of the Government were based. With the exception of criticism in this House, there has been little or no pressure in the country for such disclosure. The nation is content to rely upon the information which is conveyed to it through this House and the Press from time to time, upon the authority, and with the reliability, of the Prime Minister. The First Lord, in his very informative review of the activities of the Navy during the past year, referred at length to the attempt of our enemies to impose a blockade upon this country, which would react seriously on our war effort if it were successful. He pointed out that the Government are fully seized of the importance of counter-action, and, indeed, of every kind of action, to bring about the destruction of the submarine menace. He pointed out that success had already attended these efforts. My hon. Friends have now had time to read what the First Lord said. He said:
    "Already I can say that the results in that direction during the last four months have been the most encouraging of the whole period of the war, and in the month of February just ended, from the number and nature of the attacks we know have been carried out, we believe we achieved the best results against U-boats yet experienced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1943; cols. 569–70, Vol. 387.]
    That statement only carries forward the recent statement by the Prime Minister, which clearly gave the full measure of the success attained. That statement was made as recently as nth February, and I am sure it is in the minds of most hon. Members. I will refer to just one part of it:
    "Provided that the present intense efforts are kept up here and in the United States, and that anti-U-boat warfare continues to hold first place in our thoughts and energies, I take the responsibility of assuring the House—and I have not misled them so far—that we shall be definitely better off, so far as shipping is concerned, at the end of 1943 than we are now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1943; col. 1472, Vol. 386.)
    746
    There never was a moment in which he did not see our way through, provided that the United States promises to us were made good. Notwithstanding those statements, which are very reassuring, and while there is no need to exaggerate the number of U-boats, we know that they are increasing: so are their losses; and so are the means of attacking them. In this country, in the United States, and in Canada great programmes of escort ships are in hand, with the result that the United Nations will this year receive additions to their escort fleets far greater than in previous years.
    Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate has put questions about priorities. The Prime Minister announced on 11th February that the production of these escort vessels is the highest priority, and that has been the position for some time. Also, there is a steady increase in the number of aircraft allotted for trade protection. These measures, together with the fact that there is a very strong Committee, presided over by the Prime Minister, constantly examining this problem, and the day-to-day work at the Admiralty, should assure this House and the nation and the Allies that every measure possible is taken to deal with this serious menace. Reference was made to the absence of any so-called U-boat expert on the anti-U-boat Committee. The First Lord explained that Admiral Sir Max Horton, who is chief of what may be regarded as the main U-boat battlefield, is a great U-boat expert, and that he is constantly consulted by and is in touch with the Committee. As the Prime Minister rightly said in his statement on the Committee on 15th December, several Departments are involved in the hunting of the U-boat, and it is necessary to focus the contributions of all the Departments concerned and to ensure proper concert between them. It is this that the representatives of the Committee, with their separate spheres of responsibility, are able to do. As well as this Committee, there is a very strong Admiralty organisation behind the commander in the main field of operations, giving attention to this very vital matter.
    The question of the Fleet Air Arm has been raised by a number of speakers. I can but refer again to the statement of the First Lord, in which he mentions that the Fleet Air Arm has been constantly expanding, in spite of losses sustained by our

    747
    carriers, and that this expansion is rapidly increasing. With this expansion, all Departments specially concerned with air matters in the Admiralty have been recently reorganised, and distinguished officers have been appointed. The announcement of their appointment, which was received with much approbation in this House, and the new plans announced by the First Lord should lead to an intensification of the work of the Fleet Air Arm. The First Lord referred to the increasing numbers of the Seafire fighters which are now coming along. The Barracuda is also coming from the factories in increasing numbers, while other types of naval aircraft of British design are coming forward, and the Avenger torpedo-bombers of special type and dive-bombers will shortly be delivered.
    Questions have been put about priorities of the Fleet Air Arm compared with the Royal Air Force. The Fleet Air Arm has equal priority with the Royal Air Force for planes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) asked my right hon. Friend to look into the question of the Inspector Department of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I can assure him that that matter has already been dealt with. He also asked my right hon. Friend to look into the question of the advancement of officers of the Fleet Air Arm to bring them into equality with officers of the R.A.F. A very strong point was made of this by my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieut.-Commander Brabner). This is one of the matters now receiving the attention of the new heads of the Fleet Air Department. I think it can be said that the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe explained very fully and clearly the difficulties which the Admiralty has found in giving extended promotion up to the rank of lieutenant-commander in the Fleet Air Arm. He explained that the difficulty was in the relation of the Fleet Air Arm to the rest of the Navy. The Admiralty has been busy for some time trying to work out a system to give much more promotion up to the lieutenant-commander's rank in the Fleet Air Arm without being unfair to the rest of the Service. My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the promotion of rating pilots. That is another matter which is being considered.
    Then my hon. and gallant Friend referred to publicity. He complained that
    748
    the Fleet Air Arm was not getting its fair share. The publicity branch of the Admiralty has now been strengthened by bringing in a very gallant admiral to take control. We hope that, as a result, a good deal of attention will be paid to this question. I am sure that he will take note of what has been said about the work of the Fleet Air Arm. In saying that, I should make it quite clear that I do not mean that nothing has been done in regard to publicity hitherto. During the year approximately 400 official communiqués and Press notices, together with a large number of hand-outs, have been issued, naval Press conferences are held weekly at the Ministry of Information by a flag officer, and at the Admiralty a weekly Press conference is held for British naval correspondents, with periodical Press conferences for United States correspondents. The question of official photographers and cinema photographers is being gone into, and a good deal of very important work is being done. The success which has attended the publication of the book called "The Ark Royal" has been most marked. So far more than 525,000 copies of this publication have been sold, and several similar publications are now being produced. There is a special one called "West of Suez," which I think will be published during the course of this week.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentlemen assure the House that at the Press conferences, where there are really only statements of fact, a real story and more detail will be given? It would not be giving anything away to the enemy and would be of great interest to the public. A mere statement that so-and-so was done is not enough. The publicity should be more of a general character and give more details of an operation.
    Mr. Hall: Wherever it is possible that is being done now. I do not think that it can be questioned but that stories are told so that they can get the best publicity value.
    Mr. Harold Nicolson: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Admiralty will be more generous and imaginative in providing commentators for the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Hall: We have some very successful B.B.C. commentators connected with the

    749
    Admiralty, and they have done a good deal of broadcasting work. I mention Kimmins, Woodruffe, and others like them who have been very successful broadcasters, and have done a good deal of useful work in that direction.
    Mr. Nicolson: We want more of it.
    Mr. Hall: Probably we can leave that to the new head of the Department, who, I am sure, will take note of any suggestions made to him.
    We listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel and St. Georges (Mr. W. Edwards) in which he raised many practical points, and, like many other hon. Members, he raised the question of the speed of ships, and it was very interesting to have his comments upon the convoy system. My right hon. Friend the First Lord was very pleased to note that he himself testified to the progress that was being made in the safety of convoys during the course of last year, not that he did not suggest that there was room for improvement. He raised one question concerning the clothes for survivors which have been handed over by members of the crew of the naval craft which picked them up. I can tell him that all destroyers, sloops, and corvettes now carry extra coats, blankets and towels for the use of survivors, and each convoy ship at home and in Atlantic waters carries 25 complete survivors' kits, and this number is now to be increased considerably. Compensation to ratings, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is two-thirds of the value of the clothes. He has very strong views about this. The Admiralty came to a conclusion about this matter because it thought that that was reasonable and generous compensation, but my right hon. Friend and I would be very happy to discuss that matter with him.
    He also raised the question of commissions from the lower deck. The Admiralty fully agrees that financial considerations should have nothing to do with the granting of commissions. When the hon. Member refers to the Navy losing good material owing to the uniform allowances and pay, perhaps he is not making allowance for the increases of junior officers' pay and of uniform allowance made during last autumn, when there were fairly substantial increases made both in uniform allowances and in
    750
    junior officers' pay. Perhaps he will look at that matter, and if he has any special case where he thinks that someone whose claim is well founded, not from the point of view of advancing the man's claim for a commission, but because he is suitable for a commission, has been turned down for the reasons he has given either my right hon. Friend or I will be very pleased to discuss the matter with him.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend give me any information at all of how new entrants and people called up for hostilities are selected to undergo examination for a commission?
    Mr. Hall: They are selected almost entirely as the result of observation and recommendation of their work by commanding officers.
    Mr. Edwards: Which more or less points out what I said last week, that they take them from certain professions rather than have a general view of the individual.
    Mr. Hall: I do not think I can agree with my hon. Friend in this matter, but he must agree that in some cases financial considerations, possibly the question of pay, is a consideration as between one man and another.
    Mr. Kirk wood: Class distinction.
    Mr. Hall: Possibly the best way to deal with this matter is to discuss it with me. There was one question which has been discussed and which my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham, in his very eloquent speech, made a point about, and indeed it was the only constructive suggestion which he made in the whole of his speech, that of faster ships. Really, he must not think that the Admiralty or the Government have been complacent with regard to the U-boat menace. In his submission one would imagine that the First Lord has done nothing whatever. He complained bitterly about the inefficiency of the political heads of the Admiralty.
    Mr. Shinwell: In the past.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend particularly referred to the First Lord in connection with this matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: Oh yes, in the past.
    Mr. Hall: All that those of us who know the work of the First Lord and of the officers at the Admiralty charged with this

    751
    very important question can say is that really my hon. Friend is speaking without knowledge of the facts.
    Mr. Shinwell: He has been badly advised.
    Mr. Hall: I cannot say that or that that view is shared by the majority of this House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Oh yes, it is.
    Mr. Hall: There is little evidence of it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Oh yes, there is.
    Mr. Hall: It has been suggested that the Admiralty has been opposed to the construction of faster ships. That is entirely wrong. The Admiralty argued against it because of the lack of facilities for the purpose of producing these ships. [Interruption.] I hope my hon. Friend will listen to what I have to say in connection with this matter. There is scarcely any need for a reply to be given to the speech made by my hon. Friend in so far as this matter has already, during the course of the last month, been discussed on two occasions. The Prime Minister, in his speech on 11th February, referred at length to the difficulties of the construction of fast ships, and it would be out of Order for me to refer to another speech recently made which dealt very fully with the difficulty of providing the type of ship to which my hon. Friend has referred to-day.
    Mr. Tinker: Will my right hon. Friend deal with that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in which he charged the Admiralty with not producing faster ships which caused the loss of vessels? That is a direct charge.
    Mr. Hall: A serious charge of that kind will be answered, but I have not quite finished with the hon. Member for Seaham yet. My hon. Friend put it in such a way, and I wanted to answer some of the points my hon. Friend put to me, and I am sure he has no objection to that.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, not at all.
    Mr. Hall: Then there is no disagreement at all between us. The impression seems to be that the Admiralty has set itself against the building of fast ships. Were there any such policy in the Admiralty, it Would have to be shared not only by the
    752
    Admiralty, but by the Ministry of War Transport, which settles the types of vessels and ships to be built, with the advice of Admiralty experts about defensive needs and the feasibility of suitable apparatus for building hulls and machinery. The Ministry of War Transport is advised about the types and speed of ships by the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, and this is well known to hon. Friends who are interested in this shipping problem in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Shinwell: Who appointed that Committee?
    Mr. Hall: The Committee was appointed by the Ministry of War Transport.
    Mr. Shinwell: And the shipowners were not consulted?
    Mr. Hall: It is rather strange that my hon. Friend should say that when the President of the shipowners organisation at the time of the appointment of the Committee was appointed a member of that Committee.
    Mr. Shinwell: The shipowners were never consulted as an industry; there is no question about it.
    Mr. Hall: There is a representative of the shipowners on the Committee. I want to disabuse the mind of my hon. Friend and the minds of other hon. Members upon the point that the Admiralty is a bottleneck with regard to the question of the speed of ships. It can be said that from the outbreak of war there has been a continuous effort to increase the amount of horse-power fitted into all the deep seagoing ships, and that has been achieved not only by a general uplift of power in all the various types but that some effort from the very outset has also resulted in a gradual extension in the proportion of faster ships. It is a proportion which has increased from the comparatively small amount at the outbreak of war to a far greater proportion than has ever been known in the history of the shipbuilding industry of this country. Let it not be forgotten that the great bulk of the shipyards normally in peace-time producing the high-power cargo liners, are now employed in what must come first—the production of high-powered warships.
    Mr. Shinwell: What about the shipowners?
    Mr. Hall: I am dealing with my hon. Friend. The experts charged with dealing with that matter have given it considerable thought and very careful examination, which involved tank experiments with models. Very close consideration has been given to the question of the output capacity on a very wide range, not only in shipyards and engine works, but also in industries right down to the raw material stage, and it can safely be said that the output of fast ships has been increasing, and will continue to increase, in a manner which could not have been achieved without an enormous amount of thought and planning. Every slip not in use for naval ships, which is physically capable of berthing a vessel of appropriate dimensions of the faster ship, is now engaged on such vessels. The chief aim of the ship construction policy of the Government is to build as quickly as possible those ships which can carry a maximum quantity of cargo with the greatest measure of speed, to make the best possible use of shipbuilding and marine engine capacity in this country to meet the needs of the war and to make as many fast vessels as possible without misusing available capacity. On the question of the cargo-carrying capacity of the small ship as compared with the large ship, it should be pointed out, and the House should understand it, that to put engine power for a speed of 15 knots into every tramp ship would mean that the total merchant tonnage produced would be reduced to a half of what it is at the present time. That is a consideration which the Government must take into account.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Would my right hon. Friend tell us the authority for that statement?
    Mr. Hall: The authority is the experts who are advising the Admiralty, and I do not know that the qualifications of the experts can be called into account. They are shipbuilders, not shipowners, who have done nothing but shipbuilding all their lives so far. Whatever might be the opinion about Sir James Lithgow, and the number of competent shipbuilders charged with the responsibility of advising the Admiralty and the Ministry of War Trans-port upon this question, surely my hon. Friends will give the Admiralty credit for taking the advice of men who have done a magnificent job for the nation since the
    754
    commencement of the war. I know of no experts whose reputation would stand higher in shipbuilding or shipowning than these persons who have been advising the Admiralty upon this subject.
    Mr. Shinwell: Read the shipbuilding journals.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The experts at the Admiralty could not build a small boat, let alone a big ship.
    Mr. Hall: Well, I know my hon. Friend is an excellent engineer, but I do not think even he could build a small boat, because he has not the knowledge or experience.
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is so, but I am not giving instructions to the Admiralty.
    Mr. Hall: I want to assure my hon. Friends that this question of fast shipping is constantly before the Admiralty, and the fact is that of the ocean-going vessels now on order and under construction about one-third are in the higher speed categories.
    Mr. Logan: Is my right hon. Friend now going away from the question of high-speed shipping?
    Mr. Hall: Yes, I was about to leave that topic.
    Mr. Logan: Well, coming as I do from the Merseyside and hearing the indictment which has been made, I would like to know whether, having built fast ships——
    Mr. Hall: I was about to reply to the specific point concerning the saving of fuel. I want to assure the House that what was done was not done for the purposes of economy. The ship referred to——
    Mr. Shinwell: Three ships.
    Mr. Hall: One of the ships referred to by my hon. Friend took on sufficient fuel to reach a certain port at full speed. It was discovered that there was an assembly of attacking submarines on the route through which the ships would have had to go, and this ship was, therefore, diverted from the normal route, with the result that the distance it had to travel was very much longer than the distance allowed for by the amount of oil fuel which was taken aboard. There was no instruction whatever that these ships

    755
    should go at a slower speed to save oil. As I have said, they started out with sufficient oil for a full-speed journey without deviation. I think the explanation is quite clear. The course had to be altered for safety reasons. Owing to the route being much longer, the ship could not go at full speed, but had to travel at reduced speed. There was no instruction that there should be a saving of fuel.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask one question? There are survivors of these ships, including officers. Has the question of what they think of the slowing down of these vessels been put to them? The officers ought to know.
    Mr. Hall: It is impossible to give a reply to that question.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will you inquire?
    Mr. Hall: I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with the information at his disposal, instead of throwing the charge across the Floor of the House, would have communicated with the Admiralty so that we could have made full inquiries.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is the old story.
    Mr. Hall: It may be the old story, but in my view it would have been the honourable thing for any hon. Member to have done if he had been under the impression that something which should not have been done had, in fact, been done. If what my hon. Friend has said is true, quite frankly, I say that the matter should be dealt with at once, but it would have been very much better if, when it had been brought to his notice, he would, out of feelings towards my right hon. Friend the First Lord or myself, have put it before the Admiralty so that we could have made inquiries into it at once instead of raising the matter on the the Floor of the House, as he has done now.
    Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has answered it to his own satisfaction. What is he complaining about?
    Mr. Hal: I might have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend had he done what I regard as the decent thing.
    Mr. Shinwell: We always get that sort of thing.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) made an eloquent speech about conditions in shipyards and referred to one special section—and a very important section—of the men who are employed in shipbuilding, namely, the engineers. He complained about what he called low wages which the engineers are paid and spoke of the pressure which he has put on the Admiralty and the Ministry of Labour with a view to increasing the rate. Well, my hon. Friend must know that the policy of the Government, which was laid down by the Minister of Labour, who is charged with this matter, is to leave questions of conditions of employment and wages to the conciliation machinery which has for so long served the nation and industry so well. Indeed, my hon. Friend knows that for some months negotiations have been proceeding between the representative organisation of the engineering employers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union and that at this moment the executive of the organisation of which he himself is a member is asking the Minister of Labour to take steps to submit the claim for increased wages to the tribunal which has been set up to deal with these questions. Under circumstances such as that it was impossible either for my right hon. Friend the First Lord or the Minister of Labour to intervene, other than to take steps which the Minister of Labour has taken.
    We agree with my hon. Friend that these men are doing excellent work, although we do not share his expressed view as to the general attitude of the men in the shipyards. As was pointed out by the First Lord, the output last year, from new construction in the shipyards, exceeds the target. The target may be too low, but it was fixed by those persons competent to judge after the amount of material and labour available to bring about that target had been taken into consideration. From the point of view of repaired ships, tens of millions of tons have been repaired during the course of last year. Strangely enough, this week is the only week for a year when a ship awaiting repair has had to wait for a berth. It can be said, in connection with all the adaptations and conversions which have had to be carried out by the shipbuilding and repairing industry of the country, that it can be said on the whole the men in the yards are

    757
    doing, and have done, a magnificent job of work.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Government, led by the Minister of Labour, have laid it clown that everything is to be organised through trade union machinery. This is a question of engineers' wages, at the rate of 1s. 813/16d. per hour. Negotiations have been going on for five months, and what I am asking the Government to do is to intervene and tell the employers of labour that they must make terms with the men. The men have beaten all records in shipbuilding up to date, even making allowances for the trouble there has been. I have here the name of every ship that has been built and repaired in Britain. The men have beaten all records, and because of that I again appeal to the Government to use their influence to see that the just demands of the men are met at once.
    Mr. Hall: I am speaking to my hon. Friend now as a trade unionist——
    Mr. Gallacher: Do not make an alibi of the trade unions; do your job and see that the men get justice.
    Mr. Hall: It was only on Monday, I understand, that the Government were asked to intervene in the matter, and within a few hours the Minister of Labour had taken action to see that this claim in regard to wages should be dealt with. One could not have much more expedition than that.
    I am afraid I have taken up much more time than I had anticipated I would. A number of questions were put to the Admiralty with which I have not been able to deal, but I assure my hon. Friends who put the questions that my right hon. Friend the First Lord will examine each of the points raised and, if necessary, will communicate with hon. Members with regard to them. I hope now that we shall be able to come to the Amendment that is to be moved.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: Will the First Lord take special note of the reference I made to pay and allowances, because I assure him it is a matter of the utmost importance, and will he endeavour to get the remainder of the Government to give an early day for further discussion of that matter?
    Mr. Hall: I would point out that that matter concerns not only the Navy but
    758
    the other Services. I can assure my hon. Friend that the First Lord has taken full note of what he said on the matter.

  WOMEN'S ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE
  Mr. Holmes: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House desires to record its admiration of the part played by the members of the Women's Royal Naval Service in the present conflict and to express the opinion that a still further extension of their activities should be considered."
  Yesterday the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) showed concern when he discovered that to-day, the first occasion on which, since your election, Mr. Speaker, you have called upon the Clerk at the Table to read the Orders of the Day, the first Motion to be put was "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." That Motion was moved by the First Lord some hours ago, and in moving my Amendment, I hope I have removed entirely from the mind of the hon. Member for West Fife any vestige of concern he might still have felt.
  Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for some information? I understand that the hon. Member has moved an Amendment which would narrow the Debate. Is it intended later to return to the main Question on which we have been discussing probably the most vital matters the House could discuss?
  Mr. Speaker: It is always the custom that when the Amendment has been disposed of, the original Question stands, and can be discussed again.
  Mr. Holmes: In the Spring of 1939, at the request of the Commander of Home Forces, the Board of Admiralty agreed to form the Women's Royal Naval Service, with what may be called the following terms of reference:
  "To supplement the man-power of the Royal Navy by releasing for combatant duties personnel who would otherwise be required for naval duties in establishments ashore."
  I draw the attention of the House to the three words—"naval establishments ashore"—to which I shall refer a little later in my remarks. In September, 1939, the W.R.N.S. numbered about 1,500. The majority were employed in clerical, domestic and communications duties.

  759
  From that time onward there has been a continual increase in the numbers, and at the end of 1942 there were 40,000 Wrens. The intake for the present year is expected to amount to 20,000, so that by the end of 1943 the Service will have in all 60,000 women. The number of categories in which Wrens have been employed has been continually increased. They are now employed in more than 60 categories, and have taken over much technical and operational work and many posts of considerable responsibility. Practically all the new categories allotted to the W.R.N.S. during the past year have been of a technical nature. The Wrens have responded enthusiastically to these new calls and have taken intensive courses of training.
  It is impossible for me to narrate here all the 60 categories in which they are now employed, but it may be mentioned that they are repairing and testing the radio sets of the Fleet Air Arm, testing and adjusting torpedoes and depth charges, servicing the electrical equipment of coastal craft, and doing a hundred and one other jobs that were formerly done by men. I regret very much that my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) is unable to be here to-day, because he would have been able to tell us something of the work of the W.R.N.S. as he has seen it on the ship of which he has had charge and from his observations when on service; but all of us, whether or not we represent, as I do, constituencies with ports, have had an opportunity of seeing what splendid services these women are rendering. I think the whole House would desire me to give praise to the Director of the W.R.N.S., Mrs. Laughton Matthews, and to all the officers and women who are serving under her.
  I have said that the original appointment referred to establishments ashore. The first point I want to put to the Civil Lord is whether that can now be modified and whether the W.R.N.S. can go afloat. I can quite believe that in the Spring of 1939, when the Service was instituted, the Admiralty felt it was unnecessary for women to go afloat. I think all of us would have said so, too, at that time; but during the past few months we have heard from the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Labour how great is the shortage
  760
  of man-power and how necessary it is for us to release every young man who can be spared for the purpose of combatant service in one of the three Services. Moreover, we have seen in industry accomplishments by women that have surprised all of us. In all trades women are to-day doing jobs which, before the war, it was thought that only men could do, and they are doing them thoroughly well. Surely, the Admiralty, in its turn, must consider whether there are not afloat jobs such as communications, supply and clerical work which could be done by women, so releasing young men for harder service.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the hon. Member say on what type of ships he proposes these Wrens should go?
  Mr. Holmes: I am told that the bigger the ship the easier it would be to make arrangements. I have put this matter to the Civil Lord because I have been asked to do so by a large number of women who are in this Service. The second question I want to ask is whether the W.R.N.S. can be continued after the war. Many women love this work, and they want to know whether they can make a profession of it. We hope that this war will be the final war, but we have learned in this war, as a lesson from the previous war, that if once you abolish a Department it takes two years to get it going again, and if after this war the W.R.N.S. were discontinued and if there should be another war, it would take two years to get the Service going again. Let me say, in conclusion, that throughout industry and in the three Services the women of Britain are taking their place in the battle for freedom beside their menfolk. I can say that the Women's Royal Naval Service are proud that they have been chosen to work and fight—I use the word deliberately—side by side with the men in the Royal Navy. Whatever calls may be made upon them, they are ready to do their utmost to uphold the great traditions of the Service of which they form a small part.
  Mr. Jewson: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am glad of this opportunity of seconding the Amendment, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes), I have been very much impressed by the work the W.R.N.S. is doing in my own constituency. When it

  761
  was first proposed to introduce women in large numbers into what used to be called, as we have been reminded in the Debate, the "silent Service," I have no doubt the proposal gave rise to some misgivings, but if indeed that was the case, such misgivings have long since vanished. The last controversy I heard of in connection with the Wrens was about the shape of the hat they ought to wear. I think now that that important point has been satisfactorily settled, there is nothing to stand in the way of further progress in the Service. My own Service experience having been with the Army, I have always found the strange nomenclatures of the other Services a little difficult, but I think it was a third officer who told me that, starting right at the foot of the ladder about three years ago, she had changed her status no less than nine times in reaching her present rank. I mention that because it shows that in this Service ability soon meets with its due reward, and that is a very encouraging feature.
  It has already been said that the Wrens are doing a great variety of jobs. I want to refer to a few of them which I happen to have seen myself. Some are acting as messengers. I think some of the admirals still gaze on them with a mild surprise. We expect to find them typing letters. Naturally they seem quite at home when it comes to cooking and serving meals, though when one learns they are expected to feed hungry sailors in any number at any hour of the 24 and without any notice, we realise that this calls for considerable skill and organising ability. But besides these more or less expected occupations, I have seen them engaged in scraping and painting motor boats, working on engines, and sometimes in the cramped surroundings of the engine rooms of small ships, and on these small ships they actually go out to sea in order to make sure that the work they have been engaged upon has been successfully clone. I have seen them testing many kinds of apparatus, repairing guns and working on torpedoes and, moreover, successfully taking charge of stores where they are surrounded with gadgets of such a bewildering number that their infinite variety can only be compared with that which the poets attribute to women themselves. In my constituency, though nowhere else at present, they are also engaged in training sailors in a very important part of their fighting work. It
  762
  is obvious that these Wrens take a real pride in the work they are doing and thoroughly enjoy doing it and, as the reward for good work is said to be more work, and they have proved themselves to be equal to all these calls, I think the scope of the calls, wide as it already is, might still be extended. I am sure the House will share the admiration expressed in the Amendment and I hope it will share also in the desire to make even further use of the abilities which have been displayed.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I am very glad indeed to associate myself with the Amendment. Having had the privilege of being a member of the Women's Services Committee, under the able and inspiring chairmanship of Miss Violet Markham, I am sure I shall not be ruled out of Order if I say that at the end of our inquiry, and after visiting a very large number of camps, stations and naval bases of all sorts and descriptions, one really felt a sincere and equal admiration for all three Services. When history comes to be written, a very stirring and remarkable story will be told of what our women have done in the Army, Navy and Air Force. One thing is certain. It will shatter once and for all the illusion that women cannot keep a secret. The Navy has been called the silent Service and I expect the Lords of the Admiralty bet their sea boots that women would carry on the tradition, otherwise they would hardly have sent them to attend the Casablanca Conference. We are only able, on this occasion, to discuss the Women's Royal Naval Service, which is a small force compared with the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F.s. They have not had the strain of sudden and rapid expansion, and have therefore been able to expand in a more ordered and selective manner. Nevertheless, their duties now range from between 60 and 100 different categories.
  Let me refer to one or two specially interesting things that they are doing. Wrens now form boat crews for harbour launches. They have been doing this for two winters as well as summers, and I am told by friends in the Navy that they handle their boats with very great skill. They are also assisting in the routing of convoys, both coastal and ocean. In a recent long signals course for both men and women it was a Wren who topped the list of successful candidates, and she is

  763
  now a duty signal officer at an important naval headquarters, replacing a naval officer who has gone overseas. Remarkable as these achievements are, it must never be forgotten that the work done by cooks and orderlies, though far less spectacular, is no less important. There is still a shortage of cooks in all the women's Services. In many places that I have visited they were considerably under establishment which, of course, greatly increases the pressure of their work. I should like to draw attention to the paragraph in the Women's Services Report which deals with this matter. Let me quote the last few lines:
  "Cooks and orderlies serve at key points in the present struggle, for content and discontent in the ranks is largely determined by their efforts. We think officers in charge should constantly seek to impress this view not only on domestic personnel, but on all other ranks who owe so much to their service, remembering that all work ranks the same according to the spirit in which it is performed."
  I should like to ask the Civil Lord a few questions in connection with some of the recommendations of the Markham Committee. Can he say why it has not yet been found possible to place the W.R.N.S. under the Naval Discipline Act? The Admiralty probably thinks they are paying a great compliment to the good behaviour of the Wrens by not doing so, but we recommended this, not so much from the point of view of discipline as for uniformity of status. What exactly are the practical difficulties of bringing them into line with the other two Services? The W.R.N.S. are often referred to as part and parcel of the Navy, and I do not think anyone could exaggerate the wonderful esprit de corps that exists between the men and women. Should a Wren desire to desert—it does not happen often, but there are oases—surely it is a decided weakness that at present it is not possible to take any action. Perhaps also the Civil Lord will say whether the examination of the immobile units of the W.R.N.S. has yet been completed. Rightly or wrongly—I suppose because nearly a third were recruited on an immobile basis and live at home—there is still a widespread belief in the minds of the public that there are many immobile Wrens to-day who could and should be mobile, and in view of the drastic new Regulation which has recently been made
  764
  by the Minister of Labour, it will be a great help if my hon. Friend can clear the matter up.
  Can he also tell us whether any more women doctors have been appointed to reception centres and commands? At the time of our inquiry there was only one woman doctor on the staff of the Medical Director General. I think she acted as liaison officer to the Director of the W.R.N.S. In view of the steady expansion of the Service we felt that this was totally inadequate, and I hope we may hear that more women doctors have been appointed. Can he also give the House any idea as to the extent to which W.R.N.S. officers are replacing duty staff officers at commands, and is it not a fact that there are still a number of naval officers at the Admiralty itself who could be replaced by W.R.N.S. officers? After three and a half years these W.R.N.S. officers must have gained a considerable amount of knowledge of naval administration. I wonder, too, whether the Admiralty have done anything with regard to our recommendation for selective intelligence tests. Everyone before joining is asked to produce three references, but we felt that these selective intelligence tests before the medical examination are in the best interests of the recruit herself as well as of the Service. I understand that there is a system of intelligence tests for men before joining the Navy and that these tests are given by the W.R.N.S. themselves. A friend told me that he was "fairly put through it" the other day by a Wren.
  I should like to ask a question about education. Up to a certain point I fully realise that Service life is an education in itself, but have any further steps been taken to stimulate educational and cultural interests among the vast number of women engaged in ordinary everyday routine work? Perhaps the most depressing thing that we found during our inquiry was the total lack of interest shown by all three Women's Services in anything that savoured of education. Over and over again, I was told that the girls simply were not interested and did not have time. In fact, to put over education at all, it had to be disguised as recreation and made bright and amusing. When I once suggested to a group of girls—I will not say to which Service they belonged—that they might like a talk

  765
  about the war, they said, "We do not bother about that. We want to enjoy ourselves in our own time." I am not blaming them for this. It is largely our fault, and it is a very serious reflection on our educational system during pre-war years. But I do know it is a Heaven-sent opportunity to do something now to rectify our failure of the past. It is essential for this purpose that an adequate number of education officers of proper senior rank and standing should be appointed. They may not be easy to find, but what opportunities await those who are willing and capable of undertaking this work. I am sure that at the O.C.T.U.'s the importance of this work cannot be over emphasised, and I am very glad to see that the length of these courses has been extended.
  I think regular discussions in training time, on the lines of A.B.C.A., make an excellent beginning, and one which is already proving satisfactory in the Army, both among men and women. If women are to play their full part with men in the reconstruction after the war they must prepare themselves now, and it is essential that they should have a sound knowledge of what we are fighting about, what we are fighting against and above all, what type of world we are fighting to establish for the future generation. I should like also to pay a special tribute to the Director of the W.R.N.S. She seems to me to combine two very important qualities in a leader, great humanity and sound commonsense. These qualities have assisted to build up complete harmony and confidence between Wrens of all ranks.
  Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of Order. Is it proper to praise individual servants of the Crown when we are debarred from criticising them?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear what the hon. Lady was saying. Sometimes a little praise does not come amiss, and it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule.
  Sir H. Williams: She was saying that a certain officer of the W.R.N.S. was entitled to great praise. If that is permissible, on a future occasion it will be permissible to say that a certain officer of the W.R.N.S. is very bad. The proper way is to direct our criticism to the head of the Service and not to any serving officer.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We do not usually mention
  766
  Service people by name. The responsible person is the Minister who, however, rightly often mentions them by name.
  Mrs. Keir: I am sorry if I have done anything Wrong. I will only conclude by saying that the W.R.N.S. are a most efficient, successful and happy Service and one to which we are all glad and proud to pay a tribute.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Could my hon. Friend elaborate her proposal that the W.R.N.S. should have education courses? They are at work for considerable hours during the day, and does she propose that the education should be carried out compulsorily in their own time? It would be a little difficult to take them from their work and do it in their working hours.
  Mrs. Keir: I agree that there are difficulties in these matters, but where there is a will there is a way, and where people have really wanted to start discussion groups during training periods in the A.T.S. they have been able to find ways of doing so. I am certain that the same could be done in the W.R.N.S.
  Miss Rathbone: Is it not just as possible for the women to receive education through A.B.C.A. as for the men? It has been possible in the Army, so why should it not be possible in the W.R.N.S.?
  Mrs. Keir: I quite agree.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): In the normal course of events this is the one opportunity for the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to say anything to the House of Commons, and I am very fortunate in having a subject so pleasant and interesting as that of the W.R.N.S. to deal with. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) is to be congratulated on choosing this Amendment, which draws attention to the magnificent work that has been done and is still to be done by the W.R.N.S., a branch of our war effort which might be described by hon. Ladies in this House as being the "better half" of the Senior Service. The W.R.N.S. serve in practically every shore establishment of the British Navy. They serve in the headquarters of the great Commands, they serve in the small harbour craft, they serve in far away islands such as the Shetlands, they serve in the Middle East, they serve

  767
  in South Africa, and they served in Singapore, and no doubt very shortly will be serving there again. They served at Casablanca when the President and the Prime Minister met. There is a branch now in Canada which is doing extremely well. Wherever the W.R.N.S. have gone they have carried with them that high standard of work and conduct which we have learned to know and appreciate at home.
  They were first created in a dark hour of peril for this country in 1917. They were resurrected in another dark hour of peril in 1939. By the end of that year they numbered some 3,000. By the end of 1940 they numbered some 10,000. By the end of 1941 they numbered some 20,000. By the end of 1942 they numbered some 40,000. I agree with hon. Members that this is a fitting opportunity to pay a tribute not only to the Service as a whole but to that small band of leaders who fashioned this Service. The success which they have achieved has been due not only to the gallant response that was made by so many women to the country's call, but also and particularly to the careful handling, selection and training by those from whom the great organisation which we know to-day has sprung.
  I should like first to deal with the Mark-ham Committee, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Keir). To give this Committee its correct name, it is the Committee on Amenities and Welfare Conditions in the Three Women's Services. Their Report is of the greatest value, and its authors may well feel that they have justified the stand which certain hon. Ladies took in the House that in the personnel of this Committee women should predominate over men. On 17th November I informed my hon. Friend that the position then was that of the recommendations in the Report which concerned the W.R.N.S., nine were already in practice or would be adopted. The position now is that of the 33 recommendations which concern the W.R.N.S. all have been accepted, with four exceptions. I should like to say a word about these four. As regards the 6th recommendation, which suggested that visits should be paid by women Directors and their Deputies without prior notice being given, it was considered that it would be more in conformity
  768
  with existing naval practice that notice should continue to be given to the Commanders-in-Chief of the areas.
  Recommendation No. 9, which dealt with the Naval Discipline Act, is still being considered. If any hon. Member thinks that some time has elapsed while it has been considered, I can assure him that there is no urgency about it, because the discipline in the W.R.N.S. is so extremely good. It may be however that at a later date it will be desirable to have the Naval Discipline Act in force in the W.R.N.S. The question of adopting it, therefore, is being considered. No. 21, which recommended that the W.R.N.S. should take recruits of the same medical grades as the other two Services, has not been considered necessary, in the light of the general recruiting position. If that position deteriorated in the future, or if it was held that the W.R.N.S. were getting an unfair advantage in the recruits which they were receiving, this recommendation would be reconsidered. As regards No. 35, the welfare system which is referred to has only partial application to the Navy. The Navy has its own organisation. Comforts and amenities are distributed under the existing War Amenities organisation, and this works very well.
  I want to say a word about W.R.N.S. accommodation. The House will appreciate that at this stage of the war we have to do all we can to conserve building material and labour. This inevitably entails a large amount of requisitioning. Hon. Members know the inconvenience and sometimes distress which requisitioning can cause. The vast majority of the people who have been concerned have been most generous and forthcoming in this matter. They have realised that it is in the national interest and have been ready to make personal sacrifice for the sake of the well-being and training of the Services. The W.R.N.S. are still expanding, and without doubt a great deal more requisitioning will be necessary. I want to use this opportunity to emphasise the need for this requisitioning and to ask for the co-operation of all concerned. I need hardly say that in all cases the most careful preliminary inquiries are made, and wherever there are a number of residences to choose from, we always prefer that residence where least hardship would be caused. It is a curious fact that some parts of the country are more forthcoming in this matter than others, and it would

  769
  be a great help if hon. Members could on occasion emphasise that the temporary giving-up of a house is a real contribution towards the winning of the war and the speedier enjoyment by all of us of our own homes.
  This Amendment suggests still further expansion of W.R.N.S. activities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich has drawn attention to the expansion that has already taken place. The House will be interested to know what the rate of expansion was. In 1940, 18 new types of work were added to those with which the Service had started. In 1941, 15 further types of works were added and in 1942 a further 11. The present outlay of the work which the W.R.N.S. do is, broadly speaking, divided into four main branches. The first branch is Clerical, and the standard of efficiency is extremely high. The second branch is Communications, which have made considerable advances in complexity from the days of flags to the days of switchboards and teleprinters. The third division, consisting of about 30 per cent. of the whole, is the Domestic category. This proportion was reduced about the middle of last year because of the national shortage, and at one time it was the least attractive draw for new recruits. It is typical of the W.R.N.S. that when the need for an increase in this category was explained and emphasised the trend of recruiting began to go up again, and the position now, although not yet satisfactory, has improved. Any improvement in this category has the double effect of bettering the service given and of shortening the hours and lessening the efforts of those who give this service. The fourth main category is Technical, and this includes plotting of ships and aircraft, radio, meteorology and the like.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich suggested that a further expansion of the service given by the W.R.N.S. could take place afloat. "Can the W.R.N.S. go afloat?" he asked. The answer is that the principle of W.R.N.S. serving afloat is not objected to by the, Admiralty. I have no doubt that if you gave the W.R.N.S. half a chance, they would be perfectly prepared to sail a battleship. In fact, when the Wrens go overseas now they do take part in service on the ship and help the men in a good many ways day by day. But the real difficulty about this proposal is accommodation on board. In all designing today
  770
  the utmost and absolute economy of space has to be effected, and quite obviously if men and women are serving alongside you cannot have the same economy of space as if there are men only. That is the real objection to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but at the same time I can assure him that if, when and where it is found practicable to employ Wrens afloat that will certainly be done. The second point which he made about the expansion of the W.R.N.S. was continuation in the post-war years. He emphasised the difficulty which there is in stopping any Service and then restarting if—which we all hope will not happen—a similar crisis arises again. I would point out however that in 1939 the W.R.N.S. started pretty well and have never looked back. But the general answer to his point is, of course, that it concerns more than the W.R.N.S. It concerns the other women's Services as well and is, in fact, a matter for the whole Government. I can assure him that the question has not been forgotten and is being considered at this present time, but I cannot say more than that now.
  One or two other points were raised by the hon. Member for East Islington. She asked whether more women doctors were being appointed, and I think she said that at the time when the Mark-ham Report was made there was only one on the staff of the M.D.G. Since then another has been appointed at the biggest training establishment which the Wrens have at the present time, and more are in process of being appointed. She asked whether any figures could be given of the actual number of naval officers relieved by substituting Wrens. It is not possible to give any actual figures, for this reason, that besides replacing naval officers in the work which they have been doing in establishments the very fact that those establishments have in almost every case been expanding and that in that expansion Wrens have come in, makes any accurate estimation of the number of men relieved impossible. What I can say is that of the existing number of Wren officers two-thirds are doing non-administrative work, which means that they have, in fact, relieved naval officers. From that, I think, she can get some idea of the number of men who have been relieved to serve actually in the Fleet.
  Then she suggested, and the suggestion is in the Markham Report, that selective

  771
  intelligence tests for Wrens in the various categories of work should be made. We have found in the past that the recruiting officers on whom this responsibility has rested have made very few mistakes, but it will be appreciated that at this time we cannot afford that there should be any waste at all, and we are now proposing that, so far as mechanical categories are concerned, selective tests shall be introduced. That question is being examined now. Finally, she asked about education, saying that the Committee to which I have referred was rather unhappy about it. The present position is that there are regional committees under a Central Advisory Council for Adult Education in His Majesty's Forces. That is the broad organisation for everything. Generally speaking, the Wrens rely upon the local naval education officers. These have been increasingly active in the last few years, particularly in the Scottish and Western Approaches Commands. As to the suggestion that A.B.C.A. should apply to the Navy as much as to the Army, the A.B.C.A. booklets are already circulated to all W.R.N. units. There is a growing number of education courses for Wren officers, summer schools were organised last year which were very successful, and they will be repeated this year. In February this year a travelling lecturer was appointed to try to coordinate the efforts which are being made all over the country and this appointment is proving very successful indeed. Another officer is to be appointed in each Command to help on this question, as the importance of it is realised, and from small beginnings the education effort is now growing and becoming more and more substantial.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to say whether the examination of the immobile Wrens has yet been completed?
  Captain Pilkington: I am not quite certain about that. I will let my hon. Friend know.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman concludes, will he allow me to put to him one point upon the statement he made that the fact that the W.R.N.S. is not under the Naval Discipline Act is not an urgent matter because the discipline in the W.R.N.S. is
  772
  very good? I agree about the discipline in the W.R.N.S. being very good I come into contact with Wrens, and have a great admiration for what they do and the way they do it, but the point is that the Admiralty rightly look upon the W.R.N.S. as a naval organisation. Wrens are replacing naval officers and men to an increasing degree and doing naval work. They are all dressed in naval uniform, officers having the badges of rank—[Hon. Members: "Speech."]—I am only putting a point. They are all dressed in naval uniform, wearing the insignia of officers—captains, commanders and there is a rear-admiral. The hon. and gallant Member will realise that owing to the W.R.N.S. not being under the Naval Discipline Act the action that can be taken by a commanding officer against any Wren who does commit a fault is very different from what it would be otherwise I am only putting this point, as I hope the matter will be looked upon as a more urgent one than my hon. and gallant Friend made out.
  Captain Pilkington: I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's point. Although I have said that the matter is not an urgent one, I think he appreciates what I mean, and I can assure him that things are in full swing towards solving the problem. There are arguments on both sides, with which I will not bother the House now, but we will bear in mind the point he has raised.
  Now I am certain that beyond all the vital work which the Wrens are doing towards winning the war they are also producing something of a lasting value both for themselves and for the nation. They are widening and deepening their lives through the work they do, through the give-and-take of good discipline, and through comradeship in the service of the sea. They have become a real, living, integral part of the Royal Navy, and all that that implies, with its centuries of great tradition and high performance. It is very fitting that we should pay them the tribute they have earned and record our gratitude and our admiration for the service they have given and have yet to give.
  Mr. Holmes: I should like to congratulate the Civil Lord of the Admiralty upon the reply which he has made to my Amendment and the charming manner in

  773
  which he has dealt with it, and I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: It is sometimes said that this House does not reflect public opinion outside. In my opinion this House does reflect public opinion. I have listened to almost all the speeches made in this Debate last week and to-day, and running through them all has been a feeling of difficulty as regards the U-boat menace and the position of our shipping. I think that what has been said in this House is a reflection of the anxiety which is felt outside the House that things may not be quite so good as they appear to be on the surface. Our hope of opening an offensive against Germany in Europe depends, not upon the number of men in the Army nor upon their equipment but upon whether we have sufficient ships and sea power to transport the Army to wherever we want to send it, and to maintain it when it has arrived there, and upon our having sufficient air power to ensure the protection of the convoys, of the Army once it has been landed and of the sea lines of communication upon which that Army will inevitably have to depend. It is true to say that, in the last resort, it is upon the Merchant Navy that the whole Allied war effort depends—a Merchant Navy that has been short all through this war, and is still short of the surface vessels and aircraft essential to its needs, because, we, in our blind folly, in the past failed to build and maintain sufficient numbers of cruisers, destroyers, corvettes and suitable aircraft.
  To me, it is a grim thought that thousands of seamen of the Royal Navy and of the Merchant Service have paid with their lives for the negligent stupidity which forced upon this country the London Naval Treaty. I gladly pay my tribute to the First Lord of the Admiralty—I am only sorry that another very important duty has taken him from the House at this moment—for his interest in and love for His Majesty's Navy, but he cannot escape his responsibility for that Treaty. Whatever we may say or do, history will, I am afraid, convict him. In his speech last week he paid a well-deserved tribute
  774
  to the work of the Navy. Its record during this war has not only been magnificent; it has been unequalled. To the Navy, the Air Force and the Mercantile Marine, Christian civilisation owes a debt which it will never be able to repay. Our hope of victory rests upon our ability to defeat the German submarines and to get our convoys through.
  I wonder whether the general public realise how desperately serious is the shipping position at the present time and how grave is the U-boat menace with which we are faced. I sometimes wonder whether we are altogether wise in withholding from our people information as to the merchant tonnage which has been lost, all the more so because we publish in the Press—and if we choose to listen we can hear over the wireless—the German claims of what they have sunk, while, at the same time, our American Allies publish what purport to be official figures. I appreciate that the German claims may be put forward in the hope that information will be extracted from us which the Germans do not already possess, and it may be true that their claims are exaggerated; but I cannot help thinking that the Germans have a fairly accurate picture of the damage which has been done by the U-boat. That being so, and in view of the vital importance of shipping to the war effort, I believe that the time has come to tell the people of this country, plainly and squarely, exactly where we stand. What is the good of saying that we are planning to build millions of tons of merchant shipping to replace sinkings, when we do not know whether we are building the right kind of ship? The sinking of three or four large liners does greater harm to our war effort than the sinking of double that number of merchant ships, because it is only in the liner that you can carry large numbers of troops if you want to open up a second front or send out an expedition. I would remind the House that big liners take a longer time to build than do ordinary merchant cargo-carrying vessels, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) well knows.
  Mr. Kirkwood: But is it not the case that a big liner has a better chance of escape than the smaller liner?
  Sir A. Southby: Certainly the faster ship has a better chance of escape, but the point I am trying to make is that if you

  775
  lose two or three liners the damage to your war effort is greater than if you lose two or three ordinary cargo-carrying vessels. Nothing replaces the big liner for the carriage of troops. Ever since the war began there has been a tendency, until perhaps quite recently, to suggest to the British public that they have not much to worry about as regard the U-boat menace. Speaking on 17th October, 1939, the Prime Minister, then First Lord of the Admiralty, cheered this House and the whole nation by telling them that out of 60 German U-boats which were in action at the beginning of the war, one-third had been sunk or seriously damaged and that the gap in the skilled crews could not be speedily replaced. Then he referred to the tonnage lost and to the replacements which had been made, and he went on to say.
  "It will be seen, therefore, that while our Mercantile Marine remains practically unaffected by the U-boat warfare, losses have been inflicted upon the enemy, which, if continued, could certainly not be endured."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1939; col. 688, Vol. 352.]
  One can hardly wonder if the impression made on the minds of the general public was that they had very little to fear from the U-boat menace in this war. We understand now from the First Lord of the Admiralty that we inflict heavy losses, greater losses, presumably, than at that time, upon German U-boats. I would call the attention of the House, if it were necessary to do so, to the fact that the gaps in the skilled crews have been filled and more than filled, and that the German capacity for turning out U-boats is now seen to be incredibly great. We are not the only country that had a lesson to learn in 1917. We might have expected that Germany realising how near she came to victory in 1917—within three weeks of victory—would concentrate upon the overhaul, not only of methods of U-boat construction but upon the whole question of the strategic employment of submarines in wartime.
  On 6th December, 1939, the Prime Minister, then First Lord of the Admiralty, spoke of the very great reinforcements of our hunting craft. If the House will bear with me I will quote what he said. It was:
  "I must again repeat the warning which I gave to the House in September that a steady flow of losses must be expected, that occasional
  776
  disasters will occur, and that any failure upon our part to act up to the level of circumstances would immediately be attended by grave dangers. It is, however, my sure belief that we are getting the better of this menace to our life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1939; col. 690, Vol. 355.]
  All through the next year, 1940, the weight of the U-boat attack increased and the terrible tide of sinkings continued to rise. It was perhaps inevitable that the great and tragic events of 1940 should have obscured the importance of the unseen and unceasing battle which was going on in the Atlantic. The Prime Minister took command of the ship of State at a time of danger and anxiety such as has seldom been experienced by this country. With all the terrible preoccupations which must have pressed upon him and which do still press upon him, it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect him to find time to concentrate upon the technical question of antisubmarine warfare, even though its importance does in fact transcend everything else. The responsibility for what was done or left undone, rests primarily upon the Board of Admiralty.
  In the Debate on the Address which took place on 4th December, 1940, I ventured to raise what I believed to be and still believe to be a matter of absolute and paramount importance. I said that our vital spot lay in the Western approaches to these islands, that it was there the attack was being developed and pressed by the German submarines, that they were employing a new technique against our seaborne trade, and that, thanks to the collapse of France and the denial to us of the use of the bases in Eire, Germany was making our task infinitely more difficult than it had been in the last war. I ventured to go on to say this:
  "A golden axiom in all warfare is that a new weapon is best answerd by a similar new weapon on the other side. There is no real and efficient answer to the new menace against our seaborne trade, if we rely solely on the operations of surface-craft."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1940, col. 598, Vol. 367.]
  I ventured also to say that the answer must come from the use of aircraft and that these would have to be controlled entirely by the Navy. I went on to say that the matter brooked of absolutely no delay. I said that Germany knew very well what was our vulnerable spot, that the tale of sinkings was even then going up and that I did not believe that we were

  777
  replacing the lost tonnage as quickly or as efficiently as we could. In winding up the Debate, the Lord President of the Council assured the House that the vital importance of the matter had not been underestimated by His Majesty's Government. Once again, I beg the indulgence of the House to let me quote what he said:
  "These and connected problems are among the main preoccupations of the Defence Committe over which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presides. I know that the Prime Minister himself with his unrivalled experience in these matters is giving constant consideration to the question of enemy attack from underseas and from the air, upon our ships in convoy."
  Of course, ultimate responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister, and heaven knows, his shoulders are broad enough. He bears a burden such as very few men have ever borne, but it is unfair to put every burden in this country upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister. Primarily, it is the duty of the Admiralty to beat the submarine. The Lord President of the Council went on in that speech to say that he had been Minister of Shipping in the last war, that he had watched our losses ebbing and flowing but, in spite of our anxious times then, he had never had any doubt that an answer, and a complete answer, would be found to what he called
  "the varying methods of attack adopted by a resourceful enemy."
  He went on to say:
  "The same confidence can justly sustain us now, provided we are assured, as we can be assured, that Members of His Majesty's Government who are directly concerned and their technical naval advisers are leaving nothing undone to find an early and effective solution of this grave problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1940; col. 628, Vol. 337.]
  That was over two years and three months ago. Surely we are entitled to ask whether the Members of His Majesty's Government who are directly concerned, and their technical naval advisers, have left nothing undone to find an effective solution of this problem.
  When that Debate took place we had just lost 90,000 tons of merchant shipping in the previous week. If that rate was to be maintained, then we certainly had not found a solution of our problem. In yesterday's paper I read that, up to date in the month of March alone, Germany claims that she has sunk 97,100 tons of our merchant shipping. Let the House observe this: The continued sinking of
  778
  90,000 tons a week would have resulted in the sinking of 4,680,000 tons a year. I venture to suggest that if anyone had stood up in that Debate and said that that rate was likely to be continued he would have been, I will not say shouted down, but he would have been dubbed a defeatist and a prophet of woe. Without the slightest doubt, people would have said, "Here you are preaching gloom and despair. No one suggests that this rate will be maintained." But what are the figures to-day? For the first six months of 1942 Germany claimed to have sunk in all theatres of war 616 Allied ships totalling 3,843,200 tons. In the beginning of January this year they claimed that during the whole of 1942 they had sunk 1,283 merchant vessels totalling just under 8,000,000 tons.
  I am perfectly prepared to admit that this figure is exaggerated, but even if it is halved, it would show a rate of sinking greater than that which it would have been regarded as reasonable to expect in 1940. But are we justified in halving it? I know that in this country we are denied information as to the sinkings. The decision may be right, of it may be wrong, but in the United States of America things are different. An American, Admiral Clark H. Woodward, in the first week of February this year, told his countrymen that Allied shipping losses for 1942 were estimated at 7,000,000 tons and that the Allied replacements were only 1,000,000 tons greater than that. It would seem, therefore, that the German figure of 8,000,000 tons is not so very far out. If that is so the members of His Majesty's Government and their technical naval advisers would seem to have been singularly unsuccessful in their efforts to discover what the Lord President of the Council called an early and effective solution of the grave problem. Let the House realise this, that whereas the present Prime Minister, when First Lord of the Admiralty, voicing as he must have been voicing, the considered opinion of his expert naval advisers in the Admiralty, said, at the end of November, 1939, that Germany was probably adding to her U-boat strength at the rate of two new boats every week and that that would mean that by January 1940 we should have to face a U-boat strength of approximately 100 less sinkings—which he said, at a conservative estimate were anything

  779
  between two and four U-boats per week—we have now reached a position in which it is estimated that Germany is building anything from 20 to 30 new U-boats a month, that this record is twice as fast as the rate at which the Allies are sinking U-boats, and that during the next few months we will have to face a position in which Germany will have a U-boat strength of anything up to 600 boats.
  In the United States of America Rear-Admiral Emory Land, the War Shipping Administrator, addressing the National Geographic Society on 5th February, said that Germany according to reports, was building one U-boat per day. He did not question the figure but he did add that the menace to our shipping life lines was increasing. Admiral Woodward said that the increased threat to our Atlantic communications made the situation far more dangerous than it had ever been before, and he gave the people of the United States this warning, a most significant warning:
  "Unless the U-boats are beaten the Germans will delay or even prevent an Allied invasion of Europe."
  The "New York Times," on 21st January, 1943, was demanding an inquiry into the Allied conduct of U-boat warfare. The paper said that the gravity of the problem was still not remotely realised by the American people because of the censorship and information policy of the British and American Governments. The "New York Times" even suggested that no one supposed that the figures of sinkings which were published represented the real total.
  The Allied production of shipping is increasing, but unless the rate of sinkings goes down we are only building ships and filling them with vitally necessary and valuable cargoes in order to have them sent to the bottom. Of course we are sinking submarines, thanks to the magnificent work done by sailors and airmen, but unless we are sinking submarines faster than Germany can build them we cannot congratulate ourselves on winning the battle of the Atlantic. The Admiralty have had more than two years in which to find an effective solution of this problem. The fact is that our present situation proves that they have not yet found an effective solution. We have never had, and have not got now, enough escort or
  780
  hunting vessels and those we have are not sufficiently fast. It may be that we should have built faster merchant vessels, but I venture to say that the real neglect lies in our failure to design and build the right kind of aircraft for which some of us, at any rate, in this House have been pleading for more than two years.
  There are, perhaps, three main ways in which the U-boat menace may be met. The first is by convoying merchant ships. That is a specifically defensive method, and if it is to succeed there must be a sufficient number of fast escort vessels, and these we have not got. The second is impeding the construction of submarines. This can be done to a certain extent by bombing the places where they are built or assembled. Our bombers do their very best but bombing at its best is not very effective because it is possible to pre-fabricate submarines all over the country and then bring them to bombproof slips where they are assembled and launched. Germany may build the hulls of submarines, but unless she can get the engines for them she is done. Yet in spite of the information which the Admiralty must have been able to obtain for themselves, as well as information which was conveyed to them, to the effect that Burmeister and Wain's yard in Denmark was building vitally necessary submarine Diesel engines for Germany, no effort was made to bomb that yard until 28th January this year. There is every reason to believe that Burmeister and Wain's yard is not only capable of turning out Diesel engines but also the hulls of submarines and the hulls of surface craft. It is all very well to talk about the priority of targets but since the one place where we can lose this war is at sea it seems to me surely reasonable to suppose that everything that could stop the flow of Diesel engines for German submarines is a target of the utmost priority. Let the House realise that up to 28th January of this year Germany has had more than 34 months in which in Burmeister and Wain's yard alone they could construct Diesel engines in perfect peace and quietness.
  During the last war Sweden did all she could to help the German war effort. There is good reason to believe that torpedoes or parts of torpedoes were made in Karlskrohne in the last war, and sent into Germany. To-day the shipyards of Sweden, working in perfect peace and

  781
  quietness, have it in their power to supply the German war effort with many things that Germany so sorely needs at the present time for the prosecution of her submarine campaign against the Allies. If Germany was able to exercise pressure on Sweden in the last war, how infinitely greater is her capacity to exercise pressure on Sweden in this war. Sweden is ostensibly a neutral country. What steps have we taken, or are we taking, to assure ourselves that Germany is not making use of Swedish ship and engineering yards? We are fighting for our lives at the present time—no more, no less. We have got to stop the fabrication and operation of U-boats. If we can prove that Swedish yards are turning out submarines for Germany, we have got to bomb them.
  Mr. Stokes: Do I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to say that we ought now to declare war on Sweden?
  Sir A. Southby: No, Sir, I said nothing of the sort. I said that we should take steps to find out whether Sweden is supplying Germany with the means to continue the war at sea against the Allies. If she is and she does not stop it then, because we have to win this war or perish, we must take whatever steps are open to us.
  The third method of meeting the U-boat menace, and the most important of all in my opinion, is the employment of aircraft. They must be of a special type. There must be enough of them, and, above all, they must be under not only the operational but the administrative control of the sea Service, upon which devolves the responsibility for defeating the U-boat. On 19th December, 1940, I raised the question of the Fleet Air Arm in connection with the Battle of the Atlantic. I pointed out that ever since the last war the Admiralty had been pressing for complete control of aircraft taking part in naval operations, not only carrier-borne aircraft bat land-based aircraft, and that it was my deep conviction that unless the Admiralty had got under its control as many aircraft and aerodromes as it needed we could not, and we should not meet, satisfactorily the attacks made upon our shipping in the Western Approaches. I pointed out that unless those attacks could be met, we should not win the war. I said that, in my opinion, the only way those attacks, which were causing terrible
  782
  losses, could be met was by using long-distance aircraft. It is not a question of doing away with Coastal Command: I pay my tribute to the work done by the pilots and crews of Coastal Command. It is a question of allowing the Navy to have the right kind of aircraft. We have now lost two vital years. We have had the First Lord making a public speech in which he said that the people of this country ought to see to it that the Fleet Air Arm has the machines it wants. If in the past First Lords of the Admiralty and members of the Board of Admiralty had had the courage to tender their resignations because the Navy was being deprived of an Air Service which they knew perfectly well it was vitally necessary for the Navy to possess, we should not to-day be in our present perilous position.
  What was the use of the Deputy Prime Minister, then Lord Privy Seal, saying, as he did, in that Debate, that by raising the matter I was blowing on the embers of an old controversy? Let us stop talking of this vital matter in terms of some alleged controversial discussion. Sound war strategy demands that the Admiralty should have complete control of suitable land-based aircraft and aerodromes from which to operate them. Failure to concede this has, in my opinion, been the major cause of our failure to beat decisively the submarine menace. We have wasted vital years. The urgent necessities of the time and the national interests demand that the obstructive activities of certain individuals, notably Lord Trenchard, shall no longer be allowed to impede the undoing of a mistake the continued existence of which has gone far to prevent our conquest of the U-boat, and thereby cost us the lives of thousands of brave men, hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping and the precious cargoes that those ships carried. The future of mankind depends on the victory of the Allies. To win that victory we must beat the U-boat. To do that the Navy must have, and control, all the aircraft that it needs. To treat a matter of vital strategic importance as a departmental controversy is to fiddle while Rome is burning. And, believe me, Rome is burning to-day.
  Wing-Commander James: Since I shall take less than five minutes of the time of the House, I will not comment on the provocative remarks of the hon. and gallant Member

  783
  for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), except to refer to what I consider the major responsibility for the lack of success in the matter of direction to which he alluded. There were recently given in this House figures showing the remarkable disparity between the ages of the senior officers directing the three Fighting Services. I wish I could get the First Lord to realise that this issue is a live one. It is a fact, whether or not the First Lord will accept my assurance, that among the thinking and informed public and in the ranks of the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve there is strong feeling that the advanced age of the senior admirals is a mistake. May I point out to the First Lord the analogy of the Royal Air Force? I have not checked the actual figure by the pre-war Air Force List, but I think he will find that it is true that the five senior serving officers directing the strategic policy and the command of the Royal Air Force at the beginning of this war were all retired, for no reason except age, and that they were all younger than the present Lords of the Admiralty. They were all personal friends of mine, and no failure was held against them, but they were all retired to make room for younger men. This war has gone on for four years, and in the Navy the same elderly officers are directing affairs. You have, if I may so put it, a magnificent second level in the Navy—not children, but men in the late 40's and early 50's, who have had experience in this war. It is a tragic pity that the First Lord does not seem to realise the strength of feeling on this subject.
  Commander Agnew: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has spent his time during this war in travelling around the Fleet; but I have been in the Fleet, or in some form of it, during the past three years, and I have never heard these views expressed by officers or men in the Fleet.
  Wing-Commander James: While I do not pretend that my opportunities of knowing the views of the Fleet are as good as those of my hon. and gallant Friend, I do meet a large number of naval officers. If it were possible to convince the First Lord that there is substance in this point and to cause him to take action, I should at least have succeeded in persuading him not to be misrepresented to the public, as
  784
  he is being misrepresented, as either a rubber stamp or a post-prandial gramophone record.
  Sir. Cocks: Like a good many hon. Members, I propose to concentrate my remarks on the menace of the U-boat, which we all agree is the greatest menace that confronts the country to-day—far greater than the majority of people realise. Unless we overcome this menace, we might lose the war, or, more likely I think, run in to a stalemate. Until we have overcome the U-boat menace we cannot bring the massively-growing strength of Allied war production, especially in America, fully to bear on the enemy, and unless we overcome the U-boat menace quickly this present war may be prolonged for many years. I say, with, I think, the general agreement of the House, that the danger is very grave indeed. The attack upon us by means of the U-boat is Hitler's last hope. He has appointed as Commander-in-Chief of the Germany Navy, Admiral Doenitz, who is a very able man and a dangerous one. Last autumn he said that the day would come when the British shortage of shipping would become so acute that we should no longer possess the freedom of strategic decision.
  To bring this about, as hon. Members have said, Germany is concentrating the main part of her resources upon mass production of U-boats, making parts of the U-boats in inland places and then assembling them in dockyards and ports in different parts of Europe. She is sending them out in increasing numbers. In the last war I understand that Germany never at any one moment possessed more than 169 submarines. To-day she has between 400 and 500. She is building them, it is generally admitted, faster than they are being sunk. I saw one estimate, which rather agrees with that given by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) that Germany is building 30 U-boats a month and we are sinking 18 a month, leaving her with a balance of 12 a month. The First Lord will know whether the second figure is correct. If we are sinking more than 18, all the better.
  These U-boats are much faster than they were in the last war, more stoutly constructed and built and thus more difficult to destroy with depth charges. Their cruising range has been extended from

  785
  1,500 miles in the last war to 10,000 miles at the present time, and they can stay at sea for weeks and even months, and the Germans claim, and I think it is admitted, that they can now supply these U-boats by means of a submarine tanker that supplies them at sea, and that they can even be supplied with new crews. One claim that the Germans have made is that they have what they call a floating submarine dockyard which enables them to repair submarines at sea. That seems to me rather a tall story, but still it may be correct. In any case, it is conclusive that the capacity for destruction possessed by the U-boats is far greater than it was in the last war.
  With regard to this country's shipping losses, on which a good deal has been said to-day, it is stated that up to last August we lost more shipping than we replaced. Since then, owing to the marvellous shipbuilding programme of America, which last year built 8,000,000 tons of new shipping and expects this year to build 18,000,000 tons of new shipping, that is, if they get enough steel with which to do it, the balance is the other way. Still, sinkings are very heavy. The Government have been asked to disclose the figures. Some people think that they ought to disclose the figures, but the Government have refused to disclose them. Personally, if the Government feel that it would help the enemy if they disclosed the figures, I am not prepared myself to question that decision. Figures were quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom. It was claimed by the Germans that last year they sank 7,950,000 tons of shipping, and that represented a total of 1,283 ships, but that, I know, is an exaggeration. The American estimates are very high, though not quite so high. "Pertinax," the well known French writer, whom many of us will remember in the years preceding the war, writing from New York, says that the claim, not made, I think, in this country, that the 1942 sinkings are covered by replacements is only true if applied to merchant shipping only, and it would not be true if tankers and liners were included in the losses. Apart from all that, it is recognised that we have a very big leeway to make up, owing to sinkings in previous years. As the Canadian Minister of Munitions, Mr. Howe, said last December, the losses had been double the replacements since the beginning of the war.
  786
  That shows that there is a very big lag to make up.
  Whatever we may have in a year's time, we now, at this moment, have less shipping than we had at the beginning of the war. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir Arthur Salter), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, said the other day, the demands upon our cargo space are far greater than they were and are increasing rapidly, owing to the growing demand for the transportation of munitions from America. It is not pleasant for us to reflect that all the means of victory are being piled up in the United States of America if we are not able to bring them over here and fully deploy and use them in the theatre of war. We have all that to consider. As has been mentioned before, every ship that is sunk carries with it important cargo, tanks, guns and munitions, and very often many gallant men. A naval correspondent, writing the other day, said that even if the sinking were last year 4,500,000 tons, that would mean 6,500,000 tons of cargo a year on top of that, and that that meant a year's work by half a million men.
  Truly the Prime Minister was right When he described these sinkings as a repulsive and sombre panorama and stated when he last spoke in this House that we cannot rest content with losses on this scale.
  The U-boat menace is being fought magnificently by thousands of gallant men and by the machinery of this Government and the American Government. There are still ways by which that machinery can be improved, and I would like to mention some of them. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), speaking last week, mentioned the Anti-U-boat Committee. He said that there was no one on that Committee who knew anything whatever about submarines. I have a more serious criticism to make about that Committee. It is composed of some of the busiest men in this country, who have high departmental responsibilities, and surely a Committee consisting of such Ministers cannot, by meeting once a week, give undivided and continuous attention to this matter. These men have the cares of the Empire on their shoulders, and how can they give the continuous, day by day, and day and night attention which is required to cope with this danger which is striking at the

  787
  Empire's heart? There should be a Minister in charge of this Committee working night and day and doing nothing else at all. He should have assisting him representatives of Coastal Command, the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the American naval and air staffs and scientists of the two great countries. I understand that that is what Field-Marshal Smuts really wanted. We all understand that the Prime Minister is averse to such an arrangement, and I appeal to him—if my voice can reach him at all—to reconsider his decision on that matter and appoint such a Committee as Field-Marshal Smuts described, which would be a "supreme staff to supervise this special and deadly campaign."
  I would like the First Lord to tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour, which has appeared in America, that Admiral Sir Percy Noble is likely to be appointed commander-in-chief of the Anglo-American U-boat campaign. If he were to be so appointed, I think it would be a striking reply to the appointment of the German Admiral Doenetz. The appointments of Admiral Boyd and Admiral Portal to the Admiralty have delighted everybody; I think everybody agrees that they are the right men in the right place. But they will have a lot to do to make up the deficiencies which exist at the present time, especially as regards the equipment of the Fleet Air Arm. We all know the sorry story of how the Royal Naval Air Service led the world in 1914 and was destroyed; how after many years it began again with inferior weapons and equipment. I do not want to go into that controversy which seems to rage in another place, but I mention it in order to support the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hertford last week, that some recognition should be given to some of these early pioneers, especially Admiral Mark Kerr, who was badly treated, who suffered a great deal of mental agony as a result, and who is now not so young as he once was. I ask that he should be given some recognition of the great services he performed in the past. I know that the First Lord of the Admiralty is a generous-hearted man, and if he could see his way to support that suggestion, I think it would be a grateful gesture and one which would be approved by the Navy.
  788
  But because the Fleet Air Arm had to begin again with inferior weapons, there is no reason why it should now continue with inferior weapons, and I want now to put a serious question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I have here four names of firms—which, of course, I will not mention—which are supposed to be working for the Admiralty. Is it true—I have been told that it is and, if so, it seems to be almost unbelievable—that since the war none of these firms, which are supposed to be working for the Fleet Air Arm, has produced a single new type of machine which is able to fly.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is quite untrue.
  Mr. Cocks: The curious thing is that the Fleet Air Arm to-day is equipped with Hurricanes and Seafires which are Royal Air Force machines, and Martletts, American machines. It does not seen that the Admiralty have produced one of these modern machines. It is a good thing that the Fleet Air Arm is equipped with these machines, but two of them are Royal Air Force machines and one is an American machine, and the firms which are working for the Admiralty do not seem to have produced any machine of modern type. The Swordfish, which is eight years old and has a speed of only 90 miles an hour, has its uses I know, but not in the sight of an enemy plane. Last year the First Lord, in introducing the Navy Estimates, said that the Swordfish has been succeeded by the Albacore, which, he said, was largely in use to-day. That was a year ago. I understand that the Albacore has now been scrapped as obsolete and that the Fleet Air Arm has had to fall back on the Swordfish again. In view of these facts and the apparent lack of development of new aircraft, could the First Lord explain a little further what he meant when he said last week that new types of naval aircraft of British design were being developed? What are they, and who is developing them? It may be that they are being developed in America, but, so far as I can see, I do not know where any are coming from.
  I want to say a few words about torpedo-bombers, and may I say that if one hears things and thinks it is one's duty that they should be brought forward in the country's interests they should be brought forward? It is not that I want to attack

  789
  the First Lord at all, because he is a friend of mine and a man whom I have always liked. The Royal Naval Air Service were the pioneers in torpedo-bombers. In fact they actually supplied some after the Armistice to the American Navy. At the present time the American Navy have the best torpedo-bomber in the world, the Grumman Avenger, and the Fleet Air Arm has no first-class modern bomber at all. The First Lord has spoken many times of the Barracuda, which he told us last week had had an, unfortunate history, through delay. I want to say a word on that. Speaking 12 months ago on the Navy Estimates the First Lord said that there is a very much faster torpedo-bomber coming into active production which has been designed and developed for some considerable time. The work has been done, the preliminary tests and trials have been made and the plane is coming into active production. Later the First Lord referred to faster torpedo-bombers coming into production. That was on nth March, 1942. The machines coming into active production then have apparently failed to come into active production. Little more was heard of it. A month ago the First Lord said:
  "It is in the torpedo-bombing category that the shortage of modern aircraft has been most felt. The development and production of a torpedo bomber of modern design has been in hand for a long time and now that unforeseeable technical difficulties have been dealt with regular deliveries have been started."
  Later he said:
  "Technical difficulties caused a great deal of trouble but with the aid of the Ministry of Aircraft Production that has been dealt with and regular delivery has been started."
  Last Wednesday he said the Barracudas were coming from the factories in increasing numbers. Well, if one produces 10, that is an increasing number from five, or 20 is an increasing number from 10. Such a statement means little to anybody. I am informed that very few are expected this year. I do not expect the First Lord to say so, but I understand that the numbers forthcoming have been very small indeed. I am told by engineers who have seen it and worked on it that this unfortunate Barracuda has been so messed about by different people that there is little of the original design left, and that, in short, it is a bad piece of work and quite useless. It is underpowered, the engine has to be over-stressed to get it off the deck, and the
  790
  best thing to do—I was talking about it to somebody who is connected with a famous firm of engineers—would be to scrap it altogether, and if you want torpedo bombers to get as many as possible of the Grumman Avengers with their 21-inch torpedoes, from America. They could be got more quickly than a new machine could be designed and produced. If those statements are correct—I have heard them from different sources not connected with each other—this is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Alexander: They are quite serious statements, but I think that when the hon. Member makes them publicly he ought to give me his authority for them. I am not saying that there is any reason he should not bring the matter seriously to the notice of the House, but he has made statements of great seriousness, which I shall probably controvert from a technical point of view, and I think that before he makes such statements he ought to be able to say, "I can give you the authority."
  Mr. Cocks: The First Lord knows where these Barracudas are, and he can find out for himself. He could send his inspectors there or communicate with the engineers himself. I am sorry if he thinks I ought not to have mentioned the matter, but I thought it was important to mention it. I am not a specialist or an engineer myself, so that even if I were shown the machine I would not know whether it is a good one or not, but the people with whom I have talked are technical experts, and that is what they have said. I suggest that if you got Avengers from America, if you also got the Curtis Hell-Diver dive-bombers then, with the Seafires, Hurricanes and Martletts, the Fleet Air Arm would have some good machines, although none of them would be of Admiralty design. I do not say that is the Admiralty's fault; there are many reasons for it, but I will not take up the time of the House by going into them now. The Admiralty have had a very unhappy experience, and that is why we have to be equipped from other sources. I had intended to say something about Coastal Command, but I will reserve my remarks on that for another occasion.
  Finally, on the whole question, I want to say that with a well-equipped Fleet Air Arm, with heavy long-range four-engined

  791
  bombers for Coastal Command—preferably Lancasters, if they can be got from the Royal Air Force—plenty of escort vessels—the First Lord will agree that 200 is not enough—plenty of destroyers and aircraft carriers and small auxiliary carriers of the Audacity and Avenger type, with a reconstituted Anti-U-boat Committee in daily session, and with the remainder of the Royal Navy guarding, as it always does, our coasts and our seas, I am quite confident that the Battle of the Atlantic will be won and a decisive step taken towards ultimate victory.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone): As I understand it we have now returned to the general Debate. May I ask whether those of us who speak at the fag end are to be penalised by getting no reply from the Front Bench? I am not quite clear about that. Are we to get a reply to our questions and apprehensions?
  Mr. Alexander: Certainly, I am willing to reply.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend.
  I would draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the only place in this country where a lottery is officially allowed is in the House of Commons. It was not so long ago that I drew a lucky number and optimistically expected to have the opportunity of drawing attention by means of a Motion to the menace of submarine warfare; but I had only drawn a second prize and I have since found out that it did not give me that opportunity. I would like though to take advantage of this occasion, especially in view of the protest that I felt compelled to make yesterday, to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his recent elevation to such high office and to wish him all success.
  To come back to the matter under discussion, I want to pay a high tribute to the splendid achievement of the submarine crews in this war. I do not think they have received enough praise. A great many bouquets have been thrown about during the Debate, but I do not think those who go down under the sea in submarines have received a sufficiency. I must say that, speaking for myself, I can consider nothing more disagreeable than going down under the sea in a submarine.
  792
  I even have some apprehension about going into a submarine in dry dock.
  I was very interested the other day, when the First Lord introduced the Estimates, by the account he gave of the manner in which, at one period of the war, we got supplies to Malta, and how when it was impossible to get supplies there by surface craft, our submarines filled the bill. The Mediterranean has provided outstanding achievements as far as submarines are concerned. It was only yesterday that millions of people were thrilled by hearing over the wireless about the very gallant and somewhat "pixillated" exploits of that very gallant submarine officer. Commander Lakin; if ever a D.S.O. was well deserved, his was.
  We have reached a stage in this war when the Germans are doing badly on land and in the air, but at sea they are doing well; so it does not require a fantastic feat of intellect to appreciate that the Germans are concentrating their efforts and priorities on submarine warfare. They are well aware that this is their only chance. Doenitz has been promoted and all information and indications show that a supreme effort is being made against our sea communications. Two weeks ago I was lunching at the Savoy restaurant, and I noticed that everyone was offered potato rolls instead of bread. Nevertheless, a man at an adjacent table insisted on bread, and said with a smile, "My conscience is clear now that Churchill has told us that by the end of this year we shall have more ships than ever." The Prime Minister, no doubt, had good reason the other day for making such an optimistic pronouncement, and possibly the same applies to the First Lord, who was inclined to echo that optimism when introducing these Estimates. He said on that occasion that the gap between U-boats killed and the output of new ones was being reduced. That seems to me a somewhat wishful statement, especially as I do not know how he has got the information concerning the output of U-boats. If indeed he does not really know what is the output, how can he say that the gap is being reduced? It sometimes seems to me that the urge for a Minister to boost his own Department overcomes other and more important considerations, in fact, when the First Lord introduced these Estimates his speech was largely made up of throwing undoubtedly well-deserved bouquets all

  793
  round and telling us all about our credit balance. I should have thought it might have been advisable to let us hear a little more concerning the debit balance.
  This concerted official optimism has bewildered quite a number of Members. Just when the nation has been well frightened into realising the grim necessity of everyone assisting in saving shipping space, if only by eating potatoes instead of bread, and when everyone has realised that we have to work even harder, our leader, assisted by the First Lord, in a few words allows many of us to relapse into the joys of complacency. The Prime Minister's soothing statement is all the more strange because it provided a direct contradiction to the harsh facts given us on the same subject only a few days before by Colonel Knox, the Secretary of the American Navy.
  The Prime Minister is confident that at the end of this year the United Nations will have more ships available than at any other period of the war. The fact remains that I and one or two others in this House believe there is every possibility that that will not be the case. The Germans, in their last throw for victory, are concentrating immense resources on a gigantic submarine effort while we, anyhow up to four months ago, have been content to approach this problem by means of a Committee which sat on an average once in three weeks. Whether the reconstructed Committee meets more frequently now, I am not in a position to know, and I should very much like to be told, but I know that the present Committee is composed of men who have other duties to attend to and are unable to devote their undivided attention to this deadly menace. I am hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the House why the Anti-U-boat Warfare Committee is not, in the main, composed of men who can make it their wholetime job and why it is not controlled by a man who can devote all his energies to this task, upon which depends the very future of the world. Would the Minister also inform us, if he has such information, how many times a week this new Committee has sat since its formation?
  When it comes to technical details of submarine warfare, I must admit that I am completely at sea, but there are certain matters about which innumerable uninformed persons such as myself are
  794
  anxious and I feel sure that, if the Minister will reply satisfactorily to the following few questions, together with those which I have already submitted, it will give satisfaction to many anxious citizens who are groping around the whys and wherefores of this complicated technical subject. It is, of course, recognised that convoys suffer from a serious shortage of escort vessels, and what I cannot understand, though I have no doubt there is a very simple answer, is why we do not, in conjunction with Canadians and Americans, build mass-produced escort vessels and engines. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In America. It is elementary that prevention is better than replacement, especially when one considers the loss of personnel and cargoes. There is another question I should like to put. Why is there not absolute priority for all that concerns U-boat warfare? The right hon. Gentleman who replied to the first instalment of the general Debate told the House that there was priority for escort vessels. Escort vessels are not mass-produced.
  Commander Agnew: What does the hon. and gallant Member mean by "mass-produced"? What is it except a phrase?
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: By massed-produced vessels I mean large quantities of vessels that are produced under one plan in the same way that Kaiser in America produces other boats. Surely there are other matters that concern U-boat warfare that should receive priority besides escort vessels. Why are such priorities not in force? Is there daily co-operation between this country and those fighting the U-boat menace in the U.S.A. and Canada? I have heard statements to the effect that there is little co-operation, but I cannot believe it, and I should like to hear that such statements are not correct.
  A few days ago the Chamber of Shipping made a demand for faster merchant vessels to defeat the U-boats. It is difficult to reconcile that recent demand of that Chamber with the fact that the First Lord told us, when he opened the Debate, that of the ships we were now turning out, one-third were fast cargo vessels. The Chamber of Shipping is a body that should be as well-informed on these matters as anybody. Then how was it that they did not appreciate this fact? I

  795
  cannot believe that the First Lord withheld the information from the Chamber of Shipping just in order that he could inform us of this bonne bouche in this House. It seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding, because the Chamber of Shipping, apparently, do not know, what I was agreeably surprised to hear, that one-third of our production of cargo vessels was of the fast type.
  Another question is, When will the Fleet Air Arm be equipped with something approaching the right number of suitable planes, suitably equipped, including torpedo-bombers, capable of very wide range and equipped with really effective devices for spotting U-boats? I have been informed from a reliable source that considerable initiative was shown in this direction in the last war, even to the extent of members of the Admiralty visiting circuses and music halls, looking for performing sea lions in order to train them for the purpose of detecting U-boats. I understand that that is an actual fact, and though it was not a great success, it showed considerable initiative. I should like to see as good and more successful initiative in this war.
  Submarine warfare has easily become the most important consideration of this war. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) is not in his place, because I wanted to make some remarks, which I will not do now, about the ominous warning that he sounded. We may attempt a second front this year, but it is unlikely to be effective if German submarines can disrupt our sea communications. That is a point which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom, and it is one with which I entirely concur. Without a successful second front we cannot enter Germany, and those who are strategically-minded will agree that, if we cannot enter Germany, we cannot win the war. If we cannot win the war, all our beautiful plans for Beveridge benefits and other post-war promises will become just a memory. It seems to me that recently in this House we have been rather inclined to scrap too much among ourselves and to concentrate too little on the solution of a problem upon which depends all our future—all our hopes for happier times.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: After so many excellent speeches have been
  796
  made it is a little difficult to produce anything new, and we are not allowed to repeat other Members' arguments. The fact that so many Members have concentrated on one or two aspects of the Naval Estimates in the First Lord's speech is an indication of great interest in this House. It has been to me a most interesting Debate, and a great many excellent speeches have been made. I hope that public anger, anxiety and criticism will arise in consequence of what we have heard to-day. Perhaps the chief merit of the First Lord's speech was in the warning that he gave to the country. I am sure that he is not resentful but glad of the criticisms that he has heard. He knows how high in the estimation of the House and the people of the country the Admiralty and the officers and men of the Navy stand. He also knows that the only people who dislike criticism are the inefficient and the lazy, and that none of these are to be found in the Royal Navy. The First Lord spoke of the greatest threat that we have ever experienced, and he remarked that the production of escorts is still pressing. In another short sentence he said that the risks and hazards were increasing. Heaven knows, they are great enough at the present time.
  These three points alone are an indication of the warning that should be taken to heart by the people of the country. One of the things that will help us in that direction is publicity, and I was delighted when I heard that a Member of this House, a distinguished admiral, had been placed at the head of the publicity department of the Admiralty. Knowledge of sea power and its arts and crafts is lacking. It has even been remarked that the head of one of our Allied States knows very little about it. It is woefully lacking in too many people in our own country. So I say that we should be glad of this publicity enterprise on the part of the Admiralty. I hope that the First Lord, with his business outlook, will realise that there must be no stinting of men or of money, and I also ask him to remember that the Royal Air Force have set a very high example with their excellent propaganda, from which a great deal of their efficiency springs. I think I am right in saying, at least I will hazard it, that they have spent something like ten times more on propaganda since the beginning of the war than either the Army

  797
  or the Navy. This publicity ought to do a great deal of good if the country is made aware of the sea service. The people hear the drone of aeroplanes overhead and are familiar with what it means, or what it may mean, to them, and they even see armies in the field, but they never hear and they never see the roaring seas breaking over the ships struggling through Atlantic gales. Although that cannot be produced on the wireless, at least it can be spoken about. The people have not even begun to realise the ceaseless toil and vigil of the seamen, so let us go ahead with this publicity in every possible way.
  I want to remind the House of what has happened to the Navy since war started. The Navy and the Merchant Fleet, from efficient and solid beginnings, albeit very inadequate, have had to bear the brunt of the war and have suffered stupendous and shattering losses, as the First Lord will agree and as has been reported. The Navy are short now and have been short for a long time of certain types of seacraft and aircraft which are vital to their efficiency. I ask the House to remember that whatever we may feel about the Air Force and the Army, the sea service is still to-day the shield of our survival, and it is working under a grave handicap at the present time. I cannot help remembering that neither of the other brilliant Services could function at all or could ever have functioned anywhere, but for the Fleet, and I would remind the House that victory, when it comes, will hinge upon the incomparable sacrifices going on today, and the endurance of the ships and their companies and of those who build the ships and the aircraft which are wanted so urgently. I repeat what has alieady been said, that whatever the future may hold with regard to capital ships and large armoured ships and cruisers of large tonnage, they have had and are having to-day a most important effect on this war, and I say that powerfully armed ships such as the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau" and others belonging to the Germans, and cruisers, backed by torpedo craft and possibly by packs of submarines, could do between them more damage to a convoy than any pack of submarines working by itself. I would remind the House also that it is only our own armoured ships stationed away up in the North Sea that is preventing that happening.
  798
  I return, as so many speakers have done, to this submarine menace. The situation in the Atlantic is, to my mind, nothing short of perilous. I notice that my old friend Sir Percy Noble, at one time Commander-in-Chief of the Western Approaches, stated in Washington that there were between 300 and 400 submarines at work against our lines of communication and that submarines were being produced faster than we were able to sink them. That is a pretty menacing thought. Whatever may be the present position and whatever encouragement we may have had from the First Lord of the Admiralty, particularly about the amount of tonnage sunk and the protection of convoys, this position is likely to worsen unless very great efforts are made. I do not get much pleasure out of it, but I think it is a fact that if we had the enemy's problem of defeating such a sea power as ours by the use of submarines, it would give me a high measure of confidence, and the enemy is concentrating on this single objective, and we all know that he is no laggard in skill, in courage and in technique.
  The story may be true—I often wonder whether it is—that someone once said we have solved the submarine problem. I think I have heard a rumour of it in this House. The man who said it was, if I may say so, indeed as foolish as he who says that air power will be the deciding factor. No problem of war that I can remember, certainly no problem of war which is in any way connected with the sea, has been wholly solved. Problems of mines, torpedoes, guns, armour, speed, aircraft—all alike are unsolved. Those who say that the air has put sea-borne ships out of court in war-time are wrong. It is the old, old story which has persisted since the days of Salamis, and before, that a new weapon has shattered the unchanging principles of war. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more it changes, the more it remains exactly what it has been for many, many centuries, and all that has been done is to create new aspects of old problems.
  I hope I shall be forgiven for reminding Members of the curious effects of a new weapon—the air. The submarine was at one time a new weapon. The torpedo-boat destroyer was at one time a new weapon. The breech-loading gun was

  799
  at one time a new weapon. Mines were at one time a new weapon. Each in its turn has been heralded by the idealists and by the optimists as the deciding factor or turning point—or some similar cliché. It has been said that war has either been eliminated or so altered that you can do nothing more. Again nothing could be further from the truth. In every instance those weapons have been shown to be only a new aspect of conducting war. That is why there is so much tendency, not unnaturally, to lean upon the efficacy and the certainty of success by the use of the Air Arm. Far be it from me to belittle it—it is magnificent—but it does have an effect on untrained minds, those who have not been trained in the consideration of war problems, which I think is more than a little unfortunate.
  I turn for a moment to what, to me, is a mildly unpleasant subject, and I shall make no harsh remarks if I can help it. The operational control of Coastal Command is a broken reed if the Admiralty do not possess administrative control. We hear, and it has been referred to here again to-day, constantly the argument that because aircraft are land-based they are no concern of the Royal Navy. The argument for land-based aircraft is used as a conclusive support for the present dangerous and dual control—a dual system which has been discarded and condemned by our Allies. In fact, from the battleship, aircraft carrier, the cruiser and submarine to the motor torpedo boats—all are just as much land-based as an aircraft which takes off from an aerodrome.
  Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member a question? I have hesitated to get into controversy with him, but surely a great part of his whole argument is vitiated by this fact. He talks of new weapons. It is not a question of new weapons, but that in the last 20 years, a new element has come into fighting—the element of the air, and logically, his argument may lead to saying that every bomber that went over the sea to bomb Germany should come under the Admiralty because it flies over the sea.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for raising this, because it clears one's mind and makes sure that we know what we are trying to put across. I do not suggest that at
  800
  all. I realise all these difficulties, and all I want to stress is the fact that such craft as are dealt with in purely maritime problems over the sea should have unity of control. I have not the least intention of suggesting that such things as bombing Germany, merely because the aircraft flies across the sea, could have anything to do with the Admiralty at all.
  There is just one other point arising from his remarks. He spoke of a new element, and I say frankly that I do not know of any argument that carries less weight with me than that which I have head advanced, that, because aircraft work in the air, it is in some way or another, which I completely fail to understand, a third element or third dimension. It is nothing of the kind. If I might diverge for one moment, the air, the wind of heaven, was the thing which drove the Royal Navy for 2,000 years, and this third dimension idea is something strange and altogether foreign to me.
  Unity of control is vital, and, because Coastal Command, as I understand it, is under the operational control of the Admiralty, I want to ask the Admiralty whether this admirably produced brochure, full of excellent photographs, entitled "Coastal Command," was before publication referred to somebody on the Board of Admiralty, because on page 7 I see the following:
  "The two Services. The triple task. Find the enemy; Strike the enemy; Protect our ships. That is the triple task of Coastal Command, in which the Royal Navy co-operates with the Royal Air Force."
  I suggest that this is a little bit partial and does not tell the whole truth, and I am sorry that it should have been published. Again, there is a photograph on page 103 which I have a very strong recollection refers to survivors from some other vessel than what it says, namely, a submarine. It is, I think, the superscription underneath the photograph which is incorrect. It is not a form of propaganda which I think is desirable. I must just mention this because I hope it will be a warning to those who do publicity for the Admiralty.
  Surprise has been expressed, and I must confess I wonder why, at submarines working in packs. I know it is many years since I served at sea, and I never served in submarines, but it is no surprise to me that they should be working

  801
  in packs or flotillas, or what you like to call them, on the surface. There is nothing strange in that. Personally, I have never thought they would do anything else. I have foretold it for years. It is, in my view, an obvious development. May I ask the House to realise—those who may possibly not have realised it—that far from the thing being solved it may get much worse? Personally, I shall be surprised not to learn in the course of a few months that the surface speed of the packs of submarines approaches 25 knots. There is to-day a strong rumour that engines are being designed which will enable a submarine to dive at speed and obviate the use of that dangerous electrical machinery which causes so much trouble, with the propulsion of submerged submarines. That, to my mind, leads to the conclusion that these fast submarines, bigger, possibly with a little surface armour, will constitute a still greater menace than they do at the present time. That leads me to stress the point of how short we are of strong and fast escort vessels.
  I want to say just one or two words about these fast escort ships. It is my belief, and I can only read between the lines in arriving as such an opinion, that the Admiralty have done their very utmost to get the escorts because they know that is the secret of holding the submarine at bay. I believe that they have had excellent priority, but, notwithstanding that, they have not be able to get all the escorts they would like. It seems to me there is only one other source. I believe it was hinted at to-day, namely, the United States, and I hazard a guess that the capacity of the United States is sufficient to supply us with what we want. Possibly Canada can help too. I also hazard the guess that the Government of the United States are not as convinced as we are that the focus of the danger at the present time is in the Atlantic and not in the Pacific If I am right, and I think I am, I, a back bencher in this House—I hope others will agree with me—make an appeal to the far seeing and practical President and Government of the United States to provide us with the stronger escorts to crush the foe in the Atlantic. That, I think, is the true and proper strategy at the present time, and then, having done that, we can transfer and vigorously, joyously and finally smother the deeply treacherous attack of the Japanese in the Pacific.
  802
  Fast and slow ships I have nothing to say about, because it has all been said, except to point out that the fast ship carries something like 25 per cent less cargo than the slow ship of the same tonnage and burns getting on for as much as three times the fuel if you increase her speed by 50 per cent. over that of the slow ship. These, to my mind, are two important points. It remains an actual fact that fast ships are much less vulnerable but require faster and even stronger escort. I only want finally just to pay my tribute to the great Service which, through difficulties and hardships, is sticking to its traditions and facing every problem that comes to it with courage and conviction, and I hope, with the rest of this House, that those in the Service may be preserved from the dangers of the sea and the violence of the enemy and may return in safety to this country to enjoy the blessings of the land and the fruits of their labours. The fruits of their labours are something which we in this House should arrange and safeguard by looking after their interests.
  Mr. Guy: First, may I be allowed to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my due share of congratulations on your election? I trust that you may be blessed with good health during your period of office, to carry out the great task imposed upon you.
  On many ocasions well-deserved tributes have been paid to the gallant officers and men of the Royal Navy by the first Lord when presenting his annual statements, but no tribute has ever been more well-deserved than the one which the right hon. Gentleman paid during his speech last week, and which made special reference to the gallant officers and men of our Merchant Service. When one realises all that has happened during the past 12 months, it can be said in all sincerity that the tribute is all the more deserved on that account.
  I do not want my right hon. Friends opposite to think I am going to be brutally critical, but there are one or two matters that I want to mention. I would like to refer to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. W. Edwards) last week, in which he said all that I desired to say in reference to the members of our sea Service to-day. Although I have not had the

  803
  pleasant experience that he has had of serving in the present war, I had the privilege of doing the same kind of service in the last war, I must confess that I was disappointed in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty about the granting of commissions. I am disturbed about this matter. I had some little experience of it in the last war. More recently, I have had experience of a case to which I feel I ought to draw attention. I met a young man in my division only a fortnight ago—a nephew of that old and esteemed Member of this House, Will Crooks—who when he appeared before the Selection Board was asked, "What is your golf handicap?" What relation has that to the making of an efficient officer in the Navy? That young man is now on his way to North Africa, probably bitterly disappointed. Would it be too much to ask my right hon. Friend whether facilities could be given to Members of this House to see something of the activities of the Selection Board of the Admiralty, as we have seen recently the Selection Board of the War Office? I put that suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I think it would have a good effect, all round, on those who are looking forward to the prospect of obtaining commissions.
  I would remind hon. Members that the first ship that was ever built in this country to sail to India was built in Poplar. Many famous destroyers have been built in Poplar, and I am not too sure that we are using all the available resources at our command in order to get on with a much bigger programme of merchant shipbuilding. In the last war we were building small snips in Poplar and I believe there are many slipways on the River Thames that could still be used for this purpose. If my right hon. Friend will take notice of that fact and look into the matter he will see that what I say is correct. The particular matter that worries me and many of my friends in the East End is the question of ship-repair work. It is possible that this may be the last war statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is because of that, looking forward, as I and my friends in the East End do, we want to warn the Government and say to them, "Do not allow that to happen which happened after the last war." After the last war, in 1919, Poplar was happily placed because there was
  804
  plenty of work going on in our repair yards. I worked in one myself. Many of us thought, foolishly perhaps, that we had enough work to last us for many years.
  What happened? In 1920, when the Government took off control, the great tragedy of unemployment in the East End commenced. This was not due to any unforeseen circumstances or to any unavoidable causes; it was due to the unpatriotic system adopted by many of the shipowners who found it very convenient then to tie up their ships and, in many instances, sent them to other countries to be repaired. I beg of the Government in all sincerity to see that this sort of thing does not happen again after the war. We have repairing yards where work can go on after the war for many years. If needs demand it, the Government should consider keeping on their control. I can see that we shall be faced at the end of the war with people begging the Government to take control off, even trying to force them to do so. Unless there are safeguards against the kind of thing which happened after the last war, the tragedy of unemployment and poverty will again face our people in the East End of London and if the courage, devotion and duty of our gallant seamen are to be forgotten as soon as the war finishes, then those responsible will be hoist with their own petard.
  Commander Bower: Although the hour is late, I make no apology for saying what I have to say, for we are dealing with by far the most important question which faces our country at the present time. Some Members have said that there is a sense of urgency on this matter in the House and in the country and that the House reflects the opinion of the country, but I am not so sure. The fact that these benches have been for the most part untenanted during this Debate shows that not only the country but this House is not really fully aware of the seriousness of what we are up against. There were two speeches, however, which did convey the note of urgency—one by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the other by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby)—and I want to add my contribution to those speeches which have tried to convey that sense of grave emergency and urgency.

  805
  The First Lord, last week, gave us a very great review of the work of the Navy, and, if I may say so, it was a considerable improvement on some of his past efforts, for the reason that he gave us a little more information. But if I may make a criticism, it is that he showed an excess of oratory and still did not give us quite enough information. The Admiralty, in my view, have always been bad about information. They like to keep everything quiet, for various reasons which I will not go into now, but let us remember that for nearly two years an impenetrable veil has descended over the work of the Navy, ever since they stopped publishing shipping losses. I think that is definitely bad, because Parliament, the Press and the public have been deprived of the opportunity of keeping the Admiralty up to the mark. Had we been kept alive to the urgency of the situation, as we have not been kept alive, probably Parliament would have stepped in long before now and insisted on certain obvious changes being made. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord has had a very clear run, without any sniping, during the last three years, and, therefore, I think the Board of Admiralty must accept a much greater responsibility than they might have been expected to accept had Parliament and the public been given more information. This made it all the more alarming to hear his recent speech, to which reference has been made several times already, in which he said that the nation must see that the Fleet Air Arm was properly equipped.
  The burden of the Navy in this war has been enormously increased by several factors, to two or three of which I shall refer. In the first place, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom referred to the London Naval Treaty. I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend by saying that I do not propose to deal in detail with that rather lamentable episode in his career, but I will say this, that at that time he was much younger than he is now and did not know much about the Navy. The principal blame lies on one of the weakest Board of Admiralty from which we have ever suffered in this country, who had not either the determination to see that they got what they wanted or the courage to resign when they did not get it. Nevertheless, whether my right hon. Friend was carrying out his Government's policy or not, the great mistake then made was that he and the Government
  806
  he represented failed to realise that our requirements in cruisers and destroyers are absolute, and not relative to the strength of any other Power, whether in submarines or in other craft.
  There is a second important factor which has helped to lead us into our present position, and that is that since Lord Beatty retired we have had a succession of First Sea Lords who do not appear to have had the farce of character to insist on the minimum requirements for our safety being provided or, if they could not get them, to resign and let the people decide. A third and most important consideration is the lamentable game of battledore and shuttlecock which has gone on concerning the Naval Air Arm, and when I say the Naval Air Arm, I include the Coastal Command. Lord Chatfield has revealed that it took him three years to get control of the Fleet Air Arm, and even so, that was only the smallest part of what the Navy required. The complications between the Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command have been altogether deplorable. The Fleet Air Arm was only taken over by the Admiralty just before the war, and it inherited the ancient and obsolete craft about which we have heard so much. Lord Trenchard has said that the Admiralty were largely responsible for the deficiencies in these craft, which were made to their specifications. In my view, there is just enough truth in that to make it a thoroughly mischievous general statement. The Admiralty have never been averse to putting gadgets in anything which floats or flies, and that is a thing which wants to be watched, but nevertheless, we have to face the fact, and the airmen must face it, too, that at the end of the last war there was a splendid Naval Air Service and at the beginning of this war it was practically non-existent.
  I turn now to the Royal Air Force Coastal Command, which is now under the operational control of the Admiralty. I had plenty of opportunity of seeing its work at the beginning of the war, as I was attached to its headquarters. The Royal Air Force Coastal Command consisted at the beginning of the war of a number of Lockheed-Hudson aircraft, a very few flying boats, a number of Ansons, a few Blenheims, and practically nothing else. This whole controversy between the Navy and the Air must be mentioned, and it is by no means a squalid

  807
  controversy between Departments. In the years before the war, had the Navy had control of its own air, there would have been built up not only a force of all arms—bombers, fighters and torpedo craft—but there would have been in the Navy a well trained corps of officers fully experienced in air matters. That there was not at the beginning of the war, and the R.A.F.'s idea of co-operation was extremely elementary. It appeared to consist of nothing more than carrying out patrols across the sea.
  The R.A.F. is divided into Commands, and in many respects the differences between the three principal Commands, Bomber, Fighter and Coastal, is greater than those between the Army and the Navy. They are in complete water-tight compartments, I gather that that has been slightly improved, but at the beginning of the war it was very much so. One night early in 1940 a bomber, coming back from the useful pastime of dropping leaflets over Germany, observed a considerable force of German ships at anchor three miles from Heligoland. In those days the Air Force were not allowed to bomb land targets for fear that they might hurt a civilian. Here was a splendid target. It was a good night, with a considerable moon. Sir Tom Phillips, Vice-Chief of the Naval Staff, rang up Coastal Command headquarters and asked for action to be taken. The liaison between Admiralty and Bomber Command was at that time conducted through Coastal Command. Coastal Command rang up Bomber Command, who were very doubtful whether they could do anything. After the lapse of about half-an-hour we managed to get a high officer of Bomber Command on the telephone. Still he could not do anything. It was not their job. They were not accustomed to it. They had not the right sort of bombs, and anyhow no one was ready. Finally in despair the naval liaison officer at Coastal Command rang up Sir Tom Phillips at the Admiralty and said, "Your only chance is to get straight on to the Chief of the Air Staff," which he did, and they were still arguing about it at half-past nine next morning. That is the kind of co-operation the Navy got from a certain Command of the R.A.F. at that time. I make no criticism of the people who were responsible then. It was not Bomber Command's job, Coastal Command had not any bombers, and the
  808
  Navy had not any bombers, and therefore that splendid target went unattacked.
  There was another example at Dunkirk. Again the Admiralty rang up, on the second or third day, in great distress to say that Fighter Command of the R.A.F. were unable to maintain continuous patrols over the beaches and could only go over in waves every hour. Could Coastal Command do anything about it? The Staff Officer of Operations was asked what he had. The reply was "Three Ansons and two Blenheims," and he was told by Sir Frederick Bowhill to send them over. I quote that to illustrate that there was no lack of co-operation on the part of the Air Force officers. They co-operated to the best of their ability under the structure of their organisation at that time. The fact of the matter is that the Royal Air Force always preferred the idea of independent attack on our enemies, and co-operating with the Navy, or indeed with the Army, was considered to be quite a side-show, and no very great thought was devoted to it. The result of all this was that you had neither the Navy nor the Air Force really thinking about the air problem in the way it should have been studied.
  I want now to speak of the activities of Lord Trenchard, because I think they are extremely mischievous. He is a great man in many ways, who has deserved well of his country. He is practically the father of our Air Force, but for some reason—I do not know what it is—he has got something which can——
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned a noble lord by name. He holds no office, and it is against our Rules to make reflections on a Member of another place.
  Commander Bower: I bow to your Ruling, but I erred owing to the fact that several other hon. Members have mentioned a certain Noble Lord by name. I refer to a certain individual responsible for a certain point of view in the Royal Air Force which I am glad to say has not many adherents. Owing, however, to the fact that he is very much in the public eye and that the public do not realise, as perhaps most of us do, that he has a bee in his bonnet about this matter, his opinions carry a good deal more weight than they deserve. I cannot see that that is doing any good to the cause of the Air

  809
  Force, the Navy or the nation. There is in Brixton Prison a distinguished retired admiral who is well over 70 and stone deaf, and in my view his release would not be the slightest detriment to the war effort. I cannot help feeling that the individual I have referred to would be a good exchange.
  What some people fail to realise is that it is not a question whether the Admiralty should rule the Air Force or the Air Force should rule the Admiralty. What matters is command of the sea. I am particularly careful to use that phrase and not to talk about sea power, because sea power is only one ingredient of command of the sea. Sea and air power, together with bases and garrisons, are the integral ingredients of that command of the sea which alone can help us to win the war. I am not one of those people who belong to the blue water school who talk about the storm-tossed ships which Napoleon never set eyes on and which stood between him and us. It is, in the long run, the "P.B.I." who have to do the job. Tanks, planes and ships are only ingredients to help to put the infantry into Berlin or wherever we want them. Therefore, I am, and have been for a long time, frankly a strong supporter of a much closer integration of the three Staffs of the Services. It is a great pity it has not been done before. Had it been done, some of the dissensions which are now going on would have been avoided and we should have got on very much further.
  There is no doubt that even to-day the Navy has not got the shore-based aircraft at its disposal which it should have, nor have the R.A.F., despite the splendid work of Air Chief Marshal Bowhill and Air Chief Marshal Joubert at Coastal Command, a proper and a complete idea of what that co-operation really entails. The Navy's lack of aircraft has been responsible for many disasters. There is the loss of the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse." That is just another example. It would have been unthinkable for these ships to have gone to almost certain disaster as they did had the Navy had its own aircraft, for the simple reason that everybody in the Navy knows that as it is fantastic folly for a capital ship to venture into submarine-infested waters without a heavy escort of destroyers, so it is fantastic folly for battleships to venture into air-infested waters without fighter
  810
  aircraft. You will always get casualties. Take the case of H.M.S. "Barham," which was fully escorted by destroyers. A submarine slipped through and got four torpedoes into her. But that was an accident of war. One must always expect that sort of thing. The loss of "Prince of Wales" and "Repulse" was a very different matter. Undoubtedly improvements are being made, but I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Board of Admiralty, that the time has come for this matter to be settled once and for all. He has not yet told us exactly how we stand as regards aircraft priority.
  I now turn to escort vessels, because Sir Percy Noble—and I think the House will agree nobody knows more about these matters than he does—said a few weeks ago that he much preferred the destroyer type. I fully realise the difficulties which confronted the Admiralty at the beginning of this war. They had to produce large numbers of what my right hon. Friend calls "Woolworth ships." They had to do it quickly, and they produced the corvettes, of which he has told us there are about 200 in commission. They are excellent little ships in many ways, and mass produced, but, unfortunately, designed on lines which though they would have been very suitable in 1917 are not so suitable to-day. Other hon. Members have said they are too slow and they certainly are. What we want is more escort vessels of the destroyer type. Heavily-escorted convoys have a habit of getting through, and by heavily-escorted I mean heavily-escorted by air and by surface ships. Only escort vessels are the real answer to these attacks on our shipping—more and more and faster escort vessels.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman might have said a little more of the splendid work which is being done by these escort vessels. I have seen them at it, and whereas we hear a good deal of the publicity of the R.A.F. and hope to get like publicity for the Navy, it should be remembered that the men on board these ships live in conditions of indescribable discomfort. They are extremely lively and uncomfortable ships, very often they are "wet" ships, and they seldom go to sea for less than nine or ten days at a time. Many a time when I was myself escorting convoys I could not help looking up with envy at the great aircraft overhead

  811
  when I thought that their crew would in a few hours be in a comfortable ness, having a good dinner, with a whisky and soda, and then good beds, whereas we were destined to be another seven or eight days at sea. My own officers consisted of a solicitor from Oxford, a monumental mason from somewhere in Hertfordshire, and a young baronet from Southern Ireland, and a splendid lot they were, and the crew were incomparable. We had all sorts—R.N.R., R.N.V.R., and some R.N. pensioners. I think those people, whose work is largely done out of the public gaze, deserve the very highest tribute that can be paid to them.
  I cannot help feeling that half our troubles at the present moment are due to the fact that His Majesty's Government have failed to realise that command of the sea, whether it is achieved by ships which float on the sea or go under the sea or by aircraft which fly above it, is the base of the pyramid of the whole of our war effort. Last Session the Government were asked in another place—and I hope I am in Order in referring to this—whether they assented to the proposition that the first and principal object of a maritime Power or group of Powers is to obtain and maintain command of the sea. That is a very straightforward question, and it might have had a straightforward answer. It was answered by the Lord Chancellor, who said:
  "The principles appear to His Majesty's Government unexceptionable, but their application is of course governed by circumstances, values and proportions."
  Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, than whom there is no greater naval strategist in the country—he is one of those people who have the uncanny habit of being always right—observed in a letter to "The Times" newspaper that the answer displayed
  "what Bagehot called an unbroken fluency in indefinite half-truths."
  He went on to say:
  "If his evasive answer has any meaning, it is that the Government, while admitting the validity of the principle, have no intention of acting upon it."
  I am afraid there is a certain amount of truth in that. We are to-day fighting a war, in which there are many new weapons, by land, sea and air, but the old principles remain exactly the same. They have not changed one little bit.
  812
  They never will, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his Board of Admiralty have been lacking in vision and lacking in courage and lacking in determination in seeing that the Navy gets the priorities without which the foundation of that pyramid of our war effort cannot be made secure.
  Mr. David Adams: In view of the many strictures that have been passed upon the First Lord, and of the acerbities that have arisen in the course of the Debate, it is a pleasure to me to state that I consider his contribution last week to the naval problem in general one of the most excellent contributions of a Ministerial character. He certainly gave us a very considerable amount of information, for which we and the country have been waiting. But this was done with such discretion that it can be truthfully affirmed that the enemy are not a whit wiser by his statement. I am satisfied also that the conduct of the Admiralty in the creation of tonnage for naval and mercantile purposes has for war purposes been thoroughly sound.
  I think one ought to say at this stage that, as a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, that looked into the question of mercantile and naval building, the allegations that were made, that private owners had privilege of some kind with the Admiralty and were not in harmony with our best war efforts, is entirely illusory. We could discover no such privilege at any time having been conceded to any private owner or owners. The vessels built by the Admiralty were built in the shortest possible time to carry, very properly, the maximum amount of cargo, and only the limitations of labour and materials prevented a phenomenal output. I can assert from experience and from knowledge of the shipping world that the very best use of our building facilities in the matter of engines, hulls and equipment has been adopted by the Admiralty. The types for private owners were prescribed by the Admiralty, and I can say that the war-time specifications for private owners is very much below that which they would demand and require in peace-time, and that any vessel that has been built to-day for private owners will require in the days of peace a very heavy expenditure at their charge because of the stipulations of the Admiralty in this matter. I have yet to learn that fast ships are any more safe

  813
  in these days of submarine warfare than slower vessels. The fact is that on the north-east coast I have taken the trouble to inquire of shipowners with large fleets as to what their individual losses represented, and I have found that where they had a variety of tonnage, fast and slow—the Diesel engine vessels and the coal-burning ordinary triple-expansion steam engines—they had lost in certain cases a higher proportion of fast ships and in others, it is true, a lower proportion.
  Commander Galbraith: Could the hon. Member say what he means by a fast ship in that connection?
  Mr. Adams: Yes, 15 or 16 knots. It is not, in my judgment, a question to-day of speed. The submarine is adopting newer methods. It is a battle against the individual vessel or against a convoy at dusk or at dawn, and what is undoubtedly required to relieve that position is an increase, as we have heard, of escort vessels, but more, some instrument to be devised to enable the submarine to be detected from the air. It is a melancholy fact to learn that the Anti-Submarine Committee has met but intermittently, that they have not concentrated all their resources and all their researches upon some instrument which I am satisfied can be devised. I believe that on Tyneside, the home of inventions, if our scientists there, in co-operation with our electricians, were placed upon this problem of discovering an instrument that would make the knowledge of the submarine's presence as available as it is under certain conditions from the water, this problem might be suddenly solved.
  The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) last week made a statement which caused me much perturbation. I was not present at the moment when the statement was made, It was raised in a shipping office as to whether that statement should be unchallenged. If it was unchallenged, very serious results might ensue. This is the exact statement from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "Speed will be the chief weapon. The fact of the U-boat being able to do 18 to 20 knots on the surface means that slow convoys are bound to come to disaster. I think it was on the last occasion when we spoke on this subject that I was interrupted and was told that just as many fast ships as slow were being sunk, I could not understand the importance of that interruption; because the fact simply is that the fast ships have to come
  814
  down to the pace of the slow. They are all reduced to a level and therefore are easy meat for the opponents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1943; col. 591, Vol. 387.]
  That surely has no foundation in fact, There are different speeds of convoys There is the slow convoy with an average of seven knots; there is the medium convoy of about nine knots; then there is the fast convoy, the average of which will be about 14 knots. If the Admiralty were to be guilty of putting vessels into the position in which they would be torpedoed when having the speed—we assume it is true that it is speed which is required, and yet these vessels were lost—it would be a misfortune of the greatest character for which the Admiralty would be held responsible, not only for the loss of vessels and cargoes, but for the lives of those who are convoying those ships. It is an interesting point that several private owners who have had vessels built have advised me that the amounts charged by the Admiralty contractors were some 25 per cent. higher than those charged to the Admiralty for the same sized vessels with the same capacity and the same engine power. If that be so, private owners are being so salted that the difficulty of the British Mercantile Marine in competing in the days to come has certainly been accentuated. I am not at all concerned through having any present interest in any shipping.
  With regard to speed and cargo capacity, were the Admiralty wise in creating an instrument which would give us the largest carrying capacity at a reasonable speed? If the position is, as I believe, not a question of speed at all with regard to the submarine menace, and that if you could transfer all your tonnage to-day to faster vessels, you would still have the sinkings by submarines by new methods, the Admiralty were certainly wise in constructing vessels of reasonable speed, which in pre-war days would have been deemed fast. An 11¼-knot vessel, or even an 11-knot vessel, was looked upon then as being fast, as against the 8 or 9 knot vessel. It is interesting to note that Mr. J. Ramsay Gebbie, the President of the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, at a meeting a fortnight ago gave certain figures. He compared motor-ships of 10,300 tons dead weight, with engines of 2,900 indicated horse power, and having a speed of 11¼ knots voyage average on a consumption

  815
  of 10 tons of oil fuel per 24 hours, and ships of the same dimensions, which, with their finer model and heavier machinery, would carry 8,300 tons—as against 10,300 tons—when fitted with engines of 7,500 indicated horse power, giving a speed of 15 knots on a consumption of 27 tons for 24 hours.
  These figures are most important on the question of whether it is wise for this nation, in its great war effort, to reduce carrying capacity and to have speed in its place. Perhaps I might mention the time of building. It is assumed that either type would be six months on the stocks, but the 11¼-knot ship would take two months to fit out and the 15-knot ship three months. Mr. Gebbie calculated that in three years from the announcement of the programmes 58 ships of 11¼ knots and 10,300 tons dead weight would have been delivered, as against 23 ships of 15 knots, of 8,300 tons dead weight, and that the slower vessels would have carried 6,162,200 tons of cargo as against 2,142,800 tons carried by the faster ships. Assume that the voyages are of 10,000 miles, 4,019,000 tons as against 1,300,000 tons, it would appear that the 58 slower vessels would transport nearly three times the weight of cargo carried by the 23 faster ships. It is also observed that the 15-knot ships consume about two and a half times as much oil fuel as the 11-knot ships. The general average throughout the country, obtainable from the leading shipping authorities, is that there is virtually no distinction between the losses of the fast ships and the losses of the slower ships, which, as I stated previously, has been proved by conferences with private shipowners. [Interruption.] It is not the view of private shipowners that it would be wise in the interests of the nation to build a fleet of fast ships. Even if the Chamber of Shipping is asking for it, the Admiralty, in their judgment, are building only one-third of those very fast ships.
  With respect to the future, I am asked to say, on behalf of the North East coast people who are interested in the question of labour—I mean the heads of the engineers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union and others—that they hope there will be a naval and merchant building programme scientifically carried out after the war. Tyneside is a heavy industries centre. We must have no repetition of the last post-war period, when all industry
  816
  went into hibernation and lost its heart and livelihood. A naval and merchant building programme should now be devised. The present system is probably most scientifically carried out, and it would be most economical to have Admiralty and merchant tonnage building under the one head. We hope that there will be a 10-year plan of naval replacement, and that out of the larger employment which the slower vessels would give there is likely to be a continuation of that policy in post-war days.
  We require naval supremacy. I believe that the lines upon which the Admiralty are working to-day will achieve that and that the submarine menace is capable of being overcome. I am glad to see that speeding has taken place in those very speedy corvettes and other vessels of a protective character. It is a delusion to say that these are slow. The Select Committee had the privilege in Southampton Water of going on board and being taken for some distance on these vessels, and they were travelling at a rate of 42½ knots.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does my hon. Friend suggest that a corvette travels at 42½ knots?
  Mr. Adams: Yes, I suggest that.
  Sir A. Southby: Has not the hon. Gentleman mistaken the motor torpedo boat for the corvette? The torpedo boat may travel at that speed, but the corvette travels at only 17 or 18 knots at the most.
  Mr. Adams: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman terms a motor torpedo boat is also a corvette. The builders named it a corvette to the Select Committee. Some of these vessels carry two torpedoes, and others are armed heavily with guns. All were termed corvettes, and travelled at an amazing speed.
  Mr. Ammon: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? Does he remember that I was with him on that occasion? If so, I certainly cannot confirm what he has said.
  Sir A. Southby: Perhaps the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Adams) will tell the First Lord where these corvettes are. He certainly needs them.
  Mr. Adams: Would my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) tell us what was the speed of the vessel?
  Mr. Ammon: No, I will not mention it.
  Mr. Adams: But surely he can tell us.
  Mr. Amman: No, I do not intend to make an estimate of the speed.
  Mr. Adams: Well, I say it was a fantastic speed, and I think the figure I have given is accurate. These vessels have been built without regard to expense. They are double-engined Diesel vessels. When we have the necessary accumulation of naval planes and protection of that character, which is being gradually achieved and for want of which we are suffering to-day, together with the augmentation of escort vessels, there is little doubt that in due time the tide will go against the U-boats and that success will crown the laborious efforts of the Admiralty.
  Commander Agnew: May I be allowed to add my respectful congratulations, Mr. Speaker, upon your election and my hope that the tenure of your great office will be long and happy?
  This question has ranged chiefly round two subjects, namely, air and the U-boat. I agree a great deal with what has been said about the former, but I cannot bring skilled experience to bear on the latter, such as was forthcoming from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieut.-Commander Brabner). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) introduced, I thought, into the Debate a rather futile note. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, but no doubt he will read my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He proceeded to go all the way back to 1930 in order to delve into the crimes of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Well, however great these crimes may be judged to be by history, it is useless to begin talking about what happened in 1930 when we are in the middle of a war in 1943.
  About the subject of the air, I am of the opinion that although the Admiralty gained a partial advantage when Coastal Command was transferred to their operational control great disadvantages still remain. If, for instance, you take a particular area—I will not mention anyone by name, because it might be thought to be one where I myself have been serving—and the Admiralty have their operational
  818
  control of Coastal Command in that area, it is absolutely open to the Air Ministry, so far as I am aware, to decide how many aircraft they will place in that section of the Command. If they choose to starve it, as I am afraid they sometimes might be tempted to do, then the Navy, in its control of aircraft, has few machines with which to effect the purposes of naval work. I realise that at this stage of the war it would be a very big step to take to suggest that the complete control of Coastal Command should be transferred to the Navy—in other words, that Coastal Command should be taken over. I think that if that were done, the effect would be one of dislocation and that it would have an adverse effect on morale and the general state of public confidence in the general direction of the war. I think that what might be done would be this: The Admiralty might be a little more aggressive in its tendencies to acquire land, and, having acquired further land, it might construct some aerodromes on shore of its own of an operational character from which it could furnish that extra air support which I believe is so very much needed for the Fleet to-day.
  With regard to the U-boat menace, I do not intend to enter the ranks of the many amateur strategists who have flung their arrows into the air. I am quite sure that they speak with a great weight of experience behind them, but I maintain it is only those who are doing the work of fighting the U-boat who can tell what is really needed in order to combat that still present menace, and therefore, that only the Admiralty, who receive all the reports of the serving officers and who also are in a position to judge of the priorities that they must allocate in their building programme, can really be in a position to judge what is the best way to drive the U-boats to the bottom of the sea.
  I was very interested to listen to the First Lord's speech in introducing his Estimates and to the tributes he paid particularly to the personnel of the submarine service on the great work they are doing, especially in the Mediterranean. But I wonder whether it is realised how very much the whole Navy to-day is manned by men who before the war had had no naval training whatsoever. They are today the inheritors of a very great tradition, and it is left to them to carry it on in a

  819
  way that the country can be proud of. Only very recently I returned from the Fleet after some time there, and my own limited experience is that at the end of over three years of war the state of morale, discipline, cheerfulness, and all the qualities that go with those attributes, is as high to-day as ever it was in the Royal Navy. I believe that the Navy feels that it has the full backing of the public behind it and that although its exploits are necessarily somewhat more hidden from the people of this country than are those of other Services, such as the Royal Air Force, yet deep down at the bottom of their hearts the people of this country know that they will owe their survival, and I believe their victory, ere long, to the work of the Royal Navy more than any other Service.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have sat right through this Debate, and also through that part of the Debate which followed the opening of the Navy Estimates last week. Although there have been some sharp speeches and little barbs sticking out here and there, the Navy has no reason to be dissatisfied with the general treatment that it has received. There is, however, one point on which I should like to be perfectly plain. I consider it quite impossible to sever the success of the Royal Navy at sea over the last 3½ years from the advice, the administration, the direction and the drive of the naval men who are at the head of the Admiralty. I want the House to remember that, when all kinds of things are being said, very often without the slightest argument in support of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) said that there is general slackness always in Admiralty administration——
  Mr. Ammon: I said nothing of the sort. I challenge my right hon. Friend to look it up.
  Mr. Alexander: I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend my copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT as I saw it, so that he may check it up with me. There are other statements made from time to time which give me the same impression. My view, having been in the midst of the most terrific naval crisis that this country has ever passed through, and having watched the work of those responsible for naval control, is that
  820
  they have had a very great deal to do with enabling our brave officers and men at sea to be successful in their task. I want to make that quite plain. There was another reference earlier, to the age of the members of the Board of Admiralty. One would have imagined, from the manner in which the reference was made, that some crime was being committed by myself and other Ministers who may have some responsibility for the selection of officers of that age, but in fact the Board of Admiralty is doing a most difficult job of work in very dangerous circumstances, and it has the help of officers who have had very close experience in this war. The Vice Chief of the staff has commanded a cruiser squadron in this war. The Controller of the Navy commanded the cruiser squadron Which first picked up the "Bismarck," kept her in view until she could be challenged and never let go until she was finally destroyed. All the assistant chiefs of the Naval Staff and many others who have served during my administration have had active service at sea in this war, and their very experience, and the policy of bringing men back to the Admiralty with that experience, to advise myself and the First Sea Lord upon these operational matters, have had much to do with our being able to cope with a menace which is without precedent.
  I heard a reference earlier this evening to the capacity of Sir Herbert Richmond as a strategist. He had a connection with the Imperial Defence College and the naval courses thereat. If, a year or so before the war, there had been courses at that college and if officers had been asked then whether it would be possible to deal with the menace that we have had to face ever since May, 1940, when France went out of the war, with the whole of the naval bases from Tromsoe to St. Jean de Luz in the hands of the enemy, with all the extra building capacity which the occupied countries gave them, and whether it would be possible, with the forces then at our disposal, to avoid defeat, I believe the general answer would have been "No." In fact, the work of the Navy with the support of the Air Force has been so good that we have come through this difficult time and at the same time carried the war to the enemy overseas by taking troops and equipment with such little loss as we have sustained. I feel, therefore, that I am entitled to say, while no one is more

  821
  moved by and more grateful for the wonderful work of the men at sea than I am, that we have some reason to be grateful to those who have done the whole of the strategical and tactical planning of the war at the admiralty. I want to make that perfectly plain.
  I come next to the question of the air. It has been raised in two respects. It has been raised in respect of the aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm under our administrative and direct control, and in respect of shore-based aircraft, which we so often need in connection with our anti-submarine war and long-range reconnaissance. With regard to the Fleet Air Arm, I thought that I had removed a good deal of anxiety from the minds of hon. Members by the statement I made a few weeks ago in answer to a Question. May I say one or two things in more detail? When I came to the Admiralty in May, 1940, the only planes that were flying operationally were the Skua and the Swordfish. I have had a good many things hurled at me, as if I had a special measure of personal responsibility in this matter. I do not mind accepting responsibility, but it is as well that we should know the facts.
  It was some weeks after I went to the Admiralty before we had the Fulmar flying operationally. In the naval battle in the Mediterranean, which opened in the middle of 1940, the Fulmar began to shoot the enemy down—which we would have had little opportunity of doing if we had only had the old Skua. The Fulmar was a great improvement on the previous machine, although it was a two-seater machine and needed to be supplemented, indeed, supplanted, by a fast single-seater fighter. The Admiralty had had plans earlier than that for the use of a Seafire type as a ship-borne single-seater fighter. Who can complain that, in the conditions in which we found ourselves, after we had lost so much of our own fighter defence force in France, and considering that we had practically no margin when we came to the end of the Battle of Britain, it was wrong for the War Cabinet to give immediate and complete super-priority to the production of fighter defence for the fortress of Britain. If we had lost air control over these Islands at that time, we would have lost the whole battle.
  If we take the next development, we very soon had in operation, after a few troubles and heartaches, a fighter—a
  822
  single-seater—which was a great improvement upon the Fulmar. That was the Grumman-Martlet. I have friends in the Service who pay a very high tribute to what they have been able to do with the Martlet plane in fighting. We then had the Sea Hurricanes, and now he have the Seafires. But that is not by any means the end of the efforts which the Board of Admiralty have made to get an adequate fighter equipment for the Fleet Air Arm. They have had under development, of course by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, other fighter machines, about which obviously I cannot give details today, except that I am able to say that when it was suggested by one of my hon. Friends opposite that of the aircraft factories which were devoted to the production of naval planes of a fighter character for flying over the sea none had been able to produce planes to fly, that certainly is not correct.
  Mr. Cocks: New types, I said.
  Mr. Alexander: New types. That certainly would not be correct, although I am bound to say that I had been hoping that I would have got them into production in numbers to perform operationally earlier.
  Lieut.-Commander Brabner: May I suggest to the First Lord that the whole urgency of this matter is one of time? There is a flying season in the spring, from spring to, shall we say, October, and the Germans seem to get their types out for spring, and ours seem to come out a little later. It has happened all through this war, and we hope the First Lord realises the urgency of the matter.
  Mr. Alexander: I should have thought that what I have said indicated that we do realise the extraordinary importance, not only of getting the latest type of Spitfire machine, but also of developing our own fighters according to our Staff requirements.
  Now I come to the question of the torpedo-bomber. Perhaps I had better go into a little more detail in regard to this. It is rather a pity that one has to do it so often, because I do try to make the position plain, regrettable as some of the circumstances have been. Let me repeat that the Barracuda torpedo-bomber was ready designed, embodying the Staff requirements of the Admiralty, although,

  823
  of course, the embodying work is subsequently done by firms working through the Ministry of Aircraft Production—at that time, in 1939, working through the Air Ministry. The plane was ready, but it was designed around the "X" engine, and when it was about to come into actual production for operational control, it was decided, in the general interests of air production, that the "X" engine should not be proceeded with. Therefore, there was some delay while a new design was brought into line with a new type of engine. This was done. By the time that design was ready we had come to the Battle of Britain, and in view of the urgent need for turning all our expanding aircraft production industry on to the defence of Britain, the Barracuda was stopped for the time being.
  After that this aircraft was, perhaps, amended in equipment from time to time, according to the experience which had accrued to the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm during the course of the war. While I was able to say last year, quite firmly and quite honestly from my point of view, that they were coming then into production, it was an unfortunate thing that last year, after that statement had been made—I was dealing then with the first hand-made, if I may so term them, earlier models that were coming out of production—when the main production started the machine developed what they call in the engineering industry "bugs" here and there. There are certain things which I cannot go into here, including aero-dynamics, ailerons and some other parts, but they have all been cleared. It has taken a considerable time, as I said last week, but the machine, on all the professional advice I have got at the Admiralty, is now first-class. It is flying, it is being supplied in increasing numbers. I do not think my hon. Friend will ask me to say what those numbers are. I do not propose to give information to the enemy, but they are certainly coming immediately to the point of beginning to form operational squadrons.
  With regard to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), a very old friend of mine—and the last thing in the world I would want to do is to appear to want to fall out with him—I feel that the kind of statement made to-night, apparently by some high engineering authority, unquoted
  824
  and unnamed, that this machine that we are going to ask our fellows to fly in the near future—the new fast torpedo-bomber of the Navy—is no good and ought to be scrapped, is not very encouraging, and if, in view of all that has been done and the work put into it, and the fact that some of the pilots are flying that machine now in their early training, I think if one is going to make statements in public like that, one ought to be quite certain what the authority for it is.
  I think perhaps I might leave discussion of that machine and say a word in regard to other questions raised. I made it clear last week that the Avenger torpedo-bomber, which has been so successful in its use by the American Navy in the South-West Pacific, was seen by our experts—by Admiral Lyster—long ago, when he visited the United States, and we ordered them long since, and deliveries of the Avenger are starting now to us from the United States. The other point with regard to bombers is that we long since ordered, but it has been very difficult to get deliveries of, the Curtiss dive-bomber for use by the Navy, and while I cannot say that I have any deliveries yet over here, nevertheless they are coming out well, and I hope to get deliveries very shortly.
  That is the position with regard to the Fleet Air Arm, but when I look back over the last three years in regard to the experience of the Fleet Air Arm and see what the casualties in ships have been, which I mentioned the other day—five main carriers and two auxiliaries—and I can see to-day that we have just the same number of carriers still, in spite of all that, and a large number of auxiliaries and a rapidly expanding Fleet Air Arm, it seems to me that the Admiralty cannot have been so idle or unsuccessful in meeting the threat from the air point of view that we have to, to keep our communications quite clear.
  May I say a word about other types of aircraft? The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) said something about his experience as former naval liaison officer with Coastal Command. I have not, of course, had a chance to check up dates, but I should have said from his reference that his experiences were confined to the period when the Admiralty had not yet assumed operational control of Coastal Command,

  825
  and I would not like it to be taken from what he said that it in any way represents the present position, now that we have had, since the end of December, 1940, I think, speaking from memory, operational control of Coastal Command. I must say that, quite apart from the aircraft available at any given time in that period, the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness between the Navy and Coastal Command and the Naval Staff has left nothing to be desired. I think it has been absolutely first-class.
  One comes then to the question of aircraft for Coastal Command. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the fact that in May, 1940, they had not a very large number of machines. I think that is quite true. I think it is also true that in the competition which afterwards was bound to arise from the different demands of the Services—the equipment of the bomber forces here, the equipment of the North African forces, the equipment of our forces in India, the equipment of our forces in Iraq and Iran, as well as the demands of some hon. Members as to how many should be sent to Russia, if you examine this, you will find that the Admiralty has not been unsuccessful in getting, not by any means all that it wants—I do not want to give that impression—but it has made a great change in the situation from that described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland. Different types have been added, American as well as British, including American long-distance machines. I say that the U-boat menace is so serious—and our country should be so well aware of the menace which the Navy has to fight—that we need every possible development in the direction of the aid of long-range, very long-range, shore-based aircraft to assist the other types of escorts, plus Fleet Air Arm escorts if necessary, that is have the whole lot working together—in order to get the maximum amount of protection to the convoys and achieve the maximum imports in this country.
  I would like it to be clear, when charges are bandied about sometimes, though I have not noticed anyone saying it to-day, that the Admiralty is not air-minded, that that really is not true. The Board of Admiralty, in my experience in the last three years of war, have been pressing all we can to have that sense of urgency to which some hon. Members have referred, maintained. We have never
  826
  been without that sense of urgency. If the Board of Admiralty had been without a sense of urgency in the last few years, you would have lost the naval war. We have never faced such a situation before in our history. It is precisely because of this sense of urgency of the Board of Admiralty that we have been able to deal with the situation and come to the help of other Services as well. The question has been raised about the control of the direction of the anti-U-boat campaign. I want to make that clear too. Of course, I will look carefully at what has been said in some speeches when I see them detailed in print, but I have no reason to-day to depart for a moment from the view already expressed to the House by the. Prime Minister in the statement he made when he set up the second edition of the U-boat Committee last autumn. On that basis I say that the main responsibility for the defeat of the U-boats at sea must rest with the Admiralty. It is its job. But the Admiralty is glad of the kind of Committee which has been set up, with the advantage of having the experts of all the Departments and other Services and the scientists available to it in that respect.
  Reference was made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe to the fact that Field-Marshal Smuts had been mentioned in this connection. Hon. Members will remember that the Prime Minister was authorised by Field-Marshal Smuts to say that he had not seen the organisation of the Admiralty and the general strategical planning of the Government in this matter until after he had made his first suggestion. I can state that I was present when he afterwards came to the Admiralty and went over the whole organisation, some details of which I would not dare to speak to hon. Members about, and when he had seen it all he said he was perfectly satisfied with the machine as it had been set up, and with the manner in which it was functioning, and that therefore it was not necessary that the other suggestion he had made should be pressed. Other Members have asked what sort of daily cooperation there is between us and the United States in this anti-U-boat campaign. I say, "constant co-operation"; and not only between us and the United States, but also most valuable co-operation with our friends in Canada.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does "constant" mean "daily"?
  Mr. Alexander: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend, who, I think, had some military experience in the last war, will readily understand that in the kind of war we are conducting hourly—much more than daily—there is a constant signalling going on between the different Allied forces which have to control escorts and run the risks in those waters. Therefore the co-operation must be carried on daily. It must be obvious that in a war like this, our daily experiences must not be lost sight of, and wherever we find from actual experience that something should be improved, to prevent a repetition of what has happened before, we shall be delighted, as we have always been, to do our best to secure that improvement. I am not quite sure whether I have covered all the main points but I think I have probably done it sufficiently to satisfy the House.
  I come to what is, perhaps, the last point to which I need refer: that is, the speed of ships. This, again, is a matter on which I have made several statements to the House. There will always be people in the industry, sometimes speaking directly to us, sometimes speaking through Members of this House, as they frequently do, expressing their views on this matter. Of course, if we could have nothing but fast ships, I think it would be bound to show better results. If you could have all your escorts equally equipped for fast convoys, that would be ideal. But that was not the situation as I found it. I inherited the task of carrying on the naval war, when France had left us, with the tonnage we then had. If you had, with your limited labour strength, tonnage, and the slipways available for the construction of escort vessels, turned over to the construction of faster ships, you might have been led into disaster. For some considerable time, until we had got the American programmes going, obviously, in dealing with the volume of imports needed in this country, the thing was to get the largest output of tonnage possible with the slips and labour available. But I have never said that I was wedded to slow ships. I have said on every possible occasion that, as the labour situation improved, by means of expansion, and by improvement of training and new methods, we would turn, as far as we could and as far as the slips were available, to building faster
  828
  ships than the standard tramp type we have had. The increase in the number of fast ships has gone on since 1940 until, to-day, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was able to tell us that, of the orders to be placed this year and next year, well over 30 per cent. will be fast ships. I hope I have said enough about fast ships to settle the matter in the minds of hon. Members.
  I will add in conclusion—because we have had quite a long Debate—only this: Let no one misunderstand the attitude of the Board of Admiralty and myself on this great problem, the problem of maintaining our sea communications. We regard the position as one of great menace, and the situation, as I told the House last week, is one which will become increasingly difficult, because with every move forward we make offensively, with every new piece of territory released from the grip of the enemy and as our campaign widens, we shall want more ships, more escorts, and there will be more demands upon our space at every step. The extent to which all that can be speeded up and moved forward must depend to a large extent not only upon building new tonnage but upon increasing the offensive of killing the U-boat.
  I want to remove from my hon. Friends' minds any idea that there is any complacency, for that would be a wrong interpretation to place upon our attitude. But if the House asks us to give a regular interval report, and if we report to them, as I was able to do last week, that we have had the best time in the last four months during the whole of the war in our rate of killing the U-boats, surely it is not a crime to be able to report that. We still regard the situation as being very dangerous and serious because we have no guarantee that the rate of U-boat building is not still outstripping the rate of killings. Therefore, that is why we have been concentrating, as I indicated to the House last week, even at the expense perhaps of interfering with the building of our target of merchant tonnage, more upon the quicker production of escort ships. I say that, with the extra mass production that we have arranged in our escort ship class, and with that large programme which is being built of the same kind of ship in the United States of America, we shall see a far greater delivery of that

  829
  type of escort to the Navies of our two countries in the next few months than in any similar period before.
  Commander Galbraith: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is satisfied with the numbers of long-range aircraft which are being put against the submarine?
  Mr. Alexander: I did not say that.
  Commander Galbraith: That is why I ask.
  Mr. Alexander: I was very careful. Of course, I cannot say that we have all that we need. I compared it with the various other demands upon the supply of aircraft, but we have got to a very much better position in that situation than we ever were before, and I said last week that we shall be getting an increased allocation of aircraft for that purpose. I cannot add to that statement at the moment.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to the House how he knows what is the output of U-boats?
  Mr. Alexander: We have ways and means for making our estimates in the Admiralty, but they are ways and means which I certainly would not reveal to Members of fee House in open Session. We have our ways and means, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will not require me to say any more about it. When I was interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend, I was about to say, in conclusion, that this is the situation to-day. The U-boat menace is increasing, and so are our provisions against it, but we must not let up for a moment. We have to do two things—come through without undue risk to our imports, and, secondly, speed up the date When we can carry the offensive, as we mean to do, to the enemy wherever we find him.
  Mr. Ammon: I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, except that I desire to put the remarks of my right hon. Friend in proper perspective. He charged me with accusing the Admiralty of general slackness. Those who were present will bear me in memory when I say that the First Lord made a gratuitous suggestion in the last Debate that I had reflected
  830
  on the courage and skill of our seamen. He interrupted by saying:
  "It saved you in this one."
  The House will remember that I said:
  "That was due to the gallantry of the men on the seas and is not in any way due to administration. Administration has been slack right through."
  Torn from its context, that is a half-truth which is very much worse than the falsehood which the First Lord intended to convey.
  Mr. Alexander: I am in the hands of the House as to how this passage can be interpreted. Let us go back and see what was the real context of my hon. Friend's speech. He said:
  "I will give the Admiralty"—
  That is, the people who administer the Navy—
  "credit for one advantage. It is sometimes said that we are always thinking in terms of the war before last. At least the Admiralty is thinking in terms of the last one."
  I interjected:
  "It saved you in this one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1943; col. 592, Vol. 387.]
  My hon. Friend said that this was due to the gallantry of the men on the seas and was not in any way due to the administration, and that I have answered now. I also noted that my hon. Friend said that administration has been slack right through. What did he mean by that if he did not mean the Admiralty?
  Mr. Ammon: The House accepted it with general approval.
  Mr. Alexander: But you did not give a single fact in support of your statement.
  Mr. Ammon: The support is there by your own statement.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  NUMBERS
  Resolved,
  "That such numbers of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines and of Royal Marine Police, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

  WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES AND OF CERTAIN OTHER PER- SONNEL SERVING WITH THE FLEET.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet, which Will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1942
  Resolved,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1943, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

  Schedule

  Sums not exceeding.

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote

  £

  £

  1. Wages, &camp;., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet

  10

  38,000,000

  Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmond-son.]
HOUSING
  Rents, Brynmawr
  Rents, Brynmawr
  Farm Workers' Cottages (Rents)
  Farm Workers' Cottages (Rents)
  East Suffolk
  East Suffolk
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Newcastle (Domestic Staffs)
  Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Newcastle (Domestic Staffs)
  Mental Deficiency (Statistics)
  Mental Deficiency (Statistics)
  Vaccinations, Glasgow
  Vaccinations, Glasgow
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Fish (Allocation)
  Fish (Allocation)
  Milk (Pasteurisation)
  Milk (Pasteurisation)
  GOVERNMENT-BUILT SHIPS (ALLOCATION)
  GOVERNMENT-BUILT SHIPS (ALLOCATION)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, WHITCHURCH
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, WHITCHURCH
  FLOWERS (CARRIAGE BY RAIL)
  FLOWERS (CARRIAGE BY RAIL)
  ROAD TRANSPORT (RACEHORSES AND FLOWERS)
  ROAD TRANSPORT (RACEHORSES AND FLOWERS)
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  CYPRUS (TRADE UNIONS)
  CYPRUS (TRADE UNIONS)
  EAST AFRICA (TRANSPORT WORKERS)
  EAST AFRICA (TRANSPORT WORKERS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Home Guard (Aliens)
  Home Guard (Aliens)
  Casualties (Notification)
  Casualties (Notification)
  Middle East Forces (Communication With Relatives)
  Middle East Forces (Communication With Relatives)
  Detention Camp Staffs (Officers)
  Detention Camp Staffs (Officers)
  Red Cross and St. John War Organisation (Ambulances)
  Red Cross and St. John War Organisation (Ambulances)
  BRITISH RED CROSS (BOOKS AND MAGAZINES)
  BRITISH RED CROSS (BOOKS AND MAGAZINES)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  War Office (Correspondence)
  War Office (Correspondence)
  Conscientious Objectors (Employment)
  Conscientious Objectors (Employment)
  New Buildings (Consultation with Planning Authorities)
  New Buildings (Consultation with Planning Authorities)
  Non-Industrial Staff (Numbers)
  Non-Industrial Staff (Numbers)
  Board of Trade (Assistant Secretaries)
  Board of Trade (Assistant Secretaries)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SCHEMES (APPLICATION)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SCHEMES (APPLICATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Old Age Pensions
  Old Age Pensions
  "Wings For Victory" Week (Cost)
  "Wings For Victory" Week (Cost)
  R.A.F. OFFICERS' JOURNEY (AUTHORISATION)
  R.A.F. OFFICERS' JOURNEY (AUTHORISATION)
  UNITED NATIONS
  UNITED NATIONS
  GERMAN AIRMEN (FUNERAL)
  GERMAN AIRMEN (FUNERAL)
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
  Enemy Propaganda
  Enemy Propaganda
  Broadcasts to France
  Broadcasts to France
  POST-WAR INDUSTRY (PAMPHLET)
  POST-WAR INDUSTRY (PAMPHLET)
  SPAIN (OIL IMPORTS)
  SPAIN (OIL IMPORTS)
  POSTAL SERVICE, MIDDLE EAST AND INDIA.
  POSTAL SERVICE, MIDDLE EAST AND INDIA.
  YOUTH REGISTRATION (WHITE PAPER)
  YOUTH REGISTRATION (WHITE PAPER)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  TYRES (SCRAP)
  TYRES (SCRAP)
  ORPHANAGE, REIGATE (DISPUTE)
  ORPHANAGE, REIGATE (DISPUTE)
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Local Authorities, Sanitary Staffs
  Local Authorities, Sanitary Staffs
  Men over 35 (Employment)
  Men over 35 (Employment)
  War Workers, Oxford (Accommodation)
  War Workers, Oxford (Accommodation)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Search Warrants
  Search Warrants
  Empire Wine (Trade Description)
  Empire Wine (Trade Description)
  Creosote (Use as Fuel)
  Creosote (Use as Fuel)
FUEL AND POWER
  Mine Accidents
  Mine Accidents
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GERMANY AND THE HITLERITE STATE.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the passage in M. Stalin's speech of 6th November, 1942, in which he said that it was not Russia's aim "to destroy Germany for it is impossible to destroy Germany" … but that "the Hitlerite State can and should be destroyed"; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government in their war aims make the same distinction between Germany and the Hitlerite State; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the question which I am to ask His Majesty's Government to-day has a military significance, for, as I shall hope to show, it has much to do with the hastening of victory. In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I should like to say at the start that I am as clear as any man about the necessity of the complete and final defeat of the present German military machine. But my question also has much to do with the pattern of European order after the war. It raises the issue of war aims and the character of the cause for which we and our Allies are contending. It is not a matter of good or bad Germans; it is a matter of creeds, creeds which pass the frontiers of nations, and of the faith by which the Allies are to overcome the Hitlerite State and the Hitlerite system, wherever found, and build for the future.
Let me introduce my question, which is based on a statement by Premier Stalin, by giving the context. It was made by one of the most remarkable figures and one of the greatest Generals in world history. To his marvellous leadership,
536
coupled with the unbounded courage and devotion of his troops, no tribute can be too high. It occurs in a speech which he made in Moscow on November 6 last, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Soviet revolution. At the end, after a reference to Mr. Churchill's visit, which, he said, "established complete and mutual confidence between the leaders of the two countries," Premier Stalin concluded by speaking of "our tasks." He said that every one of them was centred in the destruction of the Hitlerite régime in all its aspects. Then he set out the first task. He said:
"In an interview with a Turkish General Erkilet published in a Turkish newspaper Cumhuriet, Hitler said: 'We shall destroy Russia so that she will never be able to rise again.' That would appear clear, though rather cynical."
Premier Stalin said:
"We have no such aim as to destroy Germany, for it is impossible to destroy Germany, just as it is impossible to destroy Russia; but the Hitlerite State can and should be destroyed, and our first task in fact is to destroy the Hitlerite State and its inspirers."
A few sentences later he said:
"Comrades, we are waging a great war of liberation. We are not waging it alone, but in conjunction with our Allies. It will end in our victory over the vile foes of mankind, over the German Fascist imperialists."
That is the context of my question.
A statement on similar lines was made in an Order of the Day to the Red Army by Premier Stalin, on 23rd February, 1942, which stamps on the "stupid lie" that it is the Red Army's aim to exterminate the German people and to destroy the German State. Premier Stalin says:
"It is very likely that the war for the liberation of our Soviet land will result in the ousting or destruction of Hitler's clique. We would welcome such an outcome, but it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler's clique with the German people and the German State. The experience of history shows that Hitlers come and go, whereas the German people and the German State remain."
My question is very simple: Do His Majesty's Government make the same distinction as does Premier Stalin between the Hitlerite State and the German people in their prosecution of the war and their view of our war aims? I am not suggesting that the Government would have any difficulty in replying that the distinction which Mr. Stalin draws they also draw, but I do suggest that a public announcement by the Government, in emphatic,

537
unhesitating terms, would be particularly valuable now.
I suggest that it is of urgent importance that, before the Western offensive begins, those resisting in. Germany and in occupied countries should know with whom the Allies will collaborate. There is a real uncertainty in occupied and satellite countries on this vital point, and the recent experience of North Africa shows good reason for doubts. A mere anti-German slogan is Lot enough for the occupied countries, and in Germany, as I shall hope to show, it actually helps the enemy. We must show a positive conception of the future of Europe and of the principles on which a future order will be built, a conception uniting the free men of Europe in all countries with the free men of America and the Dominions and China against the Nazi and Fascist tyranny which now grips Germany, Italy and Japan, and everywhere else where it raises its monstrous head.
I want to call attention to the importance of making this distinction from three points of view. First of all, I desire to remind your Lordships of the reality of the distinction before the war; secondly, I propose to give evidence of its continuance and development as opposition during the war, and to show how much the opposition could do if help came from outside; thirdly, I want to underline the vital importance of the distinction for the whole pattern of Europe after the war.
I begin with the six years before the war. It so happens that I was myself in Berlin at the outset of the Hitler régime on January 30, 1933, with German and other foreign Church friends. The general anxiety in Liberal and Christian circles was plain enough Almost at once assassinations and concentration camps began. The men who seized power were mostly criminals or of the criminal type, and, as Hitler and his collection of gangsters steadily gained control, the reign of terror grew. I dare not acquit the Germans as a whole of some guilt for accepting the Nazi régime, but the chief blame in Germany for letting the Nazis seize control lies with certain powerful anti-democratic forces, partly in military and partly in industrial circles, who betrayed their own county for their selfish ends. How little they reckoned the outcome! Nor in all honesty should we in Britain fail to recognize our own part in the general European and world responsi-
538
bility, or forget the force of Mr. Eden's admission at Leamington in September that we, too, made many mistakes in the whole period of the twenty years because we lacked faith in ourselves and the cause we championed. And he said:
"Nowhere was this more evident than in the held of foreign policy."
But in spite of the cruelty and murder and of the paralysing effect—paralysing physically, psychologically, morally—of the ruthless strategy of the Nazis' oppression, vast numbers of the German people refused to bow the knee to Baal. I honour the Jews and the non-Aryan Christians, and can testify to their courage in millions of homes. Incidentally, is not the Nazi treatment of the Jews in itself an evidence of the reality of this distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people? What other Government in German history, what other German organization besides the Nazi Party has ever tormented and murdered millions of Jews as the Nazis have done? But I rather turn to the so-called Aryan Germans — Communists, Socialists, Liberals, or other decent men who have suffered because of their revolt. It is no mere myth that hundreds of thousands of Aryans were sent to concentration camps, that thousands were executed, that the prisons were overcrowded; it is no mere myth that many hundreds, many thousands, of so-called Aryan families had the ashes of their nearest relatives cynically sent to them from prisons and concentration camps; it is no mere myth that hundreds of thousands, nay probably millions, of Aryans are now living in Nazi Germany as permanent suspects, untouchable from the Nazi point of view, trembling in face of the direct and indirect persecution of the Gestapo. When we are tempted to blame the German people for their docility, we must remember the multitude of assassins and spies.
I would remind your Lordships that the opposition that was most effective and world resounding was that of the Christian Church, Catholic and Protestant. The Catholic Church stood up, the Confessional Church stood up, and the whole world honours—who does not honour?—Martin Niemöller, Cardinal Faulhaber and their colleagues. The whole world is convinced that in the Nazis they faced the destroyers of Christianity and the enemies of God. They were not afraid to denounce

539
the Nazi Government, not simply for interference with religious exercises, but for their denial of freedom, for their rejection of the rights of man, of the individual and of the family, for their idolatry of race and for their contempt of law. I myself was concerned from the start with the Christian opposition in Germany, and could give you many illustrations of the way in which this anti-Nazi feeling and conviction was expressed. There was no question of the reality of the distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people then. It is a simple matter of fact that Germany was the first country in Europe to be occupied by the Nazis.
I turn to the period of the war and to the reality and development of the opposition in the past three and a half years. One of the most remarkable proofs of Hitler's expectation of opposition in wartime is a memorandum made by Himmler, the head of the Gestapo, for the senior Reichswehr Generals and officers, and issued in 1937. There is no doubt about its authenticity, and it has been published. It anticipates the existence of strong anti-Nazi forces at the outbreak of war, and gives instructions for their suppression. I will give you one or two extracts. Himmler says:
"In a future war we will have to deal not merely with the front of the Army on land, the front of the Navy at sea and the front of the Luftwaffe in the air. We will have a fourth battlefield to look after—inner Germany. At the beginning of the war mass arrests on an unprecedented scale will be necessary … the majority of political prisoners Will have to be shot out of hand."
Again:
"Unless we can manage, by hook or by crook, to keep that fourth one, the home front, in check, the three other fronts, those fighting by land, at sea and in the air, will once again get the stab in the back…. This problem we must face under any circumstances, and we must have no illusions about the fact that any war in which we would neglect the internal battle ground would lead to catastrophe."
Hitler and Himmler were as good as their word in the exercise of their powers against the opposition. When war broke out, mass arrests did take place. Hundreds of thousands of the opposition are in prison or in concentration camps.
But, more important from our point of view, outside the concentration camps there is an opposition continuous, very subtle, and determined. Much of the opposition has been by implication rather
540
than direct. With our tradition of free speech we easily forget the impossibility of open criticism in a slave State. But if you recollect the method of irony, allusion and understatement in the eighteenth century, in the pages of Voltaire and particularly in Montesquieu's L'Esprit des Lois, where under the veil of Chinese history he gives a vivid description of France, and the ruin of France under the absolute monarchy of Louis the Fourteenth—if you recollect that, you will appreciate the devastating implications of writings by certain anti-Nazi German authors, widely read to-day. Much of the opposition is by sabotage in the munition and industrial factories and in other ways—listening to the wireless, passing on rumours and criticisms, making illegal prints, holding secret meetings. Part of the record of this underground opposition is to be found in the numberless executions week by week recorded in the Nazi Press. But the most conspicuous and steadfast opposition—public opposition—is offered by the Churches, Catholic and Protestant. I do not deny that the German Bishops pray for German soldiers; it is difficult to blame them for that. The astonishing fact is the volume of Church protest against the Nazi machine.
In a totalitarian State it is hard to exaggerate the significance of sermons like those of Cardinal Faulhaber, the Evangelical Bishop Wurms of Wurttemburg, and Bishop Bornewasser of Trier, or the declaration by the whole Catholic hierarchy at Fulda about human rights, or statements from the Episcopate read in all Catholic churches in most of the dioceses of the Reich. It is still harder to overlook the significance of three terrific sermons preached a year and a half ago by Bishop von Galen of Münster denouncing the Gestapo and the home Government. Just after the destruction of a large part of Münster itself by an R.A.F. raid on July 13, 1941, he said:
"Not one of you is sure, no matter how conscious you may be of being a most faithful citizen, the most conscientious, although your conscience may be one of complete innocence—not one of you knows when he may be dragged from his home, deprived of his liberty and shut up in the cellars and concentration camps of the Gestapo. I am taking into consideration that that could even be to-day and that it could happen to me myself. Since under such circumstances I could no longer speak publicly, to-day I want to protest publicly against continuation along this line which,

541
according to my firm conviction, is bringing down upon men the Divine chastisement and unnecessarily leading to the misfortune and ruin of our people and country."
This in the middle of a war!
Could anything be more pointed, or clearer evidence of the distinction drawn by the Catholic Church in Germany between the Hitlerite State and the German people than these words of his second sermon a week later? He said:
"Our soldiers will fight and die for Germany, but not for those who bring shame upon themselves by persecuting the brothers and sisters of our religious brethren. We continue the fight against the enemy outside, but against the enemy within who tortures and beats us we cannot fight by force of arms. There is only one means with which we can fight—by holding out strongly and tenaciously to the end. We must be strong and hold fast."
There is no doubt about the sensation which these words caused not only in the crowded congregations which heard the preacher, but all over the land. Remember that these sermons circulate like wildfire. Bishop von Galen himself has a fleet of motor dispatch riders who see that the sermon reaches all the churches of Münster and the diocese. Other sermons by other prelates preaching on these lines, declarations from the Church, and the new pastoral letter issued just before Christmas by Bishop von Preysing of Berlin condemning the Nazi régime and warning the country of the terrible wrongs being done to the Jews—these have been, and are, distributed through Germany and seized and read in a way with which no other literature can compare. It is a very notable, a very systematic, a very successful portent, this portent of the anti-Government literature of the Church.
I do not want to exaggerate the capacity of the opposition in face of the Nazi despots. Let us never forget they have no arms while the Nazi régime is ruthless. Spies and assassins are everywhere with their machine guns and their revolvers. But no wise statesman will ignore this opposition. They have no weapons, but they have a great faith in the possibility, once given help from outside, of most vigorous action. Hitler does not ender-estimate the force of his opposition. He began by denouncing it at the end of 1941 after Russia and America had come into the war and when the winter campaign began to go wrong. At Berlin, on December 11, 1941, he spoke thus:
542
"At a time when thousands of our best men, the fathers and sons of our people, are falling, no individual at home who blasphemes the sacrifice of the front can reckon with remaining alive. No matter what camouflage covers any attempt to disturb this German front, to undermine our people's will to resist, to weaken the authority of the Government or sabotage the efforts of our home front—the guilty one will fall."
Note the word "camouflage". Then there was the latest denunciation by Hitler just a fortnight ago when, at Munich, he said:
"In these coming months … the Party will have … ruthlessly to destroy saboteurs. The Party have to enlighten in places where enlightenment is being rejected. It has to break terror with tenfold terror. It has to extinguish traitors, whoever they be and whatever their design, who follow aims hostile to the people."
The Press in recent months have made it plain that many purges have been carried out in the last year and the last six months. The Times of January 2 recorded that, as a precaution against revolt, thousands of suspects were arrested in Germany between October and January, and that in December hundreds of persons long detained in concentration camps were removed to still closer confinement. The latest report of February states that there is a nation-wide Gestapo campaign, involving the imprisonment of thousands of all parties and the execution of hundreds. And that we may be under no doubt as to the seriousness that Hitler attaches to this opposition, let me remind you of the further precaution which he has taken indicating his fear of the home front. While he keeps the German Army on foreign soil and infiltrates it with his S.S. and S.A. spies, almost the whole of the S.S. and S.A. troops, nearly a million personal devotees, are stationed by him at home to guard against and to crush the first signs of revolution. Nor must we forget, when we are considering the opponents and enemies of Hitler within the Reich, the tremendous danger to the régime which is involved in the presence of 7,000,000 foreign men doing forced labour, imported from occupied countries, separated from their homes, working like slaves for an enemy they abhor. Certainly they are unarmed and not to be overrated, but who would deny the potential value of an army of hostile people if only aid could reach them from outside? We must not overrate it, but we must not ignore it.
Hitler knows that his only hope of appeasing the opposition is to persuade them that they as well as he are threatened by destruction by the Allies, that the Allies make no distinction between Nazis and other Germans, and regard all Germans as black. That is why Hitler sounds the note so constantly to-day, "To be or not to be for Germany." That is why he represents himself as the sole barrier against what he is pleased to describe as the Bolshevist menace; that is why he is pursuing his ruthless tactics now in the extermination of the Jews so that Germany as a whole may be involved in the consequences. Though the Jews are deported before they are killed, deported outside the Reich to be killed in Poland and the East, and though it is only Nazis (and not only German Nazis) who kill them, Hitler dare not arm the anti-Nazis for fear of revolt. So our policy should be the very opposite to Hitler's. He says to the Germans: "I am the only barrier between you and destruction." We should say, on the contrary: "Remove Hitler and you will be saved. Russia has no wish to destroy you, America has no wish to destroy you, Britain has no wish to destroy you, no wish to identify the German people with the Nazis." We must make the distinction plain and so hasten victory. We must make it plain in the interests of our cause, and of truth. I do not hesitate to say that those who fail to distinguish between Nazis and other Germans in England or elsewhere, who say that there is no difference, are playing into Hitler's hands.
So, remembering that the opposition has little power by itself, that anyone who raises a finger in opposition does so at the risk of his life, remembering that opposition can sabotage, can depress, can protest but cannot overthrow Hitler and Himmler and the rest unless aided from outside, we should, I believe, declare in unequivocal terms that a Germany that has overthrown Hitler and all he stands for, a Germany that repudiates all desire for military domination and renounces Hitler's crimes and anti-Jewish laws and Hitler's gains—that such a Germany can be saved and will be welcomed to a proper place in the family of nations. Again, giving them that moral encouragement, we must speed on the day of their
544
liberation with the material support of Armies and armed assistance as well.
I have one final point, in a sense the most important of all: that is, the distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people from the point of view of the future of Europe. The present war is not a war of nation against nation. It is a revolutionary war, it is a war of faiths in which the nations themselves are divided. It is necessary to leave no doubt which creed and which leaders in any nation we, the Allies, are ready to support. Our banner is the banner of liberty, democracy and Christian civilization against slavery, tyranny and barbarism. We must choose, and let the whole world know we choose, between the Hitlerite State for all Europe and the rule of freedom for all Europe, between Europe as "a prison of nations," as Mr. Stalin describes Hitler's New Order, and Europe as a home, with freedom and food for every member of the family. We must make the choice as clear as crystal. There is no time to lose. If we do not make it plain to-day to lovers of freedom everywhere, though we win the war in a military sense, we lose the war of faiths and help the establishment of Fascism in Europe. There is a problem of Europe. It is very real and very exacting. Hitler thought to solve it by his New Order, by the enslavement of nations to a dominant Germany. His solution was that of the destroyer. That the life of Europe requires a new pattern it would be foolish to deny. Europe was divided before the war; it is divided now. The peoples of Europe are not prepared to go back to the old pattern. We, the Allies, have a duty to show the nations that there is an alternative to Hitlerism in sane democracy built on freedom and justice, having respect for the individual and for the family, and in line with what is generally known as the Christian tradition.
The key to the solution of the problem of Europe, which is fundamentally spiritual and moral, and then social and industrial and concerned with the character of the industrial society, is to be found in a nobler faith and in freedom for all nations living in sufficiency and justice together, not in the domination of any master race. So I claim that we must distinguish between the Hitler State and the German people for the sake of the people of Europe. Free Germany and free Europe from the rule of Hitler, and

545
you are doing priceless service to both. Indeed the problem of Germany never will be solved except as part of the problem of Europe. Concentrate on Germany to the exclusion of the other nations in Europe, impose restrictions on Germany which have no relation to the future of Europe, and you are only deepening the divisions, sharpening the nationalisms, fomenting intrigues and preparing for a further catastrophe twenty years hence. But look at Europe as a whole, plan your transport system, your civil aviation system, your educational system, your wireless and your communications system, and not least your system of armaments, for Europe as a whole, tell the German people that they and all other nations must have such and such restrictions imposed for the sake of Europe as a whole, then the situation, moral and psychological, will have changed.
I apologize to your Lordships for claiming your attention for so long, but at this moment, after the successes in North Africa, after the wonderful achievements of the Soviet troops in Russia, just before the great Western offensive, can it be wrong to consider the faith by which the Allies should be fired and to press the matter of this distinction between the Hitlerite State and the German people? I can only hope that I have given some evidence of the reality of an opposition in Germany, and of the necessity for encouragement and assistance if it is to carry out its own principles and to be of value to the cause. I also hope that I may have given some ground for believing that on drawing this distinction, and making as crystal clear as possible the choice between Fascism and freedom, between tyranny and democracy, the future of Europe depends. I beg to move.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships who have listened to the brilliant moving speech of the right reverend Prelate will agree with me that no apology was called for. I think you will feel, as I do, that it is very difficult to follow that speech, that there is very little to be added, and that what one can add cannot be added so eloquently as the right reverend Prelate put it. Therefore I rise only to express briefly the support of my noble friends on these Benches for the motion which he has raised in your Lordships' House to-day. Our Russian Ally is probably the most realistic politician in the
546
world to-day, and if, therefore, at the height of this struggle, at a time when his own people are bleeding and suffering, at a time when Russia is exposed to the ultimate horrors of war, Mr. Stalin has thought it worth while to make this declaration, I suggest it may be worth while, may indeed be extremely important, that we should inquire into his reasons.
I believe that Mr. Stalin is, in fact, following a tactic which Hitler has used and the efficacy of which his successes have shown only too clearly. Hitler has repeatedly backed his military adventures with appeals to those elements, in the countries which he aims to destroy, which are hostile or unfriendly to their own Governments. It is, after all, a commonplace to-day that no nation is homogeneous. Every nation has its opposition in this war, which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is not a national war. Every nation is divided, and we may count ourselves lucky that our own minority is such a small and such a feeble one. But the minority in Germany, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is not such a small and not such a feeble one. This technique of appealing to minorities is a new one and it is one which I believe it is worth our while to study and to follow. It is, if believe, clearly in following this technique that Mr. Stalin has thought it worth while to outline at this crisis of the war his peace aims. I think we in this country have been too easily inclined to accept the myth spread by Hitler himself and by his German propaganda that Germany is an absolutely united country, unanimously inspired, to use Hitler's favourite expression, with a fanatic will to victory. They are not all fanatics. There are sceptics, even heretics amongst them, and in spite of the enormous machinery of oppression, the tremendous efforts of internal propaganda in Germany, which has been found necessary and which is in itself a proof of the opposition to the régime in Germany, there remains a strong opposition of which in peace-time we had repeated evidence, and of which evidence continues to reach us even in war-time.
Obviously one does not have an Inquisition where there are no heretics, if I may say that with apologies to the occupants of the Bishops' Bench. What is the purpose of the S.A. and S.S. formations, armed forces existing side by side with the regular Army, charged not with fighting the foreign enemy, but with combating

547
the enemy within? They are organizations for supplying the Gestapo, which itself is an organization for terrorizing the terrorists, for keeping the police force of Germany up to the mark, for keeping it pure in Nazi ideals. Compare that situation with our own. How small is our machinery here for dealing with traitors and how small, happily, is the number whom we have had to intern here. The right reverend Prelate quoted Himmler and I cannot resist taking another quotation from Himmler's statements. Himmler said:
"The entire country must be occupied by thirty Death's Head Divisions. No Death's Head Division man is ever to patrol the streets alone."
What should we think if the Home Secretary were to make a statement of that kind about our police force? Surely, my Lords, we should conclude that we were on the verge of a revolution, and I submit that such a conclusion would be right and justified.
Again, I say, compare the position here and in Germany, and immediately there will emerge the difference between a nation with a genuine will to victory and a nation with an artificial will. In 1942 a document, which was dated 1941, was captured in Libya, in which the function of the S.A. and S.S. formations was outlined so that it could be explained to the Army, who apparently had become jealous of this independent armed force. And this is how it was explained. The formations must be maintained, it was said, because any regular police might be corrupted through fraternization with the working classes and other subversive elements. What an extraordinary position this does seem to expose. As I see it, Mr. Stalin perceived very clearly that the strength of the internal opposition in Germany should be measured by the machine needed to crush it. He perceived that Himmler had spoken the exact truth when he said that to neglect the internal battle would lead to catastrophe. And these utterances, to which the right reverend Prelate has referred, were intended to strengthen his allies on that front, the internal German front, to assure those people of good will in Germany that if they played their part in overthrowing the worst tyranny that has ever disgraced the history of man, then they could count after the struggle upon the hope of a decent and humane life.
548
I think that the right reverend Prelate has made it clear that the existence of men of good will in Germany, and men of good will in Germany in considerable numbers, cannot be disputed. Most of us have met Germans who came here before the war. Many of them escaped from concentration camps bearing on their own bodies traces of the treatment which they had received. They are only a small portion of the victims of Hitler in Germany. For Hitler and Hitlerism they have an intensity of detestation which those of us who have never experienced, in our own persons, the brutality and beastliness of this régime cannot possibly feel. We should beware, I think, of the type of German who had reached this country bringing with him at any rate some portion of his goods, and who seeks now to curry favour with us in this country by abusing his own countrymen. I think that there would now be a prima facie reason to suspect the records of such men, and some of the most notorious of them have records which we now know would not bear close inspection. Do not let us be misled by them. They are, I believe, some of the most dangerous allies of Hitler if they inspire us to confound the Nazi régime with the entire German people.
I believe—in fact it is clear—that Mr. Stalin has appreciated the importance of the internal German front. Our Government are dumb, and the natural result is that Herr Goebbels makes use of all kinds of irresponsible statements made by people in this country to frighten his own people into the ranks behind the Fuhrer. I believe the time has come—indeed it is probably past—when His Majesty's Government would be well advised to make a statement supporting and in line with that of Mr. Stalin. This is the kind of thing that Herr Goebbels says to the Germans:
"What will be the fate of the German people if we do not continue the struggle? Whether one says this one is a Democrat, a Plutocrat, a Social Democrat, a Communist or a Nazi, it is all the same."
I appeal to His Majesty's Government to make a statement to show that it is not all the same. I have up to now placed this matter on the lowest possible ground, the ground of expediency. The right reverend Prelate combined with the ground of expediency the ethical ground. The two, I believe, go together, and we on this side

549
of the House feel very strongly on this matter, because our own people are not fighting in this war for any advantage or profit. They believe that they are fighting for freedom and justice, and that in this matter their natural allies are those who, under far more difficult circumstances, spied upon and threatened with punishment, torture and death, uphold those ideals.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put his case in an eloquent and persuasive speech. On some points I think we shall be found to be less far apart than might have been expected. Having said that I shall direct my remarks to what really lies behind this Motion. In a recent issue of his paper, the Editor of the Economist described a debate in this House on German atrocities as being only "the old, old topic of Germans good or bad." That is a very easy line for any superior person to take when he himself is far from danger or discomfort. But it so happens that this "old, old topic" is a matter of life and death for hundreds of millions of unhappy Europeans, and I am, therefore, glad that we can have it out to-day, because the time for the attainment of wisdom may, possibly, be shorter than we think. Accordingly, I warmly welcome this motion, and in particular I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on withdrawing from it that portion of the original winch seemed to presage the retention of some part at least of the German armed forces. With regard to that great force for evil I will only say this: The German word for "Army" is Heer, and the German word for "devastate" is merely the verb of that noun, verheeren. I think that the German Army has lived down to its traditions!
Furthermore, I am in warm agreement with the right reverend Prelate in not wishing to destroy Germany. I desire only, in company with hundreds of millions of other sensible people, to destroy Germany utterly and forever as a military power; and I further desire, in the company of an equal number of sensible people, to make an end for ever of all German pretentions, intrigues and efforts to gain the economic hegemony of Europe, which is only another road to Germany's intolerable tyrannies. Subject to those trilling reservations, I welcome the survival of
550
Germany, with one proviso only; and that is that it shall be a totally different Germany; in other words, it shall bear no relation in shape, soul, or substance, to either the Second or the Third Reich, which have brought these measureless miseries on mankind.
Even that does not exhaust the measure of my concord with the right reverend Prelate. I agree with him that there is a difference between Hitlerite Germany and the very small number of Germans who are not working for Hitlerite Germany, and the still smaller number who are actually working against Hitlerite Germany. Let us by all means, from every practical point of view, distinguish between entity and non-entity. That is exactly what I have been always trying to do. For that purpose, you must put yourself in the position of the victims. Where, the victims have cried in vain through the centuries, are these good Germans of whom we have heard so much and seen so little? Well, here is the answer. Throughout those generations, the good Germans have corresponded exactly with Euclid's definition of a point: they have position, but no magnitude. Some, indeed, have exceedingly good positions, but I cannot tell you, and none of the victims can tell you, what they have done about it. I have spent a long time looking for them with a microscope, from the practical point of view, and I have invariably found a full-stop.
Some of our hopefuls, indeed, expected them to stop the last war by a general strike; and, in spite of the demonstrable and demonstrated futility of that idea, the hopefuls bobbed up unabashed before this war and said: "Come on; let us arm the good Germans; in other words, let us make Hitler arm them by making them fight, and then you will see how quickly they will sweep him away!" That was another slight disappointment! What happened on both these occasions? These Germans have fought us like one man and seventy million tigers, and the pursuit of this carnivorous and evanescent myth has twice nearly proved as fatal to mankind as the hunting of the Snark proved to the baker. Your Lordships will recollect that he "suddenly vanished away." Reliance on the "good Germans" has twice nearly caused civilization to vanish away, and I do most earnestly beg the right reverend

551
Prelate to take some warning by these two providential escapes.
The right reverend Prelate has attained a just eminence in a noble calling in which I should certainly never have surpassed the status of that curate who entertained an uncertain opinion of a certain egg, but I am also the first to acknowledge with humility that, if "equality" is to continue to mean equality of knowledge without equality of effort, then democracy is in a bad way. It happens that in disproof of this artificial differentiation between Germany and Hitlerite Germany, there exists an absolutely inexhaustible storehouse of material, and from it to-day I will draw but three quotations, which cover at least a good deal of the ground. The first is from Mirabeau, in the eighteenth century: "War is the national industry of Prussia." The second is from Treitschke in the nineteenth century: "A people is judged by its rulers." I shall not take it upon myself to differ from that famous or infamous German oracle. The third is from Professor Jessop in the twentieth century, and I draw this quotation from his admirable little book The Treaty of Versailles: Was it just? which I hope that everyone in this House, and indeed in every house, will read, merely in order to see the extent to which the world has been fooled by German propaganda. This is what he says:
"The collective and continuing responsibility of a nation for its rulers' and leaders' doings and misdoings, is an utterly indispensable condition of any stable morality in international affairs."
Let me add an illustration of that very sound maxim. In the last war, hardly a voice was raised in Germany against the policy of atrocity and enslavement which was carried out by the German rulers and elders, and indeed by youth. In this war, hardly a voice has been heard against that same policy of enslavement and atrocity, which has been carried out on a far vaster scale. Even before this last whipping up there were something like 10,000,000 slaves in Germany, irrespective of the scores of millions held in bondage in all the occupied countries. And again no voice is heard in protest. Hardly a German soul bothers—not even the women. It is only a fortnight ago that the survivors of the German terror in Kharkov were saying to one of our most
552
distinguished correspondents: "We found the arrogance of the German women even fouler than that of the men." Why are these things so? It is because, as far back as the nineties, the German nation was told that subject and conquered peoples would do most of the dirty work for them. Why did not somebody protest? Those were the piping days of peace; there was no question of Hitlerite Germany then. But they did not protest, because even then they were not averse to the idea of being a Herrenvolk. It was their idea of a higher standard of living—for themselves at the expense of others—and, in search of that higher standard of living, and firm in their own faith that "men may rise on steppingstones of their dead friends to higher things," the German nation—yes, the German nation—set out on what Field-Marshal Smuts so rightly called "Germany's second thirty years war." And, once that phrase is used and admitted, most of my case is conceded. That has brought in its train an indescribable catastrophe of human suffering. It failed, and with mighty little remorse the German nation then set out on the second half of Germany's second thirty years war with a fivefold greater train of human agony.
This time I trust that no one will be deceived when any Germans, good, bad or indifferent, start crying out because they have failed again. And I confess that this Motion gives me not too much confidence in that respect. It seems to me that the right reverend Prelate has occupied a weak position and has sought to fortify it very naturally with some Russian earthworks. And on that ground alone I somewhat regret that this Motion was brought forward, because it might easily be misinterpreted as an attempt to hamper Russian propaganda. Do let us leave to the Russians that mobility of which they have shown themselves such masters in every sphere. Premier Stalin and his people spoke the Germans fair, but practically no good Germans deserted. On the contrary, they continued to massacre and enslave the good Russians with an ever-increasing acerbity. In this long tale of horror I shall pick out only one episode, and that is the treatment of Russian prisoners in Germany. That is a horrible tale. And in that long nightmare of national inhumanity, not only the German women, but the very German children have joined. And again there is

553
nothing new: the Germans treated their Russian prisoners practically as badly in the last war. I was for some time head of the Prisoners of War Department, and I shall not easily efface that memory. I rather doubt whether the Russians have done so either.
In any case, Premier Stalin and his people have found what I have always maintained, and that is that in order to civilize the Germans you have to beat them; and a very handsome job the Russians are making of it. I hope that in the course of this year we also shall be doing likewise in Europe, and then it would not altogether astonish me if, let us say by the end of 1944, we were to find—I hope with incredulity—that 101 per cent. of the German nation have always been 101 per cent. anti-Nazi. Meanwhile, and for all practical purposes—I underline that word "practical"—any attempt to draw distinctions between Hitlerite Germany and plain Germany is an ingenious pastime, and I shall watch with interest to see whether any occupant of the Front Bench will indulge in it. Such playfulness would certainly be a tribute to the perennial youth of His Majesty's Government. If, however, it is sought to strengthen this game by the invocation of Russian authority, then I must remind your Lordships of an insurmountable range of facts which no casuistry can traverse. May I point to a few of the peaks? The first is a message sent from Moscow, and therefore with full Soviet authority, some months ago by Mr. Alexander Werth. In that message he said that if you talked to Russians about the distinction that we are discussing to-day, they shrugged their shoulders and said that some people in England live a long way off. I agree with our Russian friends.
My next peak is an article by the most famous of all living writers, Ilya Ehrenburg. His authenticity is incontestable. He has recently won the Stalin Prize with his last novel. His article is called "Maturity," and by that I take it to mean the maturity of view which he and his countrymen have reached in regard to the Germans. This is what he says:
"The hatred of the Germans against other peoples is their natural condition."
Note please that he speaks of plain Germans and no fooling. I would also ask you to note that he goes some consider-
554
able distance beyond Black Record. He continues:
"Many of us under-estimated the historical peculiarities, traditions and psychology of Germany."
Well, that is very curious. It seems to apply pretty exactly to us during both the pre-war and the inter-war periods, and, if I may say so with great deference, I think it applies in some measure to this Motion. He continues:
"Many of us waited for the Germans to come to their senses, to feel ashamed, and to revolt."
I pause on that. It is an important point, because it marks the transition to maturity. It marks the transition from the first phase of the Russian attitude to the second, and I think that the right reverend Prelate has perhaps confused the first with the second.
The writer goes on:
"It was not long before our soldiers realized that they were not up against human beings. When we met the Germans we saw that beasts can hold university degrees."
That goes a good deal further than I have ever gone, but it is not for me to dissent. He goes on:
"We hate the Germans … Like our hatred our contempt for the Germans did not come suddenly."
There spake the heart. And in an even stronger passage in another article he goes on to describe the German cannibal washing down his carrot with gallons of human blood, and he warns us that:
"When the Germans have eaten all their dogs and cats, they will lift their hats and whine: 'Hitler Kaput!'"
There is not any word of Hitlerite Germany in that. And it is not I who am speaking. In all practical and spontaneous Russian utterances there is nowadays much less tendency than is generally thought to draw unreal distinctions. Hard reality has made them a thing of the past, and indeed, I think there is a growing weariness among the peoples of the world of the fiction that huge, repeated, and sustained wars of aggression are made and waged by the German nation in the teeth of reluctant or hostile German majorities.
I proceed to my next peak. It is from an article by another famous Russian writer, Leontiev. He says:
"Signs of imperialism, savagery and aggression are to be traced through all German history."

555
Again I think you will agree that that goes a bit further than the Black Record. He goes on:
"Lenin in his works analyses the historical development of Germany and concludes that Germany has become a centre of the most inhuman imperialism with all the dangers that implies.… Even before the first World War Lenin was able to predict the creed of German imperialism.… Forcible Germanization was a German practice long before the new phase of German imperialism-Hitlerism."
I rather like that phrase. It seems to me a very promising one. It might be a ground on which the right reverend Prelate and I could meet and compromise—"German imperialism-Hitlerism."
I go on, or rather Comrade Leontiev goes on, because there is no difference between us:
"During 1914–1918 the true face of Germany was fully displayed.… Comrade Stalin also stigmatized German imperialist intentions in 1918. He said: 'The German imperialists came into our country to turn it into a colony, to enslave its people.'"
How wise was Comrade, now Premier and Marshal Stalin, for that is exactly what the Germans did try to do by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. There they tried to snaffle 60,000,000 slaves at one swoop, and to that hope they clung like limpets even when it became manifest that they were being beaten in the West. I shall not detain your Lordships further with quotations, although there are plenty more where that came from. I shall only say, with the famous Lord Clive, "By God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation."
There may be, perhaps, a little confusion between what has been said in Russia and what has been done. Let us have a look at what has been done. In the mid-eighteenth century a large colony of Germans was imported and planted on the Volga. These were not Hitlerite Germans. Nevertheless, one hundred and fifty years later the Tsar had some reason to mistrust them, and in 1915 he decided to transfer them further east. But he only talked, whereas Premier Stalin has done things. These German colonists, who by now have reached a very large figure indeed, were transferred in 1941, and I think Premier Stalin was right. He was a thousand times right, five hundred thousand times right. Again, I say, these were not Hitlerite Germans. They had a quarter of a century's training in the
556
doctrines of Communism. The schools and universities in which they studied were inscribed with the names and dignified by the effigies of Marx and Engels. Nevertheless they were held to be Germans and unreliable.
There are no illusions in Soviet Russia in regard to Germany. In Soviet Russia they do not suffer Germanofools gladly, nor have they any great understanding of that numerous Anglo-American caste, the Unteachables. Therefore I hope His Majesty's Government will be very cautious in replying to this Motion. There is nothing to be afraid of in the truth. Truth is only terrible when one tries to dodge her. And the truth is that there is really no such place as Hitlerite Germany. Hitlerite Germany be hanged! It will be, but your problem will remain. Therefore I say that if, in deference to any illusory refinements, this Government or any other Government, American or Russian, were to leave to Germany one shred of wherewithal to put the youth of the world for the third time through this hell and shambles, it for the third time blindness were to allow Germany the least chance of claiming again the broken bodies of the young and the broken hearts of the old, why then, before God, I would hope that there would be a general revolt, and I would be the first to join it.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I feel bound to say some words in support of the Motion and question by the Bishop of Chichester, and I am very sorry I may, in some respects, have to differ from my noble friend Lord Vansittart. He has spoken to-day with all his usual force and brilliancy. He began by appearing to be ready to agree with the Bishop, but before long I fear, if I may say so, he went back into his old ways. He said he was astonished at his own moderation. He must be alone in that astonishment. The truth is that though he brings to bear upon his indictment—his long, consistent, and familiar indictment—of the German nation all his immense knowledge and experience and all his brilliance, he is very apt to do what advocates sometimes are apt to do—namely, to overstate the case and to deprive it of a sense of proportion which is always a mark of wisdom. At the same time I must confess that the Bishop of Chichester, in parts of his powerful speech, also showed traces of that similar

557
tendency to overstatement. I do not think, honestly, that the distinction is so absolute as he made out between the Hitlerite Government and its supporters and the great mass of the German people.
It is quite impossible, as a matter of history, to ignore what Lord Vansittart has so constantly pressed upon us that for at least a century since Germany was Prussianized, there has been in it and its people a tendency to self-assertion and aggression which has plunged Europe within the century into four great wars. It cannot be said that in all these cases it was simply the rulers of Germany who were responsible. These efforts must have been supported by the overwhelming mass of German opinion. Again I do not think it can be denied that the Germans have carried with them for a very long time a tradition of docility, of a readiness to be regimented even under the monstrous regimen of Hitler and his friends. I do not think you can say that the immense evil for which Hitler stands, and which he has wrought in the world, is something quite apart from the instincts and characteristics of the German people.
For instance, I cannot but note that very little has been said, even among the protests to which I shall allude in a moment, about the appalling cruelties that have been inflicted upon the nations who have come under the sway of the German Armies. The Army after all is a great section of German life, and the Army is perpetrating these things, not merely the Storm Troopers and the like. God forbid that we should be self-righteous, but I wonder whether our soldiers anywhere could perpetrate the kind of cruelties which the German Armies seem ready to perpetrate almost anywhere. There must be some strain in the German character which makes these things possible. It seems almost beyond belief that in this twentieth century a great and gifted nation, or a large part of it, should be capable of that last dishonour of saying to evil, "Evil be thou my good." Certainly it is a most sinister comment on the old belief that with science and education and material prosperity, mankind could be trusted to progress. Against that has come this appalling revelation of what can be done by civilized people in this twentieth century. I think that must be admitted in all candour.
I think also there is no question that there is a great tendency among the
558
Germans to be even more satisfied with themselves than we are, and to let that self-satisfaction take a shape which is disastrous to the rest of the world. I think there can be no question of that. Now if that be so in any degree, then certainly the German nation as a whole must accept the consequences of its conduct and policy for a very long time. It must, of course, accept complete and absolute defeat. The Bishop was quite clear about that. It must also accept long and complete disarmament, so that it is impossible for these tendencies which are latent within it to do the mischief which they have hitherto done in Europe; and so as to prevent any renewal of these tendencies of aggression and self-assertion. But this is the point, my Lords, which I would like to emphasize, that before the conversion which is necessary before Germany can take her place as a good neighbour within a peace-loving world can take place, the movement must come from within; it cannot be imposed from without. It is useless in one breath to say that this immense change must take place in German life and thought, and then in the next breath to say that there are no Germans who are capable of carrying it through. You cannot get that conversion on which so much of the future of Europe depends except through elements in the internal life of Germany. In this connexion I touch upon the main point of division, I suppose, between the Bishop of Chichester and Lord Vansittart.
There are these elements in the German nation. I think it was quite clear that the Bishop of Chichester was right in contending that the evidence that he gave showed that there were these elements, and that they are stronger and more powerful than we have often supposed. I would like just to say that as far as I know there is no man who knows more about the internal life and thought of great sections of German opinion than the Bishop who spoke to us this afternoon. I also have means of knowing what is passing in the minds of various eminent Germans, because I hear from neutral sources who are able to cross the frontiers as we cannot, and who have close and intimate talks with these eminent Germans. I know that it is true that there is, in spite of what Lord Vansittart says, a very strong and growing and powerful section of opinion in Germany which is restive and resentful under the Nazi

559
régime. It may well be asked, then why are they so silent? Why does there seem to be so little protest and so little effect in the protest? I think there are many reasons, all of which I happen to know are operating. I will not detain your Lordships by enlarging upon them.
One is a curious one, and very strange. This is a certain gratitude to Hitler existing in the most surprising regions. They say: "After all, this man rescued us from despair, recovered our national honour and existence, and since then he has undoubtedly given us a social solidarity which we never had before and a corporate social life of which we are proud." Strange indeed, but it is so. Again there is ignorance. It has been surprising to me to learn how little many Germans seem to know of the things that are being done in the German name by the German Army, and by German agents in different parts of the world. We must remember that nothing is known in Germany except what an exceedingly skilful and mendacious propaganda allows the people to know. We must always remember the effect of that ignorance. Then again there is fear—fear of the all-pervading Gestapo. I wonder how it would affect our own criticisms of the Government in this country if we knew that whatever we said might be, probably immediately, followed by spoliation, imprisonment or a concentration camp with all its terrors and miseries. There is all that to be remembered when we judge the silence of those who resent the Nazi régime.
Lastly, and this is perhaps most important, there is this; and this is where I come—I will not say to issue but to a real difference with my noble friend Lord Vansittart. I can only describe this reason, for want of a better word, as patriotism. The Germans, even some of those who most dislike the Nazi régime, have been taught by this exceedingly skilful propaganda, as the Bishop pointed out, that the aim of the Allies, of the United Nations, is to dismember the German State, to reduce it to the position of an outcast and an outlaw in the European system of nations. They therefore say—I know this is said by actual individuals whose sympathy with Nazism is nil—"Well, this is a war for existence, quite plainly. There is only one Government. We cannot change that in the midst of this war. It stands between us
560
and extinction. In this war of survival we must stand by the Government and give it our support." There is where comes in the mischief, if I may use that word, of articles and speeches which at least imply that we carry our detestation of the Hitler Government into the whole German nation. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, made it very clear in an intervention in a recent debate that he in no way advocated anything that could be called the annihilation of the German nation, and there were words at the beginning of his speech this afternoon which implied the same thing, but the impression made by his general attitude is one which the German propaganda does most sedulously cultivate, and undoubtedly it is used to give the impression "You must choose between extinction and survival." In that choice they feel, even those who dislike Nazism intensely, that they must stand by the only Government which they have.
If that be so, then I think we must see that after all our only hope and chance for the future is what the elements in German national life who are opposed to the Nazi system can bring to bear upon that future. When this war is over, to whom are we to look for preserving Germany from utter anarchy and disorder? We cannot trust to doing it by our own troops or the troops of Allied Nations. We cannot squat there until Germany is reduced to order. As Bismarck used to say, the one thing you cannot do with bayonets is to sit upon them. To whom are we to look for any guidance of the German people in the years that are to follow the armistice or peace? It can only be to just those who at present are really fearful of the extension of Nazi rule and who would willingly bring it to an end.
May I quote in this connexion some words which were spoken by the Vice-President of the United States only on March 8. They are worth noting. Mr. Henry Wallace said:
"Doubtless thousands of German boys will come home from the war bitterly disillusioned of Prussianism and Hitlerism. Thousands of both young and old at home will feel the same way. They will honestly want to build up a new democratic Germany and we without yielding to the old war-like spirit of Prussia Should encourage them to try. We shall need the help of all the Germans who give convincing evidence that they do not subscribe to the 'master race' myth and are genuinely opposed to the doctrine that might makes right."

561
That is the point. They are the only people we can trust. At this time the importance of Marshal Stalin's distinction is precisely that it does give some encouragement to those who at great risk and often with great difficulty have kept themselves tree from the Nazi taint. For that reason I suggest that one of the most important things we can do at this present juncture is net to exaggerate but not to overlook the distinction which Marshal Stalin has drawn, and I hope that in view of all that depends upon it His Majesty's Government may be disposed to give it, with whatever explanation they think fit, some measure of real endorsement.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I desire to express my gratitude and appreciation of the Motion of the right reverend Prelate because it raises a point of vast importance not only with a view to what we are going to do after the war, but even with a view to what we shall do in order to hasten victory in that war. I also read the speech to which my most reverend friend, if he will allow me to call him so, referred just now, the speech of the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Henry Wallace. He said not only what was quoted but he said very strongly that he thought it was of the utmost importance row that we should be preparing for peace. I think he said that in his view this year or next year we should have to make decisions on which would depend whether we were to have a further world war or not. He discussed the German question and other questions on that basis. I venture respectfully to submit that that is a perfectly sound view. These questions are of tremendous importance and they cannot be disposed of by casual sneers or sarcasms or anything of that kind. We have to face them as great practical difficulties and problems for which we must find a solution if we are to hope for anything like a permanent peace. It is from that point of view that I shall endeavour to address my observations to your Lordships.
There seem to me two questions raised. The first is whether there are any non-Nazi Germans and the second is what should be our policy with regard to them. As to the first, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has often said he does not believe there is anybody in Germany who is not substantially a sup-
562
porter of the Nazi Government under Hitler. I must say I think the evidence is all the other way. Not only is there this strong statement of Mr. Henry Wallace, who has no reason whatever for being prejudiced in the matter, but there is the statement quoted by the right reverend Prelate in his Motion and there is a general impression which I think prevails in practically all neutral countries. I have no doubt at all that there are non-Nazis and that they are an important body.
There is all the evidence that the right reverend Prelate quoted of the attitude of the German Bishops and other leaders of religious thought in Germany. I would like to remind your Lordships of a little story about the Bishop of Minister, who has said, I think, that he is supported by two million people. It seems that after one of his sermons the Gestapo sent agents to arrest him. They went to his house and they asked him to go with them. Thereupon he said: "Certainly, allow me a few moments and I will be with you." He went into another room and put on full canonicals. Then he returned and said: "Now I am prepared to go with you." But the agents declined to take him because they were satisfied he would excite so much sympathy for himself and so much indignation against the Gestapo that they were not prepared to run the risk. I believe that circumstance to indicate truly the fact that a great body of Roman Catholics, who used to be the great Centre Party, as it was called before the wars, still exists and is still on the whole faithful to its religion and to its Bishops and to its leaders.
That alone indicates that there must be a considerable body of non-Nazi opinion in Germany. It is quite true they have not shown themselves, but that is partly due, as previous speakers have said, to the extreme difficulty under modern conditions of any opposition in a tyrannically governed country. Undoubtedly the situation has changed in the last century or so from the time when a few agricultural labourers could defy the French Republic for years in La Vendee armed with scythes and weapons of that kind. The truth is that the mechanization of warfare has given enormous strength to the Government or to the body of people who have control

563
of the armed forces of the country. That is one reason, but there is, I am afraid I shall have to admit, another reason which is also of great importance. I believe that the Germans really like what they would describe as a strong Government. I saw a statement the other day by a German clergyman, a refugee here, who was opposed to the Nazi Government, to the effect that the German undoubtedly likes the conception of being protected, as he put it, and sustained by something larger and stronger than himself, and would be prepared to obey such an organization almost without any exception—practically without any exception. That means that, though they may dislike a great many of the things the Nazis do, the Germans will, in fact, go on obeying the Nazi Government, and I think it is extremely doubtful whether you will see anything in the nature of a rebellion in Germany until much later in the war than the stage which we have at present reached. And, of course, all that is strengthened by the long catena of teachers, philosophers, theologians and even statesmen who have preached something very like the infallibility of the State.
I do not regard that state of things with the same exultation that my noble friend Lord Vansittart displays whenever he mentions it. I think that this docility of the Germans is a very terrible danger to the peace of Europe. It means that if anybody gets hold of the Government in conditions such as those which prevailed before the war they are able to turn the whole strength of Germany, however much the Germans may disapprove in their own hearts of that being done, to any form of aggression or offensive action they please. That is a very serious danger to peace, and one that we have to face. In our policy after the war we must face it, and take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard Europe against this danger. I do not think that anything much is to be gained by violent denunciation. That will not affect the Germans, except, possibly, that it will give them some pleasure. I could not help feeling, when listening to my noble friend Lord Vansittart, that there was, at any rate, one man who would be thoroughly pleased with everything he said, and that man, of course, is Herr Goebbels. I
564
believe that that kind of concentrated hatred which appeared in almost every sentence uttered by the noble Lord is just the kind of thing which at the present juncture the German leaders desire to see existing in enemy countries. It enables them to spur the German people to make one more effort which, as I understand it, if the information printed in the newspapers is correct, as I have no doubt it is, is the great object of the German Government at the present time. I do not think that mere violent abuse is likely to be of any value. It certainly will not be of any value after the war, and I, personally, do not think it is of any value now.
Nor can I approve of various suggestions which I have read as to the treatment of Germany after the war. I have read a suggestion that there should be a prolonged occupation. That there should be occupation immediately after the war, no doubt we should all agree, but to prolong it for years would, I am sure, be madness. It was tried with great thoroughness by Napoleon, and it certainly did more to unite the Germans in hostility towards foreigners than anything else that has occurred in their history. Then there is the suggestion that we should split up Germany into a number of different States. I do not think that that is a practical proposal. I cannot see what you would have to do if the States afterwards came together, either formally or practically, and acted as one State. Of course if they divided themselves up into States, that would be an entirely different proposition, but I am dealing with what can be imposed upon them from outside. So it seems to me that you are driven back to the possibility of the re-education of Germany. I hope that the Government give very deep attention to that subject. I think that it is a subject of enormous importance and immense difficulty. I see a great difficulty—indeed I do not in the least believe in the possibility of it—in sending in a body of foreigners to teach the Germans what they ought to believe in political matters. I am sure that such a course as that, if adopted, would fail. And the difficulty, of course, is that if it fails you have got to consider what you are going to do.
I observe that Mr. Henry Wallace, in that speech of his, quite agrees that anything like the wholesale burning of school

565
books or similar measures in which the Nazis themselves have indulged must not be contemplated. All Nazi teachers must he forbidden and prevented from teaching anything in the nature of the political doctrines of the Nazi Party. I certainly hope that you will be able to succeed in doing that; but before you embark on that and make it an article of your policy, I beg you to consider what you are going to do to enforce that policy on a reluctant population in Germany. I hope you are not going to imitate the German conception that you must immediately send to a concentration camp all those who do not obey, and shoot them, if necessary. That sort of thing never gets you anywhere in an attempt to govern a great community such as the Germans. You must do something better than that. I am confident—and in this I quite agree with the right reverend Prelate and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart—that the only way to re-educate Germany is to induce the Germans to re-educate themselves. I quite admit that for that purpose there is very little that we can do directly. There are some things which we can do, but we cannot do very much.
I agree very strongly with the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, when he said just now that we must disarm Germany. That seems to me to be elementary. We certainly must disarm her and keep her disarmed until we have practical and definite evidence that she has abandoned her present conception of the supreme right of any country to make war on any other county for aggressive purposes. The whole theory on which Nazism ultimately rests must be abandoned by Germany before she can have any arms. That seems to me to be essential. That I hope will be done absolutely, and not as part of a general disarmament. I am in favour of a reduction of armaments all over the world after the war for other reasons, but that is an entirely independent matter. The disarmament of Germany is a measure of protection which all peace-loving States must take and are bound to take. If that is what Lord Vansittart meant by the abolition of militarism in Germany, I am in agreement with him; but he coupled with that a denunciation of the economic prosperity of Germany, and I can only conceive that he really desires to reduce Germany to a condition of slavery.
566
If we disarm Germany and give her an opportunity of re-educating herself, is there anything else that we can do to help? I sincerely believe that one of the things we can do is to do our utmost to assist those Germans who are really opposed not only to the Nazi Government but to that whole conception which has been, I agree, a prominent conception in Germany for many years before the Nazis came into being. Anything that we can do to help we ought to do. I have seen proposals for the rewriting of history books under some international authority, by which we should represent fairly and impartially the events of history without any colour. I am not sufficiently expert in the matter to know how far that is possible, but I know that some people who are far more expert than I am think that it is quite possible and ought to be done. That kind of thing is certainly desirable, and should be one of our aims.
We should also be most particular—and this is a point which I venture very respectfully to urge on the Government, though I think they would not disagree with me—that in our foreign policy and, as far as may be necessary in our home policy also, we should be guided by the principles which we desire that the Germans should adopt. We should be prepared to do absolute justice to everybody, and rigidly to refrain from enforcing claims which we do not believe to be right. We should be ready to submit international disputes to some impartial authority for determination. That kind of thing is essential. We shall have a good opportunity for showing how sincerely we hold to that doctrine in regard to a question which we have discussed once or twice before, the question of the trial of war criminals. It is for that reason that I venture to urge very strongly—not from any distrust of military force, but because I want to be on the safe side, so to speak—that the war criminals should be tried by civil Courts with every guarantee of an impartial trial which can be arranged. I think that that would be an excellent object-lesson of the kind of spirit which we desire the Germans to adopt, and would greatly strengthen our hand in any action we may take to induce them to adopt it.
I shall not detain your Lordships much longer, for I fear that I have already spoken at unnecessary length. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in any

567
way. Any policy of this kind presupposes a victorious conclusion of the war. I believe that to announce this policy, or a policy of this kind, would help the victorious conclusion of the war. I believe that it might do something to undermine German resistance, and I believe that it would certainly do a great deal to encourage and hearten very large sections of English opinion. I am sure that there is a great demand growing up in this country and in America for answers to the questions: What are we actually fighting for? What is it that we hope to establish? What is our New Order, differing from Germany's New Order? I am sure that all those questions are being asked by people in this country, and that, if we can give an answer to them which satisfies their conscience and their political sense, we shall do a great deal to hasten that victory which we all so much desire.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I do not propose to detain you for more than a few moments, and there is only one point which I wish to make. The reason that I venture to trouble your Lordships at this late hour is that it so happens that opportunities have been given me to see a good deal of Germany and of the Germans, and to form certain opinions regarding them, both since the last war and before it. I would refer in particular to the experience which I gained before the last war, because that is really the important point. I went first to Germany in 1888, and lived for some time with a peasant family in a wild part of the Palatinate. From 1894 to 1901, although I was not educated in Germany, I spent some months there every year, and sometimes more than half the year. For two years about 1908 I was at our Embassy in Berlin and travelled all over Germany, seeing a good deal of the German people.
The point that I want to make to your Lordships is that during all those twenty-rive years the Germans spoke very freely and readily, and exactly the same sentiments were expressed by them as are expressed to-day, or as were expressed before this war began by the National Socialist Party in Germany. I do not think one ever heard a different view. Lebensraum was not the word then used, but there was a great deal of talk about
568
"A place in the sun" and about mailed fists and the "German Michael" and Realpolitik. Germany wanted to dominate and to expand. Domination and expansion were the aims in life of the German people. Your Lordships have no doubt read German political writers like Nietzsche and Treitschke, and the same sentiments are expressed in their writings.
What is the reason for this desire for expansion and domination? I venture to think that the real reason is this. Germany was the last great Power to come on the scene. Before Germany, other European Powers had founded great Empires, some of which still exist, some of which have been much reduced and some of which have passed away. For instance, there have been the great Spanish Empire in Central and South America and the Portuguese Empire in Brazil and Africa. The Netherlands are still the owners of a huge Empire in the East Indies, and also own Dutch Guiana. Then there came Russia, which extended gradually from the Baltic to the Pacific, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, almost without it being noticed by the Western Powers, and which extended also southward to the Afghan frontier and to the provinces there. France, defeated in 1870, gradually built up a huge new Empire in Africa. Your Lordships have only to look at the map to see that it is one of the largest continuous stretches of territory on earth.
Above all, however, the Germans were jealous of this country. Not only were they jealous of ourselves for having a huge Colonial Empire and for giving birth to other nations, the great Dominions, but still worse, from their point of view, was the fact that part of our huge Empire had separated and become another great Power in the world, the United States of America. The Germans, who felt that they were the greatest military power on earth—and perhaps they were—thought that they had been cheated out of their inheritance, and they said so. They said: "Why should not we do what others have done? Other countries have done this without great military expenditure, but we have in our hands the power to take what we want and what we are entitled to." That was certainly the type of talk that I used to hear in Germany during 25 years before the last war. And it is certainly the talk that we hear or read of now, enunciated by the Nazi Party.

569
This continuous jealousy, which has been going on ever since 1870, we noticed during all the years which culminated with the last war; for instance, in the negotiations over Morocco and elsewhere in Africa. Then came the war and the defeat of Germany. That defeat—and this is the point which I urge upon your Lordships—did not in any way reduce the sentiment in Prussia which existed before the war, and which I venture to maintain is exactly the same as that which guides the Nazi Party to-day and is felt by Germans at the present time. There was in Germany after 1918 a period of confusion. Then Hitler came forward and it appeared to the Germans that Hitler was the man who would be able to carry out their wishes and obtain for them that power to dominate and expand which they had been desirous of obtaining for so many years, and which they had failed to obtain during the last war. If your Lordships remember the circumstances under which Hitler came to power, you will recollect that at first he was a member of a Coalition Government. About eight months after he first came to power an Election was held and there was a tremendous swing over to his Party, which made him the head of the State. That, I venture to suggest, was d Le to the fact that the Germans had become convinced that Hitler was the man who would be able to give them what they wanted, the man who, if I might express it in the vulgar phrase, could deliver the goods.
I quite agree that nobody desires to destroy Germany. In fact I do not know what that phrase means. Does it mean that we should send troops there and kill every German in the place, or what? It does not seem to me to be worth discussing, because it is, as Mr. Stalin said, an impossibility. But when it comes to destroying the Hitlerite State, I think we are over-stressing the importance of that. When Germany is completely defeated—and the noble and most reverend Lord said that the first necessity was that Germany should accept complete defeat—when Germany has been completely defeated Hitler will have vanished from the scene, just as the Hohenzollerns did after the last war. There will be no further use for him. But when Hitlerism goes, Prussianism will remain. I do not think it possible to believe that Prussian-ism will be wiped out, and that a different
570
state of affairs will exist among the Germans.
As the right reverend Prelate said—and I think many of your Lordships will agree—opposition to Hitler may exist in Germany. No doubt opposition to him has existed for a long time on various grounds, otherwise it would not have been necessary to set up concentration camps and the Gestapo. Of course I would not deny for one moment that the opposition is increasing, but I would venture to ask the right reverend Prelate this question: Is it not due to the fact that the Germans are being shaken in their belief that Hitler is the man who is going to give them what they want, and, now that things are going wrong for him, that he is no longer the leader that they thought he was? That Hitler is a leader who led the Germans into the present trouble I do not believe. I believe they put Hitler forward because they thought he was going to give them what they wanted. Not that he made any new proposition to them. As Sir Nevile Henderson said, Hitler never really had a new idea; any idea he put forward was one that he had drawn from somebody else. As I say, the growing opposition to a large extent may be because the Germans are doubtful of Hitler, not that there is any change of heart. If that is the case it is a matter that wants very careful examination. As Hitler and his Party now feel that things are not going so well for them, Goebbels and his propaganda have to put forward good reasons to continue the strenuous support of the German nation, and to tell them that if they do not fight and win they will be destroyed altogether.
Well, that is as may be. But the real point I am trying to make is this. The only remedy which you can hope for to cure the German desire for aggression, for conquest, for domination and expansion, is to make it physically impossible for them to make further aggression. There are all sorts of means to that end, which my noble friend on the Front Opposition Benches has discussed, and it is a question of what means will be efficacious. I do not think it is much good making up our minds as to that until the war is over and we see how we stand. We have to remember that you can fight even without arms. One has to think of all these things. I will not discuss them, but if aggression after this war is still possible, another leader or another agent may arise, and I

571
think will arise in Germany, and this will bring about the same catastrophe for the third time. The new Government in Germany may be quite a different one, acting on quite different principles, but the aim and object will be the same: they will still have the desire for domination and expansion. They do not want opportunities in other people's Colonies; they want to govern Colonies of their own. That has always been their desire. I remember very well the Colonial League in Germany. The whole idea was to have their own Colonies and govern them themselves: they do not want to have anything to do with other people, they do not care about opportunities elsewhere. And I can imagine it will be the same thing again. But I do not see why Germany should not take part in all the peaceful activities of the world and be on an equal footing with other nations, provided it is made impossible for Germany to upset the whole world again in an aggressive war.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I would like to say how much I sympathize generally with the right reverend Prelate on the Motion which he has moved, except perhaps in regard to a few words towards the end of his speech which I will come to a little later. I therefore want to express my appreciation of what he said about the strong opposition of the Catholic Church to the heresies of the Nazi creed and also to pay my tribute to Pastor Niemöller and the Confessional Church for their opposition to the false doctrines of the Hitler State. It seems to me that we are all agreed on two points—namely, the punishment of those Germans who have committed criminal acts, and, secondly, that Germany must never be allowed again to be in a position even to imagine she can commit such acts of aggression on her neighbours as she committed in 1914 and 1939. So far there must be general agreement. It is when we come to the methods which we shall use to attain the second end that we may perhaps differ. The difference probably arises from a difference of diagnosis of Germans and the German character. There is a school of thought which apparently holds that nearly every German infinitely prefers war to peace. I frankly do not believe that that is a correct appreciation of the case. I am not going back to Tacitus; I am going
572
to put two or three simple considerations before your Lordships on this point.
If it is possible to imagine that there could have been a referendum of individual Germans taken in 1937—a referendum taken in secret and apart from Party pressure, because it is very difficult for us to realize what Party pressure means to a man and his family; it is a most terrible pressure, and it is difficult to resist it—if we could have had such a referendum as I have suggested you would have found there would have been a considerable majority of Germans who would have expressed a preference for peace rather than for war. Munich—it is a dangerous subject; but Munich was very popular in Germany, not only because at Munich Hitler and the Germans very largely attained what they hoped for, but also because peace was preserved there. I do not know if your Lordships have noted that in all the early speeches of Hitler he laid the very greatest stress on his desire for peace. I know I shall be told that that was to throw dust in the eyes of such nations as ourselves. I admit that; but it was also because he had to carry his people along with him, and a great number of them really desired peace. Now, curiously enough, even in his latest speeches, Hitler has always emphasized this point. He has emphasized it at a time when the fable could not have had any effect on the United Nations, so that it must have been directed to his own people.
From all this I deduce that there must be in a considerable number of German minds a feeling in favour of peace and opposed to war, and we ought to work on that as far as we can. I am going to exempt from that category the military clique who are, I believe, at the root of all the evil in Germany. We ought to exempt the Gestapo, too, and also, I fear, the German youth. That last is a very difficult problem. It is one of the most difficult with which we shall have to deal. We have got to eradicate the false teaching, and we shall have to re-educate that youth by some means or other. We also have to educate the ordinary German to some extent—the "common man," as Vice-President Wallace calls him. We have to educate him to this extent that he must realize that politics is a thing which vitally affects

573
him and his family and that he cannot leave politics to the experts. I remember so well some years ago talking to Germans of the liberal professions about foreign policy and its consequences. What happened? They shrugged their shoulders and said, "Oh, well, that is a matter we can safely leave to our experts." I believe that one of the great defects in pre-Hitlerite Germany was this tendency for the ordinary Germans to leave everything to the experts and to be governed and guided by them. They had not a political background, and that defect I hope, by some method or other, we shall overcome. If my theory is correct, the German problem, although it is a very vast one, is not quite so huge as it is sometimes thought to be. It is of such proportions that we may reasonably hope to deal with it.
To come to the last part of the right reverend Prelate's speech, I rather hope the Government will refuse to give a final detailed reply on the issues which have been raised. We must remember that we and our great Russian Allies are by no means the only nations concerned, although of course Russian opinion must be of the highest importance. There are the United States of America, the Latin American countries, and China, but, above all, I feel we must learn the views, which should carry great weight with us, of those nations which will ultimately have to live as neighbours of Germany—Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. Some of these countries are not, perhaps, in a position to-day to give us their considered advice on this very difficult question and, even it they are, co-ordination and consultation will be necessary. I feel that it is very undesirable to press the Government for a final policy on this problem, and that we ought to allow them ample time so that when they do announce a policy it will be the policy of the United Nations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the question on the Paper put down by the right reverend Prelate is the primary matter with which we have to deal, though it is natural that this important debate should have ranged aver many aspects of this most critical and difficult problem. The question put down by the right reverend Prelate admits of a
574
clear and simple answer, and that is the answer I propose to give I did not quite understand the concluding observation of my noble friend the Earl of Perth, because answering this question, as I shall do now, does not involve any new declaration of policy at all. Speeches have been made this afternoon, for instance by Lord Faringdon, which showed it is much desired that there should be in this debate a definite statement, and I will try to make one. It will at any rate clear the air if the air is not clear already, and there are cases where repetition may be very useful and very timely. I think, too, myself, notwithstanding that this has been at certain periods a debate when there appeared to have been some controversy in it, that the answer to be given to these questions is an answer which will go a very long way to unite the view of this House on a matter in regard to which the country also is, I think, very solid and united.
I turn, then, to these two questions. Let me first say that this very striking speech of Premier Stalin on November 6 last year has been studied with close attention by His Majesty's Government. We welcomed the speech as a notable contribution to inter-Allied understanding, and I think it is appropriate of the right reverend Prelate to be calling our attention to this Russian declaration at the present time when German propaganda once more is disinterring and exhibiting that grizly corpse which they call "the danger of Bolshevism" and trying to breathe new life into this bogy in the hope that its antics will terrify everybody in Europe to doing Hitler's will. Premier Stalin's speech among other things provides the best possible demonstration of the utter hollowness of the propaganda of Goebbels in that respect.
Since the early days of the war His Majesty's Government have made their own position clear. It has been repeatedly and solemnly stated that peace with the present Nazi leaders of Germany is utterly unthinkable, and it must be a satisfaction to this House, and I trust it will be of significance outside, that, whatever variations of view there may have been in this debate, there is not a single person who took part in it, or, I am sure, any noble Lord sitting in this House, who does not subscribe to that proposition. Like our Soviet Ally we firmly believe, and we shall continue to believe, that

575
before the foundations of an enduring peace can be laid, the Nazi régime must be destroyed for ever, and all those war criminals—I will say a further word about that in a moment—who have inspired its evil deeds must be suitably and severely dealt with. I now say in plain terms on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we agree with Premier Stalin, first, that the Hitlerite State should be destroyed, and, secondly, that the whole German people is not (as Dr. Goebbels has been trying to persuade them) thereby doomed to destruction. I put the two propositions with equal prominence and equal clearness and equal firmness. I want the right reverend Prelate to feel that if those are the questions he wants answered, answered they are, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I am glad to have this opportunity of making both assertions with equal emphasis afresh.
I want now to say one or two words on each question, not in the slightest degree for the purpose of qualifying my answer, but because this debate provokes thought and consideration on a number of topics. Let me take the first of the two matters. My noble friend Lord Onslow just now said—and I must say I warmly concur in his observations—that it might well be that Hitler would go but that Prussianism would remain, and when I use the language which was used by Premier Stalin, "the Hitlerite State," I do not want him or anyone to suppose that that consideration is overlooked. But we have again and again declared that we will never in any circumstances enter into negotiations with Hitler and the Nazis. A single quotation is worth making from the Prime Minister. On November 10, 1941, Mr. Churchill said:
"His Majesty's Government will never enter into any negotiations with Hitler or with any party in Germany which represents the Nazi régime."
So I think say all of us.
Secondly—and here I am choosing my words I hope accurately and carefully—the complete overthrow of that régime and all it stands for, and the defeat and overthrow of the German Army are the conditions which must he fulfilled before there is any prospect of the war coming to an end. That, my Lords, is, as I understand it, the meaning of "unconditional surrender" as proclaimed at Casablanca. That is not only our resolve,
576
it is the resolve of all our Allies. That resolve springs really from the nature of the case, or the nature of the disease, as it has been analysed by several of your Lordships this afternoon. Again I prefer to quote what has been said by a responsible authority on behalf of the British Government already. Here are some words of the present Foreign Secretary. On 29th July, 1941, Mr. Eden said:
"If we are to have peace in our life-time the German people must learn to unlearn all that they have been taught not only by Hitler but by his predecessors for the last hundred years, by so many of their philosophers and teachers, the disciples of blood and iron."
I really do not think that these propositions are likely to meet with dissent in any quarter of the House, and my purpose is to show how, by putting them together, we shall really present a united front.
Let me add this word on the disarmament of Germany. I too have noted that striking speech of Vice-President Wallace a day or two ago and here is a sentence from his speech which has not been quoted this afternoon and which seems to me to be full of wisdom. He said:
"A new war in the future is certain if we allow Prussia to rearm either materially or psychologically."
And these are the words used by our Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Government not long ago:
"Germany must be disarmed and must be placed in conditions in which it would be impossible for her again to rearm and to resume the struggle for domination over peace-loving nations."
He added:
"It is equally important that she should not become a source of poison to her neighbours and to the world by economic collapse."
Again there, I think, we shall find ourselves all walking along the same road of reason and good sense.
Here let me add one word on a particular topic mentioned by my noble friend Viscount Cecil. We have, as he reminded us, taken a very definite position about the punishment of war criminals, and I want to add two observations to what has previously been said by me and others in your Lordships' House about it. We mean, of course, to do the utmost in our power to secure that war criminals are punished. The wholesale barbarities perpetrated on defenceless innocent people by the Nazis and their willing instruments, the mass executions of civilians of all ages

577
and both sexes, the villainy of the Gestapo, the deliberate extermination of jewish communities—these, my Lords, we all feel are things that have disgraced the German name for ever, and they cry aloud for just punishment. But I wish to add this. Let it be quite clearly understood and proclaimed all over the world that we British will never seek to take vengeance by wholesale mass reprisals against the general body of the German people. Our methods will be the methods of justice. That distinction in fact has already been drawn both by President Roosevelt in the notable declaration he made in Washington on October 7 last, and also on behalf of the British Government when we made a similar announcement. That is one of the observations which I wish to add on the general subject of war criminals.
There is a second thing which refers to something which I remember my noble friend Lord Vansittart mentioned in a former speech, though not, I think, to-day. He said on the last occasion that the impression had got abroad that we were only aiming at dealing with the "big shots," the people at the very top. Then wish to add this. What the United Nations have to do, and are doing, is to prepare the best arrangements that are possible to secure the just punishment of the guilty, and by the "guilty" we mean, not only those highly placed individuals who inspire and direct these monstrous crimes, but those also who with cold-blooded ferocity organize and take a definite and responsible part in carrying them out. Therefore I do not feel that there is likely to be any difference of opinion in any quarter of your Lordships' House arising out of the first matter which the right reverend Prelate brought to our attention this afternoon.
Now I turn to the second matter, and here again I do not feel that what I am about to say constitutes any new declaration or should take any well-informed person by surprise. It may be very well to repeat it, but that is a different matter. I would remind your Lordships of one Article of the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter is not a bargain and it is not a contract made with the enemy. It is a unilateral solemn declaration made by the United States and ourselves which has now received the accession of other members of the Allied Nations. The
578
Atlantic Charter specifically states that the signatories
"will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity."
That is a definite rejection of the notion that, as the outcome of victory, there should be populations that are ground into misery by economic difficulties deliberately contrived for their hurt. I am sure there is wisdom in that. It is not a mere matter of generosity. It is a matter of prudence and good statesmanship.
Our object then is to defeat all Germany's armed forces, not the Army alone, but the Air Force and the U-boat, to be followed by the disarmament of Germany. That means the destruction of Germany's war machine, including of course Hitler's private armies, the S.S. and the Gestapo. Goebbels is constantly trying to persuade his fellow countrymen that an Allied victory will mean the end of Germany, the extinction of the German race, the breakdown of society, the return to chaos. We were reminded of this aspect of the matter by the very wise and moderate speech of my noble and most reverend friend Lord Lang this afternoon. I take this opportunity on behalf of His Majesty's Government to deny Goebbels' assertion altogether. But this must be added. It is for the German people to choose the course which they will follow. With all respect to the right reverend Prelate, I wonder a little if in all respects he correctly estimates the character of the German people. I could not help but think that there was an application of the phrase he quoted "Hitlers come, Hitlers go." They do indeed. The worst of it is, that having got rid of one, another may arise. Surely that is because of some of those qualities in the German temperament to which allusion has been made by other speakers this afternoon, including Viscount Cecil, the Earl of Onslow and Lord Vansittart. We must make full allowance for that.
I do not speak with anything like the same claim to authortiy, but I must say it appears to me as if the modern German is never entirely happy unless he is either bullying or being bullied,

579
one or the other. I am not quite sure how far the right reverend Prelate, in his very bold and chivalrous championship of those in Germany who are taking the right view, takes into account that German characteristic. The right reverend Prelate says he cannot acquit the Germans of letting the Nazis get control. I think that is putting it mildly. It appears to me that whatever wrongs or mistakes have been made elsewhere, the people must accept responsibility for the form of government that grows up in their country, under their hand, by systematic development, however ingenious the means. Be that so or not, I repeat it must be for the German people to choose the course which they will follow. And I point out this distinction. There is not a single country in Europe that has been overrun by Germany in this war, held down and oppressed most terribly by the Gestapo, by horrible cruelties and frightful inflictions, that has not thrown up some brave bold men who have publicly denounced the whole wickedness at whatever cost. I wish there had appeared up to now more instances of a similar reaction inside Germany itself.
But be that as it may, the statements that have already been made by His Majesty's Government, and the statement which I have the honour now to make, make it quite clear that we are not seeking to deny to Germany a place in the Europe of the future. But the longer the German people tolerate the Nazi régime, the greater becomes their responsibility for the crimes which that régime is committing in their name. If there are men in Germany who realize that they have allowed themselves to be the tools of this wicked system, if there are men in Germany who are ready to wage war against the monstrous tyranny of the Nazis from within, then we seek in every way to encourage them. We make plain to them what is our conception of the part which, in Europe, Germany may hereafter take. I repeat once again that the German nation can only be saved by the German people, and they would be foolish, these friends to whom the right reverend Prelate refers, if, indeed, they were to believe Goebbels' stupid falshood that their best chance rests in supporting the Nazi rule. The way of salvation for the German people
580
lies in realizing that their only hope depends on the overthrow of the Nazis and the abandonment once and for all of this monstrous claim to be the Herrenvolk of the world. The other nations of Europe, and, in particular, those who are now suffering under the German heel, are entitled to play their full part in restoring and maintaining European civilization, and that can never rest on a secure foundation if it rests on German domination, actual or potential.
I am fully conscious of the fact that I have made no novel declaration—I have not sought to do so. But I have brought together, with such command of clear language as I have, the statements which stand on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I do claim that when they are thus stated we find ourselves in this matter in a much greater measure of unity than might appear from some of the speeches which have been made in the debate. May I, in a few sentences, sum up or epitomize the British position? We say that we will never in any circumstances enter into negotiations with Hitler or the Nazis as to terms for bringing the war to an end. It would be useless to do so. How could anybody attach the least importance to anything which those people either wrote or said? And, moreover, it would be wicked to do so, for our Allies as well as ourselves are pledged to exterminate this horrible and hateful system from the world. By that system I mean not only Hitler but the whole Prussian régime. Freedom will only be secured when that system is gone for ever. Secondly, we are not seeking the destruction of Germany or of the German race. We desire to encourage, in every way we can, the opposition inside Germany which has been described by the right reverend Prelate. But we are determined that Germany must be effectually disarmed, and that there must be no possibility of yet a third world war provoked by the desire of Germany to dominate the world. When this has been secured, when the States overrun and maltreated by Germany are restored to their just rights, we want to see a Europe which fairly shares in the resources of the world in peace and prosperity.
As I have said, the Germans must indeed be stupid people if they cannot see the falsity of Goebbels' propaganda which seeks to persuade them that they

581
have no choice but to uphold Hitler and his fellow Nazis. Therefore the question is—and with this I conclude—whether the German people, as distinct from Hitler and his henchmen, can learn and apply the lesson before it is too late, that the fate which threatens their country can only be mitigated by the overthrow of the Hitlerite régime, and by the complete abandonment of that false creed and outlook which all free men in this war of liberation will continue to fight to the death.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, you will agree, I am sure, that the question which I have ventured to ask has given rise to a very impressive debate, and, particularly, to a very serious, deliberate and important answer by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. The Lord Chancellor has answered the questions which my Motion contained quite plainly by saying that Hitler's régime can and must be destroyed and that the German people is not thereby doomed to destruction. I am grateful for that reply, and I am grateful also for what the Lord Chancellor has said about the encouragement which the Government give to the opposition in Germany, realizing that it is upon the German people, with help from outside, that responsibility rests for a change of Government. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for what he so kindly said about the propriety of this particular moment in the history of the war for raising this matter. I appreciate very much his references to M. Stalin, and the manner in which he has shown up the hollowness of Goebbels'
582
policy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PARISH OF ALDENHAM IN RURAL DISTRICT OF WATFORD ORDER.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Munster, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

APPEAL COMMITTEE.
Second Report from, read and agreed to.

THE LATE SPEAKER.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have come to the following Resolution nemine contradicente: "That this House desires to express its sense of grateful appreciation to the House of Peers for their Message conveying their profound sympathy on the loss which this House has sustained by the death of Mr. Speaker FitzRoy."
House adjourned.